The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
"... They have behaved badly with an unstable value of bitcoin (huge unpredictable Bitcoin deflation damages any use of bitcoin as a means of exchange as much as huge inflation would). ..."
"... Now no one is really interested in cryptocurrency except as a way to gamble and take money from fools. But if anyone were, linking the blockchain program to prices on an exchange would make it more nearly possible to use the cryptocurrency as a means of exchange. ..."
"... The system is vulnerable to a tacit agreement to trade only on unofficial exchanges. It is necessary that the problem is also made easier if daily trading volume on the official exchange is zero. The problem is the price could shoot up on unofficial exchanges, but this would not affect the price on the official exchange if there were no transactions on the official exchange. ..."
"... The basis was and remains to remove any and all national gov'ts across he globe from any influences on values of currencies, thus pure laissez-faire in the extreme .. as you say libertarian chaos. ..."
"... There is a much more severe problem with bitcoin. As the number mined asymptotically approaches the pre-determined maximum, the cost of mining approaches infinity. As miners are the ones who validate coins, what will happen to the reliability of bitcoin when it becomes uneconomical for anyone to participate in mining? ..."
I am going to make a fool
of myself by suggesting that a cryptocurrency might actually be useful. Bitcoin et al have
negative social utility. They are pure speculative assets which enable people to gamble. Also
bitcoin miners use as much electricity as Denmark. The problem is exactly the aspect which has
made bitcoin famous and which bitcoin enthusiasts consider a strength -- the enormous increase
in the dollar price of bitcoin. This increase, and the recent sharp decline, make bitcoin
useless as a means of exchange. Most firms don't want to gamble.
So I (semi-seriously this time) propose botcoin which might have a more stable dollar
exchange rate. The idea is to link the blockchain verification program to an official
exchange.
Backing up, there are two very different sorts of web-servers related to bitcoin. One set,
the bitcoin miners, implements the original idea using the Bitcoin shareware. They keep a copy
of the ledger of all bitcoin transactions -- the blockchain, race to create new blocks, and
evaluate new blocks and add valid new blocks to the chain. The other servers are bitcoin
exchanges in which bitcoin is traded for regular currency. They are not part of the original
plan in which bitcoin would be traded for goods and services and function as a means of
exchange. They have behaved badly with an unstable value of bitcoin (huge unpredictable
Bitcoin deflation damages any use of bitcoin as a means of exchange as much as huge inflation
would).
I propose linking the blockchain program to an exchange. So there would be an official
botcoin exchange (this means it isn't entirely free-entry shareware libertarian anarchism). If
anyone were interested in a new cryptocurrency designed so that speculators can't become rich
(and pigs fly) there would be other unofficial exchanges.
The bitcoin program regulates the frequency of creation of new blocks to roughly one every
six minutes. It does this by adjusting the difficulty of the pointless arithmetic problem which
must be solved to make a new valid block. The idea was to limit the total amount of bitcoin
which will ever be created (to 21 million for some reason). This was supposed to make bitcoin
valuable. So far it has succeeded all too well (I am confident that in the end bitcoin will
have price 0).
It is possible to make the supply of botcoin flexible so the dollar price doesn't shoot up.
I would aim at a price of, say, 1 botcoin = $1000. The idea is to make the pointless problem
which must be solved to add a block easier if the dollar price of botcoin exceeds the target,
and harder if it falls below the target. This should stabilize the price.
Now no one is really interested in cryptocurrency except as a way to gamble and take
money from fools. But if anyone were, linking the blockchain program to prices on an exchange
would make it more nearly possible to use the cryptocurrency as a means of exchange.
The system is vulnerable to a tacit agreement to trade only on unofficial exchanges. It
is necessary that the problem is also made easier if daily trading volume on the official
exchange is zero. The problem is the price could shoot up on unofficial exchanges, but this
would not affect the price on the official exchange if there were no transactions on the
official exchange.
Lyle , December 25, 2017 11:22 pm
Of course Goldman Sachs and its competitors are doing just this building an options and
futures exchange. (it is not really that much different than any other futures and options
business)
Longtooth , December 26, 2017 5:01 am
But Robert,
then the entire foundation for Bitcoin's purpose disappears entirely, so what advantage
remains?
The basis was and remains to remove any and all national gov'ts across he globe from any
influences on values of currencies, thus pure laissez-faire in the extreme .. as you say
libertarian chaos.
By making crypto-currency values subject to national currency exchange rates they cease to
have any reason to exist at all.
We / globally in fact already use crypto exchange via electronic transactions .. adding
block chain to it would be a benefit but a separate cryptocurrency is a worthless redundancy
if it is subject to valuation by exchange rates of national currencies.
What am I missing?.
likbez , December 26, 2017 5:27 am
Great Article !!! I wish I can write about this topic on the same level. Thank you very much. P.S. Happy New Year for everybody !
rick shapiro , December 26, 2017 10:26 am
There is a much more severe problem with bitcoin. As the number mined asymptotically
approaches the pre-determined maximum, the cost of mining approaches infinity. As miners are
the ones who validate coins, what will happen to the reliability of bitcoin when it becomes
uneconomical for anyone to participate in mining?
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds
... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072
198
The new 55-page "America First" National
Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as
"revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the
United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to
build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as
"reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a
multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant
state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing
geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last
September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns
over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due
regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the
excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total
reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and
strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat"
to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently
announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems
regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have
increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on
Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone,
bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China
International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private,
Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global
transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read
the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked
international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets
overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide
to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading
mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching
its first $1 billion
yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a
long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade,
moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all
either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been
extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to
focus on trading
physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX
actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold.
Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be
able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been
discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a
more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what
used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the
public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities
must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries.
Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt –
and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened
when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to
issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in
2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully
convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange
(INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were
supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the
fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The
era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark
to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite
discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and
Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in
Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's
crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's
Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by
other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point,
remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan
internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by
DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan
with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed
railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway,
the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that
BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of
new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of
corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle
East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with
– what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about
it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's
lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also
in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of
Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it
accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for
oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share:
"They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top
customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for
Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the
petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent
European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue
treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the
acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to
embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling
oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is
replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently
evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is
that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be
certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently
deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than
149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the
NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that
pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a
multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition
for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO,
which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral
and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the
petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back
in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS
counterpunch.
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates,
gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like
they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless
paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with
gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next
century or so.
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm
drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war
with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you
pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to
world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what
you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and
your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope
it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA
plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US
former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep
sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with
drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and
sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury
criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing
their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the
market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep
the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal
reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury
Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they
sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the
paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and
Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA
financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted
prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were
supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for
"safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade
centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge
discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all
the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat
their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more...
So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge
discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I
understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s
to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going
to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of
Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be
worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and
default..?
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify
their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking
too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is
all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt
practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with
them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over
them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their
people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth
they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen
loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic
reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal
reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work
as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to
produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to
give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with
stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true
owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings,
queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see
themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal
chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political
whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming,
or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating,
and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil,
and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming,
will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other
sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else
forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and
their neighbors.
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is
still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the
huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner
on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price
down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a
poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should.
But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just
sitting in the ground.
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the
beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in
terror.
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the
basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now
that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots
bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got
your back as always.
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power
since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by
the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking
accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't
work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile
baby rapers.
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they
think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is
Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow
small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John
Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That
is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the
Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab
them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the
SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries.
Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of
Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the
Debt!
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves,
and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump
change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement
accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds
which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was
given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to
you
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of
Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016,
the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around
$800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and
low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For
2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for
2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation
according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China
central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt
to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de
facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US
Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of
gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal
to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its
reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold
holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's
central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC
revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's
central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm
bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in
this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are
uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine
like poroschenko ?
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why
not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask
yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia
almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back
all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying
to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because
you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin?
In ww2 of course!
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing
everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather
see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this
situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But
the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil.
And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was
sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands
International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can
defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because
we will watch it out our front windows.
"... By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period. ..."
"... Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this debt. ..."
"... Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia? ..."
On Friday 21st December 2017 the Stockholm Arbitration Court made a ruling in the legal
dispute between Ukraine's state owned gas monopoly Naftogaz and Russia's largely state owned
gas monopoly Gazprom.
In the hours after the decision – which like all decisions of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court – is not published, Naftogaz claimed victory in a short statement.
However over the course of the hours which followed Gazprom provided details of the decision
which suggests that the truth is the diametric opposite.
Here is how the Financial Times reports
the competing claims
Both Ukraine's Naftogaz and Russia's Gazprom both on Friday claimed victory as a Stockholm
arbitration tribunal issued the final award ruling in the first of two cases in a three-year
legal battle between the state-controlled energy companies, where total claims stand at some
$80bn.
An emailed statement from the Ukrainian company was titled:
"Naftogaz wins the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in
dispute."
The Stockholm arbitration tribunal -- in its final award ruling in a dispute over gas
supplies from prior years -- had, according to Naftogaz, struck down Gazprom's claim to
receive $56bn for gas contracted but not supplied through controversial "take-or-pay"
clauses. They were included in a supply contract Ukraine signed in 2009 after Gazprom dented
supplies to the EU by cutting all flow amid a price dispute -- including transit through the
country's vast pipeline systems. In a tweet Ukraine's foreign minister
Pavlo Klimkin wrote: "The victory of Naftogaz in the Stockholm arbitration: It's not a
knockout, but three knockdowns with obvious advantage."
But later Gazprom countered that arbitors "acknowledged the main points of the contract
were in effect and upheld the majority of Gazprom's demands for payment for gas supplies",
worth over $2bn. A Naftogaz official responded that the company never refused to pay for gas
supplied, but challenged price and conditions.
Given the tribunal does not make its decisions public, doubt loomed over which side was
the ultimate winner. Anticipation also grew over the second and final tribunal award expected
early next year over disputes both have concerning past gas transit obligations.
Friday's final Stockholm arbitration ruling follows a preliminary decision from last May
after which both sides were given time to settle monetary claims outside of the tribunal but
failed to reach agreement.
Here is the full Naftogaz statement:
"Today, the Tribunal at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has
completely rejected Gazprom take-or-pay claims to Naftogaz amounting to USD 56 billion for
2009-2017.
– Naftogaz succeeded at reducing future contract volume obligations by more than 10
times and made them relevant to its actual import needs.
– Price for gas off-taken by Naftogaz in 2Q 2014 reduced 27% from USD 485/tcm to USD
352/tcm. – Naftogaz saved USD 1.8 billion on gas purchased in 2014-2015 due to revision
of the contract price.
– Destination clause and other discriminatory provisions were declared invalid to
bring the contract in line with current European market standards.
– Naftogaz estimates the total positive financial effect of the arbitration over the
lifetime of the supply contract at over USD 75 billion.
– Naftogaz claims up to USD 16 billion in transit contract arbitration against
Gazprom; decision expected on 28 February 2018."
Gazprom said that in a separate decision on May 31 of this year, the tribunal denied
Naftogaz's application to review prices from May 2011 to April 2014, ordered it to pay $14bn
for gas supplies during that period, and said that the take-or-pay conditions applied for the
duration of the contract. Gazprom claimed that Naftogaz would have to pay it $2.18bn plus
interest of 0.03 per cent for every day the payments were late, and then pay for 5bn cm of
gas annually starting next year.
When the different sides give opposite accounts of the same decision it obviously becomes
difficult to say what the real decision actually is. However Gazprom says that the court upheld
(1) the main provisions of the contract; (2) the contract's take-or-pay provisions, these being
a particularly contentious issue in the contract; and (3) that Naftogaz has been ordered to pay
Gazprom $2 billion, presumably immediately, with interest for every day the amount is
unpaid.
By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm
which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine
by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period.
The key point here is that Russia agreed to reduce the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
an agreement Russia's President Putin reached with Ukraine's President Yanukovich in December
2013. After the Maidan coup the new Ukrainian government went back on the agreement causing the
Russians to demand payment of the original price. However over the course of 2014, as energy
prices began first to slide and then crashed, and as it became clear that Ukraine was simply
not paying for its gas, Russia again reduced the price of the gas Ukraine had to pay.
What seems to have happened is that the Stockholm Arbitration Court decided to smooth out
the price of gas payable by Ukraine throughout 2014, which is the sort of thing arbitration
tribunals are regularly known to do, whilst leaving the essentials of the contract
unchanged.
If so then this is not a victory by Ukraine but a clearcut defeat, which Naftogaz and the
Ukrainian government have tried to spin into a victory by citing the reduction in the gas price
in the second quarter of 2014 and the reduction in future gas import volumes, neither of which
were contentious issues. By contrast it is clear that Ukraine and Naftogaz must pay the full
contractual price and abide by the contract's take-or-pay provisions for the whole of the
period of the contract prior to the second quarter of 2014.
What this means in terms of hard cash is that Ukraine must now pay Russia a further $2
billion on top of the $3 billion it was recently ordered to pay by the High Court in London.
Just as it is holding back on paying the $3 billion it was ordered to pay by the High Court
until the appeal process in London is finished, so it will try to hold off paying the $2
billion it has just been ordered to pay to Gazprom until the final decision of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court (thus the brave talk of Naftogaz's claims of "up to $16 billion transit
contract arbitration against Gazprom") but thereafter payment of the $2 billion will fall due.
I say this because the claim Gazprom owes Naftogaz "up to" $16 billion in transit fees looks
like it has been plucked out of the air.
What this means is that over the course of 2018 Ukraine will have to pay Russia $5 billion
($3 billion awarded by the High Court in London and $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm
Arbitration Court). Since the $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm Arbitration Court is
technically an arbitration award, Gazprom will need to convert it into a court Judgment before
it can enforce it, but that is merely a formality. At that point this debt will become not
merely due but legally enforceable as well.
Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high
interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered
it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and
its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a
position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European
Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this
debt.
Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia?
Naftogaz brags that Ukraine has saved up to $75 billion because it is no longer buying gas
from Russia. However this begs the question of whether the gas Ukraine is now importing from
Europe really is significantly cheaper than the gas Ukraine was buying from Russia? This is
debatable and with energy prices rising it is likely to become even less likely over time.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the
Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level
of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on
the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas
economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the
way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the
price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space
for corruptio," he added.
On 20 Dec., a court in Slovakia stopped gas supplies to "Naftogaz of Ukraine". The
decision was made pursuant to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration over a claim made by
the Italian company IUGas that its Ukrainian consumer owed it money.
The total amount of the claim, including interest and penalties, is approximately $21
million. An arbitration ruling was accepted on 19 December 2012 and relates to unpaid 2007
transactions .
Under international law, if the defendant has not fulfilled the resolution of the
arbitration, the plaintiff may apply to the courts of other states with a request that the
ruling be executed.
"Naftogaz of Ukraine" is analyzing the situation to determine its next steps, according
to the Ukrainian edition "Mirror of the Week".
For 11 months of 2017, "Naftogaz of Ukraine" had bought in Eastern Europe 20.9 billion
cubic metres of gas. Most of the supplies -- more than 8 billion cubic metres -- are in
Slovakia.
As written in iz.ru, arbitration is under consideration in Stockholm as regards the
lawsuit made by "Gazprom" against "Naftogaz", the decision on which will be issued by the court
no later than February next year. The adjusted amount of the claims made by the Russian company
was more than $ 37 billion.
All this is the Aggressor State's doing!
For the sake of freedom and democracy, the Ukraine must be supported!
Gazprom has responded to Naftogaz's statements about victory in court
The Stockholm arbitration has satisfied most of Gazprom's claims made against Naftogaz
Ukraine regarding payment for supplied gas, the company has said in a statement. In Moscow.
They stressed that the main demands of the Ukrainian side by the court had been
rejected.
The court did not recognize the right of Naftogaz to review the price of gas, the
deliveries of which were carried out from May 2011 to April 2014. Also, the Ukrainian side
was denied recovery of overpayment. Gazprom noted that the court found it necessary to apply
the "take or pay" principle (annual payment of a minimum amount of gas) before the expiry of
the contract.
"Naftogaz" has to pay back $2 billion in arrears and interest for late payment to
Gazprom. The Ukrainian side is also obliged from next year to take 5 billion cubic metres
from Russia annually.
Earlier on Friday, Naftogaz said that the court had awarded the victory to the
Ukrainian side. In Kiev, they stressed that Gazprom's "take-or-pay" requirements had been
"completely" rejected by the court, and the gas price for the second quarter of 2014 had been
lowered to $ 352 per thousand cubic metres.
The court considered contracts for the supply of gas from Russia to the Ukraine, as
well as gas transit through the Ukraine. They were signed back in 2009. The Ukraine, insisted
"Gazprom", did not get any gas 2012-2014, and also in individual quarters of 2015 and 2016.
"Naftogaz" asked the court to review the gas prices, and that overpayment be reimbursed and
that the ban on further resale of gas be cancelled.
Kremlin propaganda from a "Kremlin controlled" newspaper?
"Naftogaz won the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in dispute,"
Naftogaz said in an emailed statement.
It said the ruling was worth around $75 billion to Naftogaz in the long term, but
did not give a breakdown on how it reached the estimate. [My stress -- ME]
Meanwhile Gazprom said the court had satisfied most of Gazprom's claims and ruled that
the main terms of the contract between Naftogaz and Gazprom were valid.
Gazprom said the Stockholm court had ordered Naftogaz to pay more than $2 billion to
Gazprom for gas supply arrears and that it had also ordered Naftogaz to buy 5 bcm of gas from
Gazprom annually from 2018.
Estimated $75 billion in the "long term"?
Have to pay $2 billion to Gazprom in arrears now (not mention interest).
From 2018 (i.e. in just over a week's time) have to buy annually 5 bcm of gas off the
"aggressor state".
Of course; that's what Klimkin told them. Why should they check? Klimkin is always reliable,
and I'm sure he tweeted a press statement directly to them. Let them hold a Naftogaz victory
party if that's what they feel like doing. Just don't spend Russia's money on it. Because I
notice Ukraine has to pay Russia. I did not see anything in there about Russia having to pay
Ukraine. And so Ukraine can have all of that kind of victories it wants.
Ultimately, the court greatly reduced the amount of gas that Ukraine is contractually
obligated to buy from Russia. From 2018, "Naftogaz" should annually take and pay for up to 5
billion cubic metres instead of the original 52 billion cubic metres in any case it means the
resumption of gas purchases in Russia, which stopped in 2015, since when "Naftogaz" has been
buying all its fuel through reverse flow from Europe.
Investors should "think twice" about putting money into Nord Stream 2 due to
"uncertainties" around the Russian pipeline, the EU energy commissioner told
EUobserver.
"I would really think twice, or many more times, simply because there are a lot of
uncertainties," Maros Sefcovic said in an interview.
"It's the decision of the project promoters if they want to proceed in this atmosphere
which might lead to legal disputes down the line," he said
"Nord Stream 2 is supported by five major western European energy companies that have
each committed up to almost €1 billion to the implementation of the pipeline," the
consortium's Sebastian Sass said.
"It shows that there is both market demand and great confidence in Nord Stream 2," he
added.
Stefan Meister, an expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank in
Berlin, also said Russia had little to worry about from the EU.
"In Germany the overall impression is, that the project will come Merkel is not against
it. That means she supports it," he said.
Meister said the fact Gazprom was prepared to dig into its own pockets meant "the
investment risks are limited". He added that energy companies were used to working "in an
even more risky environment" in other parts of the world.
"Except the US sanctions, there are no real risks to stop the project," he said
####
Plenty more of Sefcovic blowing hot air out of every orifice at the link. Did someone slip
him some cocaine instead of sugar in his coffee before the interview? All mouth and no
trousers.
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like
that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get
dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in
how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait
and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other
(N. Korea), or with both.
Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it,
(Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good
for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the
military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever
since.
That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and
desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the
Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no
money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is
about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is
smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private
contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social
Security.
Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of
politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess,
by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen,
preferred social agenda.
As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money
of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality,
only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy
along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing
the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.
Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's
fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of
Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his
pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been
part and parcel of such hubris.
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites –
think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except
the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be
questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and
Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous
in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2
vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as
they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because
MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.
I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted
Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John
Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is
restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever
been
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war
in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war
when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of
course (sarcasm).
You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30
years.
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking
investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your
comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the
Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is
overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure
militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.
The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying
stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic
supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most
dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes:
fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of
religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as
far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but
having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning
in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct
conflict arises.
This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's
elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after
9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they
could not be questioned.
It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama
best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to
have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their
newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to
go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them
go.
The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of
Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.
In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela,
or anyplace crazy the better.
President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the
region. Watch.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
ROTFLMAO!!!
If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked
that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the
Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the
Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.
Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian,
blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them
have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.
Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you
can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement
Noah,
Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports
and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally
Iraq.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the
largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of
population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you
don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.
Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the
population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.
Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's
below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching
the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the
Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the
consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching
Brexit.
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?
It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her
predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like
Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social
and infrastrucure spending, less for military.
Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and
are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the
guise of "national security."
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn
those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what
sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are
lit up.
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose.
At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than
an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really
desires War somewhere and somehow.
Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following
similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties
with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my
tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence,
in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her
opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump.
Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State
Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd
likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the
likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.
Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda
been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since
LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of
Johnson's domestic achievements.
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that
bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.
The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had
liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part,
dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last
man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the
Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really
a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what
you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young
Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to
fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.
Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile
strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video
seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone
endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in
a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan
Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian
Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem,
both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should
you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what
we're talking about.
On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media
and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!
(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or
more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping
no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering
it's now the world leader in solar power.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks
think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to
avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia
investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if)
that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will
most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new
generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that
we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the
ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?
She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter
Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the
Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because
of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.
And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and
MbS
Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them
simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan,
but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not
fully pleased with Trump.
If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention
(does he ever?).
Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a
Vietnam War to his name to blow past him
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or
anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American
people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most
folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart
enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of
his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When
(not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both.
Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an
entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is
a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she
would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be
engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into
some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would
have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the
American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for
flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still
produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of
Russia–this makes no sense.
Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply
drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its
domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high
before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.
And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of
Trump, you're smokin' something.
The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment.
Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who
actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is
in charge in Washington.
Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue
of the office he holds. Do not forget that.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right.
Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about
whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She
wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at
leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support.
Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted
to start.
Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to
that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office
in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still
a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism
was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on
roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.
One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference
from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he
(and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many
seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom,
some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the
swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump
personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.
But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be
conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf
course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff
of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply
unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international
diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does
not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is
bearing.
But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor
any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic
services.
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
The demise of the North Sea doesn't necessarily mean the end of Norway's petroleum era -- far from it.
Still, despite significant reserves in the Barents Sea, Norway is about to embark upon a long period of
structural decline as its benchmark fields inch closer to depletion and its reserves taper before our
very eyes.
... ... ...
There's ample evidence to conclude that all the sweet spots of Norway's continental shelf have been
found. The latest shelf licensing round (24) elicited a weak response, with only 11 companies applying
for production licenses. There was plenty to bid for -- 102 blocks were up for grabs (never before did the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate offer so much, with an overwhelming majority of them in the Barents Sea),
but due to their remoteness from formations deemed to be the most hydrocarbon-rich, bidders were only
half as numerous as they were during the previous licensing round in 2015.
After 2001, Norwegian oil output recorded 12 consecutive years of falling production. The current phase might best be
described as a lull before the (presumably) last long-term production increase in its history, expected to happen in the early
2020s. Much will depend on the two "Johans" Norway will bring online in the early 2020s: Johan Sverdrup (recoverable reserves
worth 2-3 BBbl) and Johan Castberg (0.5 BBbl).
Much has been done to render Johan Castberg profitable at current price levels -- from an initial level of 80 USD/bbl, Statoil
and the other shareholders have brought it to an
alleged 35 USD/bbl
. Against the background of falling oil services costs, this has entailed several cost-cutting measures,
most notably scrapping any sort of semi-submersible vessel variant coupled with pipeline construction from the oilfield to the
mainland (an option preferred by the government, as this would allow to provide smaller fields in the Barents Sea with a sure
transport route) in favor of a FPSO.
Oil from Canada's oil sands is now selling at a $27-per-barrel discount relative to WTI, the
sharpest difference in more than four years
Western Canada Select (WCS), a benchmark for oil from Alberta's oil sands, has plunged in
December, falling to just $30 per barrel at the end of this past week. WCS typically trades at
a discount to WTI, reflecting the differences in quality from lighter forms of oil, as well as
the extra transportation costs to move oil hundreds of miles out of Alberta.
But a discount is usually something like $10 per barrel, not more than $25. A price
deterioration of this magnitude has not been seen in years.
... ... ...
At the end of the day, the current $27-per-barrel discount is being acutely felt in Canada's
oil industry. Kevin Birn, a director at IHS Energy in Calgary, told Bloomberg that a
$25-per-barrel WCS discount translates into a loss of $20 million per day for Canada's oil
producers.
Tyler should consider doing his audience a really big favor by addressing critical market
fundamentals, because it's clear that there is a lot of ignorance here, still.
There is a TEMPORARY surplus, yes, but production in domestic American formations is
collapsing (no exaggeration, the entire sector is engaged in a conspiracy of silence), and
the U.S. Government is about to lose its ability to pay by issuing endless mountains of debt
(hence all the distractive war-mongering and pathological adventures overseas). A new civil
war is coming.
America is NOT a desirable trading partner, going forward.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a clueless buffoon, pandering to the Victim Industry,
Progressivists and other debased groups. Somebody in Ottawa needs to give him a good shake
and remind him of his priorities regarding practical matters, starting with expansion of
Canadian refining capacity and port access to international markets, which ought to be
considered a matter of national security.
The big dirty secret is Saudi Arabia, THERE oil bed's are collapsing and pumped into total
failure, and there was some articles they were buying oil BACK from New York. We could be
sitting on the largest price swing in history.
We've got the same problem with gas in Alberta. Lotsa new production and not enough export
capacity. Friday Alberta spot price @$1.77 Canadian dollars per gigajoule. More or less
$1.35/mcf.
The reality was the oilsands never had to be profitable, just attractive.
No not visually attractive, investment attractive for stock markets and pensions.. The
oilsands was always created on the coffer of the public investment. The oilsands were built
off of pension funds and excess money flows from the fiat expansion of the Central Banks. It
never had anything to do with profitability grant you if Oil had stayed at $100 a barrel big
oil would of built plants the size of California.
More oil now goes into making plastic than goes into driving. Price of oil is completely
and utterly delinked from it's availability. When is it going back to $100 / barrel ask when
Israel is invading Iran..
I don't understand why would they lose money selling their production instead of stopping
the production until conditions are reunited to sell at a decent price. Sometimes you have to
be willing to suffer a but to make things good again otherwise they might drag on
forever.
The oil market is like a masochist market. People try to be three first ones to sell at
any price instead of patiently waiting for the right moment.
-40 for weeks up there. Boiler shuts off, pipes freeze up in hours. Water expansion will
crack it all apart. They don't even want air touching the inside of the pipes to prevent
oxidation. The fun one is the Texans they don't know they because they think they can run a
Fort Mcmurray oilsand plant like the ones they run in Texas. The only thing keeping the plant
running is a pipeline of money..
Heat Trace has put many electricians kids through a lot of colleges and universities..
Profitability is not a big concern, grandmas pension money is stuck into companies like
Exxon oil, it's not going anywhere, they'll pump at a loss for 3-5 years potentially before
they will shut it all down..
But they'll drop the wages and lay people off in hours... Fort McMurray' s biggest export
is skilled tradesmen now not oil..
That's what happens when CONswervatives sell out their country's ability to control it's
resources and it's means to get them to market.
They sold out Canada's publicly owned railway, then they sold out one of the last
remaining Crown Jewels, the Canadian Wheat Board which not only owned it's own rail cars, but
successfully managed export shipments for decades via it's reliable and well managed access
to ports
Said hoakey Free Market sales pitch is just another means of screwing a country and it's
citizens out of it's wealth.
The Koch bros for example, have made out like bandits at the expense of Canadian citizens
right to fair profits from it's oil reserves that the likes of Koch had nothing to do with
it's expensive development stage. Perhaps more appropriate description of Koch Ind is, like a
Bedouin Sheik vanishing in the night with their plunder.
Said CONswervatives even went so far as to screw up Canada's grain marketing system in
favor of...drum roll please.. A US hedge fund and Saudi Arabia.
But then, when their political nemisises, the Liberal Party of Canada trades off with said
CONswervatives, in our times, they do nothing except extol the virtues of Free Trade. Which,
all bullshit aside, means they are on the same side and what few differences there once were,
like where you can stick your thingy, and into whom, are fast disappearing.
I don't expect Murikans to understand the landscape of Canadian politics, as Canada isn't
a major part of the centre of their consumer society oriented Universe.
Big Finance not shying away from shale . Hedge funds and private equity are pouring
money into the shale patch despite a growing chorus of investors demanding higher returns from
shale companies, according to
Reuters . The pressure from investors raised questions about Wall Street's commitment to
the shale industry, but Reuters says that the flow of money has continued to flood in
unabated.
"... We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause. ..."
"... I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability. ..."
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) of
Saudi Arabia is the undoubted Middle East man of the year, but his great impact stems more
from his failures than his successes. He is accused of being Machiavellian in clearing his way
to the throne by the elimination of opponents inside and outside the royal family. But, when it
comes to Saudi Arabia's position in the world, his miscalculations remind one less of the
cunning manoeuvres of Machiavelli and more of the pratfalls of Inspector Clouseau.
Again and again, the impulsive and mercurial young prince has embarked on ventures abroad
that achieve the exact opposite of what he intended. When his father became king in early 2015,
he gave support to a rebel offensive in Syria that achieved some success but provoked
full-scale Russian military intervention, which in turn led to the victory of President Bashar
al-Assad. At about the same time, MbS launched Saudi armed intervention, mostly through
airstrikes, in the civil war in Yemen. The action was code-named Operation Decisive Storm, but
two and a half years later the war is still going on, has killed 10,000 people and brought at
least seven million Yemenis close to starvation.
The Crown Prince is focusing
Saudi foreign policy on aggressive opposition to Iran and its regional allies, but the
effect of his policies has been to increase Iranian influence. The feud with Qatar, in which
Saudi Arabia and the UAE play the leading role, led to a blockade being imposed five months
ago which is still going on. The offence of the Qataris was to have given support to al-Qaeda
type movements – an accusation that was true enough but could be levelled equally at
Saudi Arabia – and to having links with Iran. The net result of the anti-Qatari campaign
has been to drive the small but fabulously wealthy state further into the Iranian embrace.
Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at
preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often
counterproductive: witness the bizarre episode in November when the Lebanese Prime Minister
Saad Hariri was summoned to Riyadh, not allowed to depart and forced to resign his position.
The objective of this ill-considered action on the part of Saudi Arabia was apparently to
weaken Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon, but has in practice empowered both of them.
What all these Saudi actions have in common is that they are based on a naïve
presumption that "a best-case scenario" will inevitably be achieved. There is no "Plan B" and
not much of a "Plan A": Saudi Arabia is simply plugging into conflicts and confrontations it
has no idea how to bring to an end.
MbS and his advisers may imagine that it does not matter what Yemenis, Qataris or Lebanese
think because President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and chief Middle East
adviser, are firmly in their corner. "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown
Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," tweeted Trump in early November
after the round up and confinement of some 200 members of the Saudi elite. "Some of those they
are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!" Earlier he had tweeted
support for the attempt to isolate Qatar as a supporter of "terrorism".
But Saudi Arabia is learning that support from the White House these days brings fewer
advantages than in the past. The attention span of Donald Trump is notoriously short, and his
preoccupation is with domestic US politics: his approval does not necessarily mean the approval
of other parts of the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon may disapprove of
the latest Trump tweet and seek to ignore or circumvent it. Despite his positive tweet, the US
did not back the Saudi confrontation with Qatar or the attempt to get Mr Hariri to resign as
prime minister of Lebanon.
For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not
able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that
would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli
covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not
make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term
effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.
It is Saudi Arabia – and not its rivals – that is becoming isolated. The
political balance of power in the region changed to its disadvantage over the last two years.
Some of this predates the elevation of MbS: by 2015 it was becoming clear that a combination of
Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was failing to carry out regime change in
Damascus. This powerful grouping has fragmented, with Turkey and Qatar moving closer to the
Russian-backed Iranian-led axis, which is the dominant power in the northern tier of the Middle
East between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean.
If the US and Saudi Arabia wanted to do anything about this new alignment, they have left it
too late. Other states in the Middle East are coming to recognise that there are winners and
losers, and have no wish to be on the losing side. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a
meeting this week in Istanbul of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, to which 57 Muslim
states belong, to reject and condemn the US decision on Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia only sent a
junior representative to this normally moribund organisation. But other state leaders like
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, King Abdullah of Jordan and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar,
among many others, were present. They recognised East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and
demanded the US reverse its decision.
MbS is in the tradition of leaders all over the world who show Machiavellian skills in
securing power within their own countries. But their success domestically gives them an
exaggerated sense of their own capacity in dealing with foreign affairs, and this can have
calamitous consequences. Saddam Hussein was very acute in seizing power in Iraq but ruined his
country by starting two wars he could not win.
Mistakes made by powerful leaders are often explained by their own egomania and ignorance,
supplemented by flattering but misleading advice from their senior lieutenants. The first steps
in foreign intervention are often alluring because a leader can present himself as a national
standard bearer, justifying his monopoly of power at home. Such a patriotic posture is a
shortcut to popularity, but there is always a political bill to pay if confrontations and wars
end in frustration and defeat. MbS has unwisely decided that Saudi Arabia should play a more
active and aggressive role at the very moment that its real political and economic strength is
ebbing. He is overplaying his hand and making too many enemies.
The only hope someone as cloistered as a Saudi crown prince can have of being an effective
ruler is either by being an extraordinary person (very curious, love learning for its own
sake, etc), or be at least moderately intelligent, and listen to consensus.
For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not
able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that
would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little.
Lies and Jew-hatred. Everyone knows that despite their infamous sharpness in business
dealings, the world's longest history of legalism, a completely self-centered and
ethnocentric culture, and their longstanding abuse of the Palestinians, every single
deal the Jews try to sign with the Palestinians heavily favors the Palestinians, and the
only reason the Palestinians won't sign is because they're psychotic Jew-haters.
The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some
Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that
Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US
embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning
to look shaky.
Hey, you skipped the part where you did anything to support the idea that a Zionist-Saudi
alliance doesn't make sense.
K, let's all wait for Art Deco to come in and spew some Hasbara then tell us he's not a
Zhid.
{Mohammed Bin Salman's Ill-Advised Ventures Have Weakened Saudi Arabia}
GREAT news.
Hopefully the evil, cannibalistic terrorism spreading so-called 'kingdom' of desert nomads
will continue on its path of self destruction, and disappear as a functioning state.
Once more a Saudi Firster was detained in KSA. This time the owner of Arab Bank, a Jordanian
with dual Jordan and KSA citizenship. Saad Hariri a Lebanese was the first one who was dual
Lebanon and KSA citizens and who lost his diplomatic immunity in KSA.
I wonder if the Israel Firster who are dual citizens are now sweating? Wonder, if Netanyahu is still an USA citizen? Happy days are coming back .
"Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at
preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often
counterproductive:"
Saudis allied with Israelis, backed by the wealth and might of the US? Guaranteed to bring
out the worst in Saudis (which is bad enough at base) and Israelis and Americans.
Machiavellian skills really ? I'd see 6 months ahead if this was true. MBS just made a show
that they are a de facto Mafia not a businessman to the whole world. I'd bet he just quashed
a lot of efforts and money spent on raising the racing horses of the saud monarch and in turn
destroyed some serious connection that were vital but aren't readily available to them. Just
how potent money they thought it would be ? Sure all is businesses and it will work so long
you can pay the right person. The problem is where to find the right person.
Come on Cockburn, look at the Big Picture, not the little one. This the old fallacy of
looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is a piece
of the much bigger puzzle being put together over years, decades, and maybe generations.
The
psychopaths at the top of the power pyramid have been engaged in this hidden global game for
generations, it's always been part of their longterm strategy.
Very recently Highly
intelligent, realistic, morally and ethically centered, and practically oriented individuals,
have also formed secret powerful groups to arrive at beneficial goals for humanity. These
truly Good Guys have learned that the criminal, murderous, lecherous, degenerate, deviate,
psychopaths in positions of great power are irredeemable and should be eliminated where
possible. What you see in Saudi Arabia is merely a tree, not the forest. Just the same, to
the author, keep writing but research the subject much much more before you put pen to paper,
as you do have apersuasive and talented style.
1. We have been screaming about the unintended consequences of Saudi giving to charities
since 2004.
2. We removed the buffer of Iraq from Iranian ambitions (as unclear as it may be debated)
creating issues not only for Saudi Arabia, but others in the region as well.
3. We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some
of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause.
4. No one is escaping the negative consequences of our Iraq invasion.
5. We have been complaining about rogue and irresponsible wealthy Muslims ad naseum.
Now when someone steps up the plate to meet the challenges many caused by the US –
our first complaint is not astute counsel but rather a series of articles highlighting
failure. I would not contend that I support every choice. But I think we should at least take
a wait and see perspective. He is operating in a region rife with intrigue and ambitions, not to mention -- Muslims bent
on spreading Islam as one would expect a muslim to do. Frankly I am not sure how one governs
in the arena of the middle east – especially now – it's a region in major
shift.
I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what
the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating
the value of instability.
The Saudis are the U.S. and ISISRAELS puppet, they do what the Zionist neocons tell them to
do, which is to be the Zionist agent provocateur in the Mideast.
The Saudis have helped the U.S. and ISISRAEL create and finance ISIS aka AL CIADA and for
this the Saudis can rot in hell, and by the way the reason for the attack on Yemen is that
the Saudis oil reserves are diminishing and so the Saudis figured they would take Yemens
oil.
The main creators of ISIS aka AL CIADA are the U.S. and ISISRAEL and BRITAIN ie the CIA
and the MOSSAD and MI6.
The irony is that Saudis, before MbS and during his dominance, are making exactly the same
suicidal blunders as the US. No enemy could have damaged the US and its positions in the
world more than its Presidents and the Congress in the last 17 years. The same is true for
KSA, with the same mistakes being made: undermining the financial system of the country,
global over-reach that forces all opposition to unite, crazy military expenses, etc.
Sorry, but these people dressed in 14 century robes and garb, cannot be taken seriously. They
look like play-people feigning a furious grandeur.
Without their petrochemicals – they would be laughed at by everyone –
including their own kind. They should not be respected because they are religious – they are old world
tribalist thugs hiding behind a religion. They use and abuse their people – holding
them back from modernity.
Thing is, Saudi regime was rotten through and through before MbS, remains rotten under his
rule, and will remain rotten when some other jerk kicks him out and establishes himself at
the helm.
It does not matter how smart Saudi Arabia is with their foreign policy now, they became
allies with Israel, that means Saudi Arabia can never claim to be a power working for the
interests of Islam. MBS is a marked man, no matter how many purges he undertakes in his army,
or even if he just hires Pakistani soldiers, if he has Muslims fighting in his army he will
always be carrying the risk of being assassinated by somebody who has seen him cross the red
line and become pro jewish.
I don't really understand the constant hopes that the Saudi regime will fall. How is that any
different from cheering Bush's disastrous regime change in Iraq? How will the fallout be any
better in Arabia than it was in Iraq, Libya, etc?
It's not that there's a constant hope it's just they'd fall in the near future and
fortunately it will balance the geopolitical power in the future. Their fallout aren't going
to be as bad unless the people pulling their string persistent in keeping them in power.
It will be better because it means Israel loses an ally, also with the Saudis gone Egypt will also be unable to keep their
population in check. The fall of the Saudis means that Israel will be surrounded by regimes that oppose it...
Another Junior Gaddafi that is going to ruin his entire nation while intoxicated with NYT or
other Western media coverage. He talks of corruption after spending 1.1 Billion dollars on a
yacht and a painting.
Netenyahu is much the same. He has weakened Israel immensely by playing the scary wolf.
South Africa was never in danger from their hostile neighbors . They committed suicide. Egypt cannot control its own territory let alone start wars , ditto for Syria and Lebanon.
Jordan is a client state of Israel and lacks a functioning army. ...
"... Old "classic" land-based oil fields deteriorate to the tune of 5% per year, while deep sea deteriorate more and subprime wells much more. You can probably double the figure for each, although much depends on particular geology. Infill drilling accelerates depletion, allowing to maintain high production for sometimes so changes can be abrupt. ..."
"... Moreover, with each year, "subprime wells" (multi-stage shale well) costs more and now are at a range of n 6-10 million depending on the number and the length of horizontals and number of fracking stages and other factors. Only few area (sweet spots) can recover this capital investment during the life of the shale well at current prices). More at around $80 and almost all around $100 per barrel. The later is also the price that KSA needs to remain solvent (rumored to be in low 90th). ..."
"... The shale oil produced in the USA is really "subprime" because large part of it has lower energy content (by 20% or more) and different mix of various hydrocarbons that "classic" oil. Especially condensate from gas wells. Which optimally can be used only as diluter for heavy oil. EIA does not differentiate between different types oil and use wrong metric (volume instead of weight). May be intentionally. ..."
"... Another factor is that world consumption continue to grow and will do so because population in large part of Asia and Africa is still growing and number of cars on the road increase each year requiring on average 1-1.4 MB/d additionally. ..."
"... By continuing its' easy money policies well past any recession or growth scare, the Fed has created a monster. Most shale companies aren't profitable and are in fact losing money using any kind of GAAP. However, cheap financing allows them to survive and "drill baby drill." The unintended consequences may include destabilizing Saudi Arabia to the point of an economic and political collapse. One can always hope ..."
"... Economic collapse in Venezuela due to low oil prices – good! Economic collapse in Saudi Arabia due to low oil prices – bad! Solution – extend cheap financing to Saudi Arabia via Aramco IPO! ..."
"... The 36″ North Sea Forties pipeline is currently shut down for repairs. Short and medium term prices will carry the effect of that supply loss. In the long term, unexpected developments are common. Considering how completely wrong so many oil analysts have been over the past ten years, including the IEA, there is not a lot of credibility in oil market predictions. ..."
My impression is that this a gap (could be intentional) between IEA statistics and predictions and the reality. This is propaganda
agency after all, with the explicit agenda of keeping the oil price for Us consumers low. So typically that produce too "rosy"
forecasts that later are quietly corrected. Their short-term forecasts are based on oil futures and as such has nothing to do
with the reality on the ground. Which is quite disturbing.
It is undeniable that shale boom which played such a beneficial role for the USA allowing to squeeze oil price (with generous
help from KSA) for two and half years is dead.
Now is kept artificially alive by junk bonds and directs loans that will never be repaid. In other words, the USA now enjoys
a period of "subprime oil. Unless there is a new technological breakthrough there will be an only minor improvement in efficiency
of drilling and oil extraction in the next couple of years, but the lion share of those was already implemented, and on the current
technological level we are close to the "peak efficiency" in drilling and services.
Those minor efficiencies will be negated by rising prices of service industries, which can't take the current pricing any longer
and need to raise prices for their services.
Old "classic" land-based oil fields deteriorate to the tune of 5% per year, while deep sea deteriorate more and subprime
wells much more. You can probably double the figure for each, although much depends on particular geology. Infill drilling accelerates
depletion, allowing to maintain high production for sometimes so changes can be abrupt.
In any case each year you need somehow to find 5 MB/d of oil, finance new wells in those areas and infrastructure required.
All Us shale production is around 6 MD/day. So you get the idea.
Moreover, with each year, "subprime wells" (multi-stage shale well) costs more and now are at a range of n 6-10 million
depending on the number and the length of horizontals and number of fracking stages and other factors. Only few area (sweet spots)
can recover this capital investment during the life of the shale well at current prices). More at around $80 and almost all around
$100 per barrel. The later is also the price that KSA needs to remain solvent (rumored to be in low 90th).
The shale oil produced in the USA is really "subprime" because large part of it has lower energy content (by 20% or more)
and different mix of various hydrocarbons that "classic" oil. Especially condensate from gas wells. Which optimally can be used
only as diluter for heavy oil. EIA does not differentiate between different types oil and use wrong metric (volume instead of
weight). May be intentionally.
So the future remains unpredictable but general trend for oil prices might be up with some spikes, not down. Although many
people, including myself, thought so in early 2015 ;-)
Another factor is that world consumption continue to grow and will do so because population in large part of Asia and Africa
is still growing and number of cars on the road increase each year requiring on average 1-1.4 MB/d additionally.
So it looks like the situation gradually deteriorate despite all efforts and related technological breakthrough which allow
to extract more from the old wells and more efficiently extract shale oil.
The problem is that new large deposits are very hard to find now and several previously oil-exporting countries gradually became
oil-importers. Mexico is one, which will be huge hit.
Obama administration screw the opportunity to move US consumers to hybrid cars so the situation in the USA deteriorates too
despite rise of percentage of more economical vehicle in the personal car fleet each year. Rumors were that they pursue vendetta
against Russia and that was primary consideration - to crash Russian economy and install a new "Yeltsin".
The USA generally is in better position then many other countries as the switch to natural gas and hybrid electric cars for
personal transportation is still possible. It already happened in several European countries for selected types of cars, buses
and trucks (taxi, in-city buses and "daily round trip or short trips trucks).
But there is no money for infrastructure anymore and for example many miles of US rail remain non-electrified. Burning diesel
instead.
As maintenance was neglected for two and half year disruption of existing supply might became more frequent. also mid Eastern
war is also a possibility with Trump saber-rattling against Iran. Recently the leak in undersea pipeline removed 0.5 MB/d from
the market and caused a price spike to $65 for Brent (WTI remains cheaper and never crosses $60 this time).
Also with a young prince in charge and the revolution against "old guard" KSA became more and more unstable so the next "oil
shock" might come from them. They also have problem of depletion which until now they compensated pitting more and more heavy
high sulfur oil deposits online. At some point they will be exhausted too. They also pitch for war with Iran, but they would prefer
somebody else to do heavy lifting.
The only one or countries still can significantly increase oil production now – Libya (were we have problem because of the
civil war after US-sponsored Kaddafi removal and killing), and Iraq where there are still untapped areas that might contain some
oil; nothing big, but still substantial in the range of 1 MB/d. Looks like Iran now exports all it could. Same is true for KSA
and Russia. In this sense OPEN oil production cuts might an attempt to preserve impression that they are untapped reserved. I
doubt that there are much and those cuts are just a reasonable insurance policy against quick depletion of existing wells as higher
price gives some space for innovation.
There is also such thing as EBITRA which gradually deteriorates everywhere and can become negative for certain types of oil
(for oil sands it depends on the price of natural gas and they are primary candidate if the price doubles or triples from the
current level).
By continuing its' easy money policies well past any recession or growth scare, the Fed has created a monster. Most shale companies
aren't profitable and are in fact losing money using any kind of GAAP. However, cheap financing allows them to survive and "drill
baby drill." The unintended consequences may include destabilizing Saudi Arabia to the point of an economic and political collapse. One
can always hope
Economic collapse in Venezuela due to low oil prices – good!
Economic collapse in Saudi Arabia due to low oil prices – bad!
Solution – extend cheap financing to Saudi Arabia via Aramco IPO!
Meanwhile, China says it will be moving to all-electric cars and trucks to help solve its horrible urban air pollution problem.
. . Meaning global demand has nowhere to go but down.
Why do I feel that this will not end well for the American hegemon? Particularly with Trump in office working overtime with
boy genius Rick Perry to promote coal and sabotage renewable energy. . .
The 36″ North Sea Forties pipeline is currently shut down for repairs. Short and medium term prices will carry the effect of
that supply loss. In the long term, unexpected developments are common. Considering how completely wrong so many oil analysts
have been over the past ten years, including the IEA, there is not a lot of credibility in oil market predictions.
"... There's no industry capability to put this figure as a fact. They still have people looking at tankers with binoculars figuring out how much the Sauds are putting out. Even better the WSJ printed in a story last week that the Sauds were putting out oil at $2.25 a barrel! ..."
"... Anyway, all oil numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, always. Shale is meeting with increasing geological limits, going to cost even more to produce, this in an industry that's never made a profit, even at $100 and is some $280 billion in debt, which I guess its good debt doesn't mean anything. ..."
"... Condensate is not the oil, "black gold, Texas tea" of old and fact is that type of oil basically peaked a decade ago in low 70s mbd. Shale fields have always produced a lot of condensate and are now producing more and increasing amounts of just gas. ..."
"... Anyway "oil glut" has always been at best a nebulous term for many reasons, but then we here in the US just think, as Mr. Obama proudly stated in his last State of the Union, "$2 a gallon gas ain't bad either." ..."
"OPEC production fell by 130,000 bpd in November, due to lower output in Saudi
Arabia,"
There's no industry capability to put this figure as a fact. They still have people
looking at tankers with binoculars figuring out how much the Sauds are putting out. Even
better the WSJ printed in a story last week that the Sauds were putting out oil at $2.25 a
barrel!
Anyway, all oil numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, always. Shale is meeting
with increasing geological limits, going to cost even more to produce, this in an industry
that's never made a profit, even at $100 and is some $280 billion in debt, which I guess its
good debt doesn't mean anything.
this is good piece on Asia refiners having trouble with US shale as US refiners have
previously.
Condensate is not the oil, "black gold, Texas tea" of old and fact is that type of oil
basically peaked a decade ago in low 70s mbd. Shale fields have always produced a lot of
condensate and are now producing more and increasing amounts of just gas.
Anyway "oil glut" has always been at best a nebulous term for many reasons, but then
we here in the US just think, as Mr. Obama proudly stated in his last State of the Union, "$2
a gallon gas ain't bad either."
Simultaneously, it has managed to develop fairly profitable, albeit at times tense
relationships with other major or rising world powers. Those include Russia, China and Turkey.
At the same time it is engaging a large number of European countries, South Korea, India, and
others in assorted trade agreements. Iran has managed to place itself front and center –
not only as a bad actor bent on colonization of the "Shi'a Crescent" and possibly beyond
– it has also gained increasing political and economic legitimacy among its former
adversaries.
Iran has even managed to get the United States under the Trump administration to wage
limited war against ISIS, first in Iraq and Syria and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan,
despite conflicts and occasional confrontations between US forces and the terrorist group's own
militias. While Iran's various financial deals are to some extent being tracked, what remains
noteworthy is the issue of energy control in the region, a factor that fuels the numerous
conflicts, or at least finances them.
... ... ...
The US has miscalculated by believing other countries are incapable of pursuing independent
interests without its involvement, or by thinking such nations cannot use energy markets
effectively to marginalize any state that is not already in an active leadership position. The
US should take stock of the way the energy assets are being played by various states. It should
either separate the authoritarian regimes which only grow stronger with the greater access and
interconnections such valuable assets provide, or by outplaying those states at their own
game.
The US sanctions were partially anticompetitive move to block Russia selling its hydrocarbons to lucrative EU market.
Now Russia is becoming a major player in LNG and things might become more complex for the USA as all US efforts to built LNG
infrastructure int he USA in order to export the US LNG to Europe now are can backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'. ..."
"... "Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural gas," Putin said at the ceremony. ..."
"... Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5 million tons of LNG per year. ..."
"... Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term basis. ..."
"... The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. ..."
Russia has opened a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the country's northern region of
Yamal. The first tanker with LNG was launched on Friday by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The ice-breaking tanker is named after the former CEO of Total Christophe de Margerie who died
in a plane crash in Russia. The tanker can carry up to 173,000 cubic meters of LNG. Russia
plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'.
"Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural
gas," Putin said at the ceremony.
The controlling stake in the enterprise belongs to Russian energy major Novatek. Twenty
percent each is owned by Total, and China's CNPC, and the remaining 9.9 percent belongs to the
China-based Silk Road Fund. Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5
million tons of LNG per year.
Almost 96 percent of the Yamal LNG plant's production has already been contracted. The main
customers will be the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Novatek reported. Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term
basis.
The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom
is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy
Minister Aleksandr Novak.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
"... The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly. It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative. ..."
From Patrick Armstrong's article (a good one, by the way):
A Russian threat is good for business: there's poor money in a threat made of IEDs, bomb
vests and small arms. Big profits require big threats.
Actually, I'd say the Russian threat is necessary to keep the Europeans too
frightened to protest while the U.S. steals wealth from them. After all, when the U.S.
imports goods and "pays" for them with printed money, it is basically stealing those goods.
The U.S. is draining a lot of wealth from Europe (like $150 billion a year), so something
must be done to keep them docile. Russia's perfect for that.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A
series of steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money
failed. The bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the
West got a decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I
suspect the next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so
it'll be interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts.
Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from
"Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. The
USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump who's
backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'....
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations... US seems to be obsessed with it.
The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a
historical anomaly. It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical
energy embedded in coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the
population, and as first movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the
afterburners, and population grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that
ahistorical step-function growth curve, control of resources on a global scale became its
civilizational imperative.
That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up
developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way
they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West
because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$ System
& U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its plateau will
not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.
The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global
Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just
short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any
case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got
the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work,
so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while
hell blazes elsewhere.
What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own
problems.
IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of
what "decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time
ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of exactly
the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no longer
works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse than the
day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his estates in
Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally arrived at the
Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a slow motion train
wreck.
...
'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only
elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).
Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and
abiding ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic
successes. That both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global
scale can't be seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through
10' of 1" pipe.
The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it wants/needs
the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but trouble. Noisome
flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as outsiders than
they would be as vassals would Russia move.
"... Carrying Capacity : Carrying capacity is a well-known ecological term that has an obvious and fairly intuitive meaning: "the maximum population size of a species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment". Unfortunately, that definition becomes more nebulous the closer you look at it – especially when we start talking about the planetary carrying capacity for humans. Ecologists claim that our numbers have already surpassed the carrying capacity of the planet, while others (notably economists and politicians ) claim we are nowhere near it yet! ..."
"... Overshoot : When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot. Because carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary. Populations ..."
"... to (or below) the carrying capacity. How long they stay in overshoot depends on how many stored resources there are to support their inflated numbers. Resources may be food, but they may also be any resource that helps maintain their numbers. For ..."
"... one of the primary resources is energy, whether it is tapped as flows (sunlight, wind, biomass) or stocks (coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.). A species usually enters overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but exhaustible stock of a resource. Like oil, for instance ..."
"... The zoomass of wild vertebrates is now vanishingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals. In 1900 there were some 1.6 billion large domesticated animals, including about 450 million head of cattle and water buffalo (HYDE 2011); a century later the count of large domestic animals had surpassed 4.3 billion, including 1.65 billion head of cattle and water buffalo and 900 million pigs (FAO 2011). Calculations using these head counts and average body weights (they have increased everywhere since 1900, but the differences between larger body masses in North America and Europe and lower weights elsewhere persist) yield estimates of at least 35 Mt C of domesticated zoomass in 1900 (more than three times the total of all wild land mammals) and at least 120 Mt C in the year 2000, a 3.5-fold increase in 100 years (and 25 times the total of wild mammalian zoomass). And cattle zoomass alone is now at least 250 times greater than the zoomass of all surviving African elephants, which in turn is less than 2 percent of the zoomass of Africa's nearly 300 million bovines (Table 2). ..."
"... Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Species Extinction ..."
11/29/2017 Notice: Please limit your comments below to the subject matter of this post only. There is a petroleum post above this
one for all petroleum and natural gas posts and a non-petroleum post below this one for comments on all other matters.
First, let us define carrying capacity and overshoot. And none has done that better than
Paul Chefurka .
Carrying Capacity : Carrying capacity is a well-known ecological term that has an obvious and fairly intuitive meaning: "the
maximum population size of a species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities
available in the environment". Unfortunately, that definition becomes more nebulous the closer you look at it – especially when we
start talking about the planetary carrying capacity for humans. Ecologists claim that our numbers have already surpassed the carrying
capacity of the planet, while others (notably economists and politicians ) claim we are nowhere near it yet!
Overshoot : When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot. Because carrying capacity
is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary. Populations
always decline to (or below) the carrying capacity. How long they stay in overshoot depends on how many stored resources
there are to support their inflated numbers. Resources may be food, but they may also be any resource that helps maintain their numbers.
For humans one of the primary resources is energy, whether it is tapped as flows (sunlight, wind, biomass) or stocks (coal,
oil, gas, uranium etc.). A species usually enters overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but exhaustible stock of a resource.
Like oil, for instance
When we talk about carrying capacity we need to define exactly who or what we are carrying. Are we talking about humans, all animals
or what? Well, let's just talk about terrestrial vertebrate biomass.
Okay, Vaclav Smil and Paul Chefurka (and the estimates of most earth biologists) are correct, the long-term carrying capacity
of terrestrial vertebrate biomass is a little over 200,000,000 tons. But how do we know that amount is correct? Easily, because that
is what it was for millions of years before the advent of agriculture and other things brought about by modern day Homo sapiens.
Plant and animal species all struggle to survive. In doing so they have evolved to fill every available niche on earth. If a plant
can grow in an area, any area, it will do so. If an animal can find a habitat in any area on earth, it will do so. At least since
the mid-Triassic, about 225 million years ago, plants and animals have occupied every available niche on earth. If any animal overshot
its habitat, dieoff would soon correct that situation. So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained
at about two hundred million tons, give or take. I say that because climate change, sea levels rising and falling, continental drift
would cause the long-term carrying capacity to wax or wane. Also, the estimate is just that, an estimate. It could be slightly higher
or lower. But the long-term carrying capacity of the earth always remained at one hundred percent of what it was possible to carry.
Then about 10,000 years ago man invented agriculture. At first, this only enabled a slight increase in population. Soon only plants
that produced the most grain, fruit or tuber per plant, or per area of ground, was selected for replanting. Genetic engineering goes
back thousands of years.
Then they discovered fertilizer. Animal and human waste could greatly increase plant production. Animals were domesticated and
the plow was invented. More food per area of ground could be produced. Then chemical fertilizers were invented and the population
floodgates were opened. At first phosphates from bird guano dramatically increased agricultural production but around the middle
of the last century nitrate fertilizers from the Haber Bosch process enabled the green revolution and enabled the population to expand
three fold.
It's mostly cows, then humans, then pigs then chickens then Interesting that the biomass of chickens is ovwe three times that
of all the wild animals combined. If this chart does not shock you then you are totally unable to be shocked by anything concerning
the earth's biosphere.
The world population is still expanding at an alarming rate. By 1989 the population was expanding by about 88 million people per
year. Then by the year 2000 population growth had slowed to about 77 million per year. Then the slowdown stopped and started to increase
again. it stands at about 79 million per year according to the US Census Bureau.
Now they are saying it will start to slow. But that slowdown has not yet started. True, the fertility rate has been dropping but
that has been offset by the increase in population. The fertility rate is dropping but on more and more people.
Notice the U.S. Census Bureau starts the slowdown at almost the exact date this chart was drawn, August 2017. If they had drawn
this chart in 1995, then no doubt they would have started their prediction of constant decline in 1995.
But I have no doubt that the population will start to decline. It must, it must because we are destroying the ability of the planet
to feed all its people.
Paul Chefurka created the above graph in May 2011. I think he was a little off. He has the world population hitting almost 8 billion
then starting to drop around 2030.
I am more inclined to agree with the U.S. Census Bureau who thinks the world population will hit 9.4 billion around 2050. Then
I believe the population will start to fall. The rate of population decline and how far it will fall is hard to predict. That will
depend on many things but primarily on if and when globalization collapses. The collapse of globalization will bring about civil
strife, border wars, and famine around the world.
I want to call your attention to the green, wild animal, portion of the second graph at the top of this post. Notice the wild
animal portion of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass, by 1900, had dropped to about 20% of its historical value. Then by 2000, it
had dropped to half that amount. Then by 2050, we expect that 2000 value to be cut in half again.
By 2100, it will very likely all be gone. Well, almost all gone. There will still be plenty of rats and mice and perhaps a few
other small vertebrates will still survive, but all the large megafauna, except humans, will be gone. Gone forever or at least for
the next million years or so. It will take that long for new megafauna to evolve after the human population has been greatly reduced
to a billion or even a few million people.
But the far distant future is of little concern to us now. The sad fact of the matter is your descendants will live in a world
completely free of wild megafauna. There is no way to avoid that fact now, it is already too late to stop the destruction.
WHY?
Yes, why? Why are we destroying the earth's ecosystem? Why are we driving most all wild animals into extinction? Why have we dramatically
overpopulated the planet with human beings? Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had
a cause, that someone or some group of people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into.
Was it the early farmers who invented agriculture. Or was it the early industrialists like James Watt or Thomas Edison? Or was
it Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, are they the villains that got us into such a damn mess? No, it was none of these people. It was no
one person or no group of people. It was not even any revolution like the industrial revolution, the medical revolution or the green
revolution. There is no one to blame and there is nothing to blame.
Agriculture enabled the very small early population to expand. The industrial revolution and later the green revolution enabled
more people to be fed. The medical revolution enabled more babies to survive and people to live much longer. Our population has exploded
simply because it could. We have always lived to the limit of our existence and we always will. It was just human nature pure and
simple.
Now many will say that we are now controlling our population, that we have learned how to limit our fertility rate. Well, yes
and no. Reference the below chart and table that were produced by the
Population Reference Bureau in 2012.
In the developed world, where most of the world's energy is consumed, we almost have zero population growth. But in the less developed
world, the population is still growing.
Here is the perfect example of what is happening, what is still happening , in much of the world. Notice the difference in the
infant mortality rate and the annual infant deaths. Most of the world's people are still living at the very limit of their existence.
<sarc>But not to worry. The death rate is rising, babies are dying, the population will soon start to fall in the undeveloped
world. </sarc>
Note: The Paul Chefurka graphs in this post were created, primarily, with data from the research of Vaclav Smil and is published
in this 24 page PDF file: Harvesting
the Biosphere: The Human Impact . The file includes over 2 pages of notes and 4 pages of references where Smil sources and documents
every stat he quotes. Below are a table and some text from the paper.
The zoomass of wild vertebrates is now vanishingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals. In 1900 there were some
1.6 billion large domesticated animals, including about 450 million head of cattle and water buffalo (HYDE 2011); a century later
the count of large domestic animals had surpassed 4.3 billion, including 1.65 billion head of cattle and water buffalo and 900 million
pigs (FAO 2011). Calculations using these head counts and average body weights (they have increased everywhere since 1900, but the
differences between larger body masses in North America and Europe and lower weights elsewhere persist) yield estimates of at least
35 Mt C of domesticated zoomass in 1900 (more than three times the total of all wild land mammals) and at least 120 Mt C in the year
2000, a 3.5-fold increase in 100 years (and 25 times the total of wild mammalian zoomass). And cattle zoomass alone is now at least
250 times greater than the zoomass of all surviving African elephants, which in turn is less than 2 percent of the zoomass of Africa's
nearly 300 million bovines (Table 2).
Please comment below but only on the subject matter of this post.
Great summary. Mainly so I don't have to think about all the depressing aspects: do you not think if humans disappeared but even
a few of our larger domesticated animals survived that evolution could go bonkers and we'd have new familes and species springing
up all over in far less than a million years. After all homo sapiens are only a few hundred thousand years, and dogs (admittedly
still technically wolves) only a few thousand. It would depend a bit whether we left much of the planet that was actually habitable
of course – i.e. there'd need to be plenty of evolution pressure, but not too much. I guess your point would be we'd get new species
but not the mega fauna, but I think there's evidence that isolated small islands can lead to either pygmy species or giants depending
on the exact environment.
George, I would have to start by saying that humans are not going to disappear. Other than extinction via natural disaster, like
a giant meteorite hitting the earth, species are driven into extinction. That is they are outcompeted for territory and
resources. Humans are the drivers of extinction, no species will drive us into extinction. We occupy every habitable niche on
earth and will likely continue to do so even after our numbers have been dramatically reduced.
If we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within the next one hundred years,
then the human population will be devastated by civil strife, border wars, and famine. Seven to nine billion hungry people will
be a disaster for all other animal life, domestic as well as wild. So I do not believe there will be enough domestic animal life
to kick-start evolution of new wild species of megafauna. As I have said before, we will eat the songbirds out of the trees. So
there sure as hell will not be any cows left.
Okay, so perhaps it will not take a million years for other large megafauna to evolve. Perhaps it will only be in the hundreds
of thousands of years.
So, after we eat the songbirds from the trees, what the hell will we eat then?
Is it not possible that the human species will drive itself to extinction because we are so successful at destroying the natural
environment which we depend upon for our survival?
After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than 90%. Life for
the remaining humans will be extraordinarily hard. If the overall stress level is high enough, it will be very difficult for humans
to raise enough offspring to reproductive age to maintain the species over time. Biologists call this pre-extinction phase die
out. Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.
And what the hell do you mean: "If we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within
the next one hundred years "? Within the next 100 years? You are dreaming! We are in the early stages of apocalypse right now!
Rapid die-off will begin within the next few years. 100 years from now, there will be no one alive who will remember it.
Cunning said; "After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than
90%." ..
..while what is left of nature will rapidly move into the niches vacated by species humans have wiped out. If (big if, maybe)
there are remaining reproductively viable human populations, they will exploit those recovering niches at rates which will be
far below the astounding rates of exploitation during the industrial age. Where humans have abandoned their schemes of destroying
the natural world for their own purposes, nature, in some form, recovers quite quickly.
On the other hand, if global warming goes off the scale (ala Guy McPherson, et al), all bets are off. Everything larger than
a shrew will be toast.
Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.
The replacement level for animals in the wild and the replacement level for domestic animals are two different things entirely.
For animals in the wild, the replacement level may be several hundred to several thousand. Animals in the wild have to find each
other in order to reproduce. For domestic animals, the replacement level is two.
In this regard, we Homo sapiens are far more like domestic animals than wild animals. An example would be the Polynesians who
migrated to distant islands in sailing outrigger canoes. Their numbers, in those canoes, likely numbered only a dozen or so. Yet
huge numbers eventually sprang from tiny numbers.
Yes, stress during periods of great strife and famine will be great. Stress will likely take a great toll. But there will always
be survivors. Everyone is not equally affected by stress. Some can overcome, some cannot. It is a little like a plague or disease.
There are always some who are immune or otherwise escape the problem.
As for rapid die-off coming within a few years, yes that may happen but I doubt it. Humans societies are far more resilient
than you might expect. For instance, look at Somalia, or Venezuela. Somalia, a failed state, has been in turmoil for decades yet
no massive die-off has occurred. Venezuela is in a state of almost total anarchy, yet no massive die-off as of yet.
I believe the die-off will start within the next hundred years. Next week is within the next hundred years. But I doubt
it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for things to really
fall apart.
You said:
"But I doubt it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for
things to really fall apart."
What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century,
in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong? How do we avoid sudden, catastrophic collapse once world economic growth comes
to an end?
What about the fragile, debt ridden financial/credit/monetary system? Have you read the Korowicz paper? How will industrial
civilization gradually unwind over many decades when the world economy freezes very suddenly and food stops arriving at the grocery
stores? That should lead to a very rapid die-off as every city suddenly becomes uninhabitable.
What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century,
in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong?
Hey, I have a copy of Limits to Growth right here in my hand. On what page do they predict catastrophic collapse before 2050.
Help me out here but I just can't seem to find it.
As to real problems, hell yes, we are having real problems right now. We have been having real problems in Venezuela and a
lot of other places. But there is a tremendous difference between real problems and catastrophic collapse.
And what about all the other terrible things you are say are happening right now. Hell yes, they are happening and they are
terrible. But they have not yet led to catastrophic collapse. But it is very likely they will lead to collapse in three
or four decades from now.
It's actually from a Guardian article, taken from Bardi's "The Limits to Growth Revisited". I don't know what page the original
graph was on, but I have a copy of the original 1972 graph which shows the same curves, without the more recent data curves.
Guardian article "Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse" :
It depends on what you call collapse. The UK and USA are both following the curve such that life expectancy is starting to decline.
I think industrial productivity might be going the same way in UK, and definitely our health and old age care systems (which is
one of the measures he uses for "services") are in decline (though the government always finds a way to massage the numbers so
far). One of the authors of LtG has said that once one of the main curves is definitely through an extrema then the models probably
don't work any more – which I took to mean possible accelerating chaos, but might mean something else.
This a unique, one-time only collapse because we never relied on fossil fuels in the past, and we certainly won't in the future.
If you look at energyskeptic/3) Fast Crash, you'll see the many reasons I think collapse will unfold quickly. Turchin, who has
looked at the patterns of collapse in civilizations going back to Mesopotamia, says it takes about 20 years on average. That is
in line with Hook's estimate of a 6% exponential decline, which is the rate at which the 500 giant oil fields decline on average
after peaking (something like 270 of them last I checked), all others (offshore, shale, smaller, and so on) decline much faster,
hence Hooks estimate of an exponential increase of .0015 a year as non-giants increasingly contribute to what's left of production
(giants are now 60% of world oil production). If Hook (2009) is right, that means we'll be down to 10% of what we produce after
global peak production in 16 years. At that point, even if governments are rationing oil wisely to grow and distribute food, you're
reaching the breaking point. Oil makes all other resources possible, so although many resources reaching their limits, the decline
of oil will be the true beginning of the end. No more pumping water from the Ogallala 1,000 feet down, going 10,000 miles on factory
farm fishing boats, and so on. Oil is masking how incredibly far we are over overshoot. Above all, 99% of the supply chain transport
– trucks, rail, ships – depends on oil. 80% of communities in the U.S. depend entirely on oil, by far the least efficient mode
of transportation of the three. Well, it is too big a topic to cover in a comment. I have a lot more to say in my book "When Trucks
Stop Running".
Oh, and when I heard Dennis Meadows speak at the 2006 Pisa Italy ASPO conference, he said that if anything Limits to growth
was head of schedule, with collapse starting as early as 2020. We'll see, too many factors. Also in the past, nations avoided
collapse way past their carrying capacity by trading or conquering other nations, like the Roman Empire, which had to import food
from Carthage and Egypt, no way to grow enough food in Italy.
I'm hoping to see more comments from you in the future, and not just in this one thread, lol.
It's very common for experts in any given field to presume there are none in other fields that are capable of solving the problems
they see as civilization killers.
There are no guarantees of success, but success is possible when it comes to finding and implementing solutions to problems
such as the eventual depletion of oil.
Once the shit starts hitting the fan pretty hard and fast in terms of declining oil supplies, both good and bad things will
happen on a scale that will take the breath away.
The bad will unquestionably include economic collapse across large swathes of some and maybe most societies.
The good will come in the form of action on the part of awakened LEVIATHAN, the nation state. Those of us who cannot see that
once LEVIATHAN stirs and focuses on such problems as we FORCED to deal with soon have little understanding of history , human
nature, and technology.
Now WHETHER , or NOT, Leviathan, Uncle Sam, John BULL, the Russian BEAR, et al, can do enough to keep the wheels on and turning,
instead of falling off, is an open question.
I believe they can, depending on how far gone things are once they begin to come to grips with the various troubles that will
threaten their existence.
People CAN AND DO come together, and work together, sometimes. Consider the case of the USA. We were mostly all isolationists
the day before Pearl Harbor, but within a couple of days after, we were all ready to to go flat out to murder our enemies on the
grand scale, and DID.
Neither I nor anybody else can prove either way whether we WILL work together well enough to prevent outright collapse meaning
we die hard deaths by the tens of millions even here in a country such as the USA.
There's no question that we CAN work together, once we realize we must. Whether we get started soon enough is probably going
to determine just how bad things will get in economic terms.
But between what scientists and engineers can do for us, by way of providing us with better tools, and what we can collectively
do for ourselves by way of collective action, there's a real possibility that some countries will pull thru ok, no longer sleek
and lazy and fat and wasteful, but at least still functional, and with most of their populations still alive and leading a reasonably
dignified life style.
I will have more to say about what Leviathan awakened, scared and enraged can do later on, way down thread someplace within
the next few days, by relating some historical examples.
I too feel that one day the trucks will stop running. It will be a very interesting transition to observe. I imagine it will have
a progression that goes something like this:
-trucks running will increase in cost as will the things that they are running about with inside them.
– trucks will run to less and less places.
-trucks will run to less and less places less frequently.
-trucks will run only very rarely and only for high priority reasons.
-trucks will stop running altogether.
As this process takes place I imagine there will be measures taken to fill some of the void, where and when it is possible
to do so.
Ron – do you think humans will still be around in a million years or even a hundred thousand? If they are I think it will only
be because they have made themselves irrelevant to the environment (i.e. small in numbers and having found a way to live sustainably)
and other species will be evolving without too much human involvement.
Yes, George, I think humans will be around in a million years. Not nearly as many as are around today however. If I had to guess,
and I do have to guess, then I would guess around 10 to 15 million humans would be around a million years from now. That would
be one person alive then for every 500 alive today.
Of course, all fossil fuel would be gone and everyone would live off the land.
But if you doubt human survival, then just what do you think will wipe everyone out? What will bring the human population to
zero?
That sounds as good a guess as any. Part of my point was that they could only survive if they were not intrusive, and therefore
would not be an impediment to evolution of other mega fauna. I think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million
years, homo is a family rather than a species so the sapiens could go and something else come along, like we took out the Neanderthals.
On the other hand if the bottlenecks get small enough in different locations we could just be whittled away by different causes.
I think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years,
The point is George, Homo sapiens is not an average species. If we were an average species we would still be competing with
other species for food and territory, losing some of those battles and winning others. But our numbers would be kept in check
by our success and failure of that struggle, just like every other average species.
Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about
us as a species.
Ok, but our numbers were kept in check and we were competing like that for almost all of our history, until the Holocene interglacial
came along and we decided agriculture was a good idea, or maybe we had a go before and it never took in a less stable climate.
But before that there is evidence of some pretty tight bottlenecks when we were almost gone either locally (e.g. in India) or
globally. And things like the Roman empire collapse suggest we can forget any kind of technological advantages in a couple of
generations.
But since our brains to a degree where we could create stone tools and use fire, our population has been on a slow increase,
bottlenecks notwithstanding.
What has made us not average is our brains, our mental ability. That is the one thing that has given us a huge advantage
over all other species.
We are smart enough to wrestle all the world from every other species that stood in our way. If another species had something
that we wanted, including even their flesh, we got it. We are smart enough to dominate the world, but not smart enough to see
that we are destroying it.
My point is that unless we find a niche in which we can exist sustainably despite our intelligence and ability to get whatever
we want and dominate the world, then we won't survive very long, and may not even then.
I think some (you for example) are smart enough to see that we are destroying our World.
It may not be a majority view, though I think the numbers are increasing.
I would agree that we so far have not demonstrated that we are smart enough to change what we are doing (reduce the rate that
we destroy the planet as rapidly as possible to zero (or negative, by which I mean restore the planet closer to a natural or sustainable
state).
This may never be accomplished, but we cam move in that direction while reducing our numbers and our impact.
What it is about our brains that makes us not average is our capacity to deny reality. The mind over reality transition (Varki
&Brower) is arguably what gave "sapiens" the advantage, successful but apparently impossible risk taking, to do away with neanderthalensis.
In small scale hunter bands surrounded by magafaunal predators, denial of reality is a decided advantage, but in mass societies
with the capacity to produce mass belief in non-realityy, it is the disadvantage that could do us in. Although not experimentally
demonstrable, the idea that this mind over reality transition was an evolutionary event in the hominid genus 100-200 thousand
years ago is a plausible explanation for sapiens' dramatic cortical development and the development or consolidation of female
sexual selection, not present in our forebears or current great apes.
In a future world scratching a living as we did for most of our history as hunter-gatherer bands, but from a depleted world
absent of any predators, we might evolve the ability to believe reality, without sacrificing cortical development. The first inhabitants
of my country (Australia) managed to get by fot 60,000 years by killing off the megafauna. They were helped by climate change
which dessicated the continent, but hung in there making it an extremely attractive aquisition by my ancestors when they came
along.
In broad terms, I agree with what you are saying here.
"Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about
us as a species."
But we aren't doing any better than rats or fire ants, lol.
You're dead on about humanity not being an average species. We will be around at least until some other species capable of
wiping us out evolves, and it's unlikely that we will ALLOW such a species to exist, unless it's a microbe and we can't wipe it
out.
If chimps were to evolve just a little further along the lines of using tools and being able to communicate and work together,
and started attacking humans, numerous humans armed only with primitive weapons such as fire and bows and arrows would kill every
last chimp, and they wouldn't lose any time in doing so.
This brings up an interesting question. We know chimps use stone tools as hammers to break nuts, etc, , and that they fight
ORGANIZED fights to the death sometimes.
Is there any evidence they are using stones as weapons . YET?
I once heard an interesting story about chimps. Might have been in one of Pinker's books, I can't recall.
If you hang a bunch of bananas from the ceiling that a chimp cannot reach and you leave an A-frame ladder laying on the ground
the chimp will set the ladder upright and get the bananas.
If you do the same thing with 2 chimps and a ladder so heavy that one chimp alone cannot set it upright, but 2 chimps working
together could set it upright, they'll never get on the same page, so to speak, and cooperate in setting up the ladder. They will
both try individually and fail. The bananas will never be reached.
The charts in your post suggest about 1 billion might work, I would say 500 million would be my guess, not sure where you come
up with 10 to 15 million.
Note that 500 million is roughly the World population in 1550 CE.
Just a different guess as I think a sustainable society could be reached by 2300 at these lower population levels, though perhaps
fertility levels will remain below replacement over the long term so population will continually decline eventually some optimum
will be determined and fewer than two children will not be encouraged.
Humans, that is Homo Sapiens per se, maybe not. Don't forget Cro-Magnons probably caused the extinction of Homo Neandertalis in
about 40,000 years or so ago. Some other future species of the Genus Homo, very likely will be around for another million or so
years. This is what I think they might look like. Maybe they will be called Homo technoligicus implantabilis, feel free to call
them whatever you want. In any case resistance will be futile and you will be assimilated.
Cheers!
.
First of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred
to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.
Second, regarding population growth, my primary charity for 20 years has promoted sex ed, access to contraceptions, and education
of women worldwide. We know how to halt and reverse population growth in the "underdeveloped world". It's not difficult except
for the religious groups which oppose contraception and oppose women's liberation.
Often the same religious groups who promote burning of fossil fuels. And deforestation.
Basically, whether humans survive depends on whether we defeat those groups, IMO.
Countries like Cuba which are very underdeveloped but essentially *lack* those religious groups (thank you Godless Communism!)
they're doing OK on population stabilization.
There are countries that are religious such as Iran that have seen rapid demographic transition (15 years for TFR to go from
over 5 to under 2). Also non-communist nations such as South Korea saw rapid transitions.
I agree education and gender equality as well as access to modern contraception are helpful.
Religion has it's points, as Twain used to put it, both good and bad. Preachers and priests have a way of figuring out what
is in their own best interests, short term, medium term, and long term.
There are some religions or cultures, which are not necessarily one and the same thing , that do encourage or more or less
actually force women to bear lots of children.
I come from a culture that is very often ridiculed here in this forum, which doesn't bother me at all personally. It's ridiculed
on such a broad scale that it's hard to find a public forum peopled with technically well educated people where ridicule isn't
the NORM.
As religion goes, my own personal extended family is about as religious as they come in the USA. My nieces and nephews and
third cousins, the children of my FIRST cousins, are having kids at less than the necessary 2.1 rate needed to maintain our blood
lines, lol. My informal seat of the pants estimate is that the extended family birth rate is down to somewhere around one point
five.
It's well known that the birth rate in some countries that are supposedly Catholic has fallen like a rock over the last couple
of decades.
And while I can't prove it, it's my firm opinion that once the priesthood in any country comes to understand that it's own
long term interests are best served by encouraging small families, small families WILL BE ENCOURAGED. That may not happen for
another generation or so, and it may not happen at all in some countries, if there is no top down control of the culture and religion.
Priests and preachers don't exist to serve GOD, or any combinations of gods, etc. They exist because they have found a way
to provide a secure and relatively easy way of living largely off the work of their followers.
This is not to say their followers don't get back as much or more as they contribute. Every society has to have leaders, and
priests and preachers can be and have often been very effective leaders. Some of them are effective leaders today.
First of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred
to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.
Really, I have never heard of that. The only superpredator I ever heard of are human beings. But if you can give an example
of a species destroying its own food supply and habitat, please enlighten me.
Humans on Easter island is the only thing that comes to my mind when thinking of such an example. I'm no expert on Easter island,
however I understand people there did not go extinct, and that there was a small group living there when the island was found
by Europeans. Again, not terribly well informed about that particular bit of history.
When things begin to collapse the grid infrastructure will collapse. Coal factories in China and elsewhere will shut down and
dimming will end. James Hansen estimated that warming may be held back by 50% by dimming, so we can expect warming to shoot up.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf
With collapses of civilization their will be no remediation of forest fires. Chemical and Nuclear Dumps will burn as well as
the nuclear power plants that have gone Fukushima.
A very underappreciated study is that of decaying leaves around Chernobyl While horses and other wildlife might now roam around
Chernobyl the implications of leaves not decaying is enormous. "However, there are even more fundamental issues going on in the
environment. According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers -- organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types
of insects that drive the process of decay -- have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an
essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the
authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem."
Read more:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/
To just state that humans wouldn't disappear is nothing more than an assertion, as is stating that they would certainly disappear.
However what faces humans is much more daunting than just the chaos of civilization collapse. Those who survive everything else
will have a hard time reproducing with all that radiation around
https://chernobylguide.com/chernobyl_mutations/
Of course long before civilization collapses the countries of the world may well play out the scenario that Richard Heinberg
describes – Last Man Standing. Sound like politics today?
I posted this as a reply to a comment by GF a few threads back.
I highly recommend the following three ASU Origins Project debates and panel discussions to get a good feel for the big picture.
It might take up a good four hours or so of your time. This isn't something suitable for sound bites. It involves a lot of in
depth cross disciplinary knowledge.
"Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had a cause, that someone or some group of
people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into".
I would like to suggest, respectfully, that this wording is the wrong way around. The essence of the problem is that no one
has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility – and that is hardly changing at all.
The world is teeming with governments, corporations, NGOs, and "leaders" of all kinds. But what are all those leaders, and
their estimable organizations, really trying to do? Some are aiming to earn as much money as possible. Others are trying amass
as much power as possible. Most of their programmes have a lot to do with gaining more money and power – which become interchangeable
at a certain point (as can be seen from a study of the US Congress, for example).
An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various
degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening,
and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing
about the obvious threats it faces.
Tom, I think my wording was correct, you just did not quote all of my explanation. You wrote:
The essence of the problem is that no one has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility
No one can take responsibility because no one is in charge of the human race. And as far as being "profoundly unintelligent",
I think that is an unfair charge. Having a blind spot in our DNA does not imply that we are unintelligent. The human race has
never been faced with such a dilemma before. Our brains evolved to its present state during our hunter-gatherer days. We are molded
by evolution to do everything possible to survive and reproduce. There is nothing in our DNA that tells us to protect the biosphere
because the lives of our grandchildren depend upon it. So we don't.
What is happening is just human nature. That's all.
Evolution has resulted in all species, including humans, having a biotic potential that is greater than the carrying capacity
of the niches in which they live. Populations are limited by resource limits and predation, not by self restraint or mutual agreement.
It would have been very unusual, perhaps unique in evolutionary history, for humans to have deliberately limited our population,
even though it might have been theoretically possible due to our 'intelligent' ability to foresee our probable future. Despite
Malthus, Limits to Growth and many other warnings, no realistic attempt has been made to remain below carrying capacity.
As you note, a massive die-off is inevitable, the only real question is when. Like The Cunning Linguist, I personally think
it will be whenever people lose confidence in the global monetary system, as in Korowicz's "Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain
cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse". Once money stops flowing so does the food supply.
What would cause this rejection of the monetary system? I don't follow the argument. Everyone decides at once that money is
no longer a reasonable medium of exchange. Didn't happen during any financial crisis so far, people couldn't access their money
at Banks after the 1929 crash, but this was less of a problem in OECD nations during the GFC.
The ETP nonsense is just that, anyone who knows their thermodynamics knows that theory is full of holes.
No, but we did come close in 2008. All sorts of debt instruments including commercial paper, CDOs (the root of the problem),
many derivatives and letters of credit all froze up. Without prompt dramatic action by the central banks and the US Treasury,
the financial system could have collapsed. Nobody knew who was solvent or insolvent, so the central banks had to backstop every
financial institution. All this over some mortgage securities based on the US housing market.
Now imagine that growth has turned to continuous worldwide economic recession, the inevitable fate of the global market economy
in the face of energy and resource depletion ( it will happen despite the stupidity of the Hill's Group). Unemployment increases
year after year and tax revenues continuously fall. Every kind of debt instrument, from sovereign debt to mortgages, to municipal
and corporate bonds is more and more likely never to be repaid. Defaults are increasing with greater and greater frequency. The
equities of every company become suspect as more and more companies go under.
Sooner or later, a critical mass of people are going to realize that most debts can never be repaid and are therefore worthless
as assets. Since almost all money is created from debt, almost all money becomes worthless.
The only thing that makes money work is confidence in its value. When confidence in money (debt repayment) fails, the monetary
system fails and without a monetary system, the global market fails.
Billions of lives are dependent on that market functioning smoothly every day. When it fails to function, people will die.
I fully expect to lose every financial asset I own at some point, that's why I am preparing to live without money. Unfortunately,
most people in the developed world can't do that, though they should be trying to do so with utmost urgency.
I admit that if there were a concerted international effort to declare a debt jubilee and start all over with a new world currency,
some form of monetary system might continue after the present one collapses, but I really doubt that creditor countries and debtor
countries are going to cooperate with the rapidity and solidarity needed to manage such a transition.
And even though all the productive assets in the world would still continue to exist after a financial collapse, without a
market to mediate their interconnected function, everything would grind to a halt. I don't see an international command economy
taking over either. That would be harder than creating a whole new monetary system.
The global market economy is very complicated and very fragile. I certainly wouldn't trust my family's life to something that
could collapse virtually overnight and neither should you.
I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in your argument.
Well, I can't imagine how the global market economy and industrial civilization are going to have a steady state economy forever
at present levels of production and affluence. Overshoot means eventual retrenchment and die-off.
Up-thread you estimated the carrying capacity of the earth at around 500 million people. You obviously expect to gracefully
reach that level (in 2300!) through birth control while still maintaining current standards of living.
I expect that we will reach that population, or fewer, due to complications from resource-depletion-caused economic failure
(famine, war, pandemic). There simply isn't enough energy available to make the transition you desire without also destroying
the climate, even if there were the political will to do so, which there isn't.
I suggest looking at the history of the last 100 years to decide which future is more probable. Humanity has had the ability
to create a high technology, steady-state civilization with sustainable population levels for over a century, but has failed to
do so. There is still no evidence that we are serious about making the attempt now. I wonder why you can believe that such a thing
will happen at a time when the resources to make it happen will be declining rapidly. Continuous world-wide recession is a certainty
and unless you are very old, you will live to see it.
And as far as your suggestions for prepping go, my family has already got it's lifeboat ready in a rural tropical community.
I've got the productive land, the community and the guns. I don't expect to rely on gold at all. To my mind, the best durable
trade items are ammo, fishing equipment and livestock.
If raising my own food and living without money is necessary, I can do it. If your eco-modernist utopia magically appears,
I won't be disappointed, or regret one iota of the 'unnecessary' preparations I will have made, but I prefer to err on the side
of prudence.
I don't expect to live forever and as I said don't plan ahead for scenarios I believe have a very low probability of occurring.
As fossil fuel resources become scarce they will become more expensive and we will use them more carefully (or efficiently). There
has been no need to do so for the past 100 years as they have been relatively cheap and abundant. There will be enough energy
from Wind, solar, hydro, and perhaps nuclear to make the transition, as fossil fuel becomes expensive these will be produced as
they will become cheaper alternatives. Much of freight traffic can be moved to rail, which can be electrified, moving goods from
rail to factory or store can be done on overhead wires on main roads with EV used for the last few miles.
Also keep in mind that fossil fuels by nature are quite inefficient in producing electricity with about 60% of the energy wasted,
for heating systems compared to heat pumps there is also higher energy use. The transition to non-fossil fuels will result in
about one third the energy use for the same exergy (or work and useful heat) provided.
I make no assumptions about living standards being maintained, perhaps the transition will be very difficult and living standards
in the OECD will decrease while living standards in less developed nations increase. Note that declining population will reduce
resource pressure and realization of resource limits (as will be clear from fossil fuel scarcity) by the majority of citizens
may lead to changes in social behavior.
Also note that we have only been aware of the climate problem for about 38 years (using Charney report in 1979 as the starting
point).
If fossil fuels are very limited (say 1200 Pg C emissions from 1800-2100) then climate change might be less of a problem, but
this will still be adequate for a transition to non-fossil fuels. Even 1000 Pg of total carbon emissions from all anthropogenic
sources (including fossil fuel, cement and land use change) may be adequate for an energy transition, though it will need to begin
in earnest in the next 5 to 10 years, the sooner we begin the easier it will be to accomplish.
"What is happening is just human nature. That's all."
EXACTLY.
I posted a long rant down thread trying to get this across to people who somehow think we are DEFECTIVE because we don't collectively
behave more rationally, hoping to get it across in terms that are intelligible to those of us who have HEARD of evolution, but
never actually studied it for more than an hour or two at the most.
Nonsense, this is just Libertarian propaganda, which is actually a fake religion invented by real estate investors in the fifties
in a political catfight to avoid rent control legislation. It has now widen to some kind of pseudo-Darwinistic hocus pocus, but
it ignores the obvious fact that we became the world's dominant species be collaboration and long term thinking.
We're doomed if we don't get along with each other, and lots of propaganda is pushing you to believe we never have or could,
and never can or will. But that doesn't make it true.
I'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race. In "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest
States" (Yale, 2017), James C. Scott demonstrates fairly convincingly that humans actively avoided adopting grain-based agriculture
because the labor:reward tradeoff was far less satisfactory than what could be obtained through hunting and gathering. The accumulation
of surplus, and presumably the insurance a surplus would provide against yearly fluctuations in food supply, in other words, was
an insufficient motivation for humans to give up hunting and gathering. As Scott documents quite clearly, this refusal to adopt
agriculture as the basis of the human economy persisted for more than 5,000 years in Mesopotamia, and much longer elsewhere.
So what caused the shift? Alas, Scott fails to explore this in any detail. (Just one of the many weaknesses of the book, which
nevertheless manages to make its central argument very well.)
I will speculate that what caused the change was the coming-together of a sufficiently large number (five? a dozen? who knows?)
of individuals who lacked the ability to feel remorse, shame, or compassion, and who were motivated purely by a desire to enrich
and empower themselves. Modern psychology calls these types psychopaths. I suggest that it was these individuals who, likely with
help from others with the related disorder of sadism (see recent research on "the dark tetrad"), were first able to subjugate
(Scott uses the very apposite term "domesticate") human communities and force them to labor on the land to produce a surplus,
which of course then could be appropriated by the psychopaths and their henchmen.
I am not aware of anyone else who has advanced the notion that civilization was founded by psychopaths and sadists. But recent
psychological research (popularized in books such as Babiak and Hare, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work") suggest
that psychopaths are four times more commonly represented in upper management than in the population as a whole, so it seems plausible
to me, at least, that the project of civilization and its attendant destruction of the ecosphere has been, from its inception,
forced upon humanity by a small minority.
Phil, thanks for a great post. I have no doubt that psychopaths have had a great influence on civilization. Many great leaders
were no doubt psychopaths. Hitler and Stalin come to mind. However, not all of them were psychopaths. Rosevelt, Washington, Jefferson,
and many other U.S. presidents were not psychopaths. Neither was Churchill or Gandhi.
However, your original sentence was: I'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race.
So I kept reading, waiting for you to tell us just who was in charge of the human race. Of course you did not do that.
My short answer to your question would be to ask "Cui bono?" Doubtless not everyone who reaps the most benefit from the biocidal
trajectory of late capitalism is dominated by one or more of the traits of the Dark Tetrad, of course. Some of us might even be
able to argue plausibly that we were unaware of the consequences of our actions. But even though late capitalist society is sufficiently
robust that it continues to work out its internal logic without a lot of direct guidance by the dark few, I doubt it would last
long without their presence among the wealthy and powerful classes. If their interventions on behalf of the killing machine could
be eliminated, my guess is that dismantling the machine would be a much easier project.
Ultimately, it's the ones in positions of power who manifest the traits of the Dark Tetrad whose interventions are critical
to maintaining the status quo. If anyone can be said to rule the earth, it's them.
An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various
degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening,
and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing
about the obvious threats it faces.
That is my view as well! Though some like E.O. Wilson argue that we have evolved into an eusocial species and can at least
in theory function as a hive or termite mound. Where the collective intelligence emerges and even though the individual ants or
bees are stupid the anthill is an entity unto itself is smart and knows how to defend itself. See also Douglas Hofstader and Daniel
Dennett's book, 'The Mind's I', Chapter 11 titled Prelude Ant Fugue. http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-ant-fugue.html
Also check out Curtis Marean's talk at the end of Inconvenient Truths – From Love to Extinctions from the link I provided above
from the ASU origins debates. He specifically makes that analogy about aliens, in his talk.
Marean is a professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the associate director of the Institute of
Human Origins at Arizona State University. He is interested in the relation between climate and environmental change and human
evolution, both for its significance as a force driving past human evolution, and as a challenge to be faced in the near future.
Curtis has focused his career on developing field and laboratory teams and methods that tap the synergy between the disciplines
to bring new insights to old scientific problems. He has spent over 20 years doing fieldwork in Africa, and conducting laboratory
work on the field-collected materials, with the goal of illuminating the final stages of human evolution – how modern humans became
modern.
" Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious
threats it faces."
Such an organ would be very costly, in terms of depriving humanity of the energy and resources devoted to it, depriving us
of the use of these resources for other purposes.
Evolution doesn't create organs that will be useful in dealing with new circumstances, by plan, ahead of time, except by accident.
It's just a "lucky accident" FOR US TODAY that our own ancestors evolved hands capable of grasping things such as branches ..
which set the stage for us to be able later on to grasp a stone and use it as a hammer or weapon.
No planning is involved. NONE. Various deists who accept the reality of evolution but still believe in higher powers disagree
of course.
I can't prove they are wrong. I don't believe anybody else can. All we can do is demonstrate that they have no evidence that
such higher powers exist.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, lol.
I doubt if "intelligent" aliens are any different than we are – and therefore probably have a very short life expectancy should
they ever get to an industrial age – evolution can only work from one generation to the next and is therefore incompatible with
longer term planning for species longevity.
"It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over
the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however
competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this
planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them
there will be one chance, and one chance only." – Sir Fred Hoyle
Thanks for posting this Hoyle quote Steve. I have read it before, many times. And the truth of it is so obvious. All the things
that have enabled this wonderful abundant life will soon be gone. Then what?
We recycle what we can, we use less of scarce resources as prices rise and we try to find substitutes for resources as they
become scarce. Also population will fall as TFR falls (with a time lag due to population momentum) putting less pressure on resources.
None of this will be easy, and perhaps not possible, hard to predict the future.
Dennis, Hoyle here, is talking about long-term. Recycle or not, we will run out of all fossil fuels and eventually all metals.
However, recyclig will help, in the short term anyway.
No, we cannot really predict the future. All we can do is look at what is happening right now and say: "If this continues ."
And Dennis, it will continue. Human nature may be changed by evolution. But that will take many generations and tremendous
evolutionary pressure. So right now, human nature being what it is, we can predict that collapse is just down the road. Just how
far down the road is what we are trying to figure out right now.
Ron, if we look at the apparent numbers, say of many species, collapse appears already here, just that the shockwave hasn't hit
yet. Remember, if you see an explosion in the distance, it takes awhile to hit.
Yes some things will continue and others will not.
For example fossil fuel output has grown pretty steadily in absolute terms (about 163 million tonnes of oil equivalent per
year from 1981 to 2016) and I expect that will change (it will not continue).
The total fertility ratio has decreased at about 1.38% per year from 1965 to 2015, but I expect this will continue until the
World TFR approaches the high income nation average of about 1.75 (which would be reached in 2040 if the 1965-2015 rate of decrease
continues).
There may be more fossil fuels available than either of us think, but if my medium scenarios are correct there may be enough
fossil fuel to enable a transition to non-fossil fuel, then we just need to deal with other depleting resources.
Note that the fact that fossil fuels have peaked and declined (which should be apparent by 2035 at the latest), may enable
people to realize that this will be true for every scarce resource and perhaps we will plan ahead and recycle, and use resources
more efficiently.
Much of this is a matter of education.
Perhaps the meaning of soon we use differently.
When you say "will soon be gone." Can you define soon in years.
The sun will eventually destroy all life on Earth, but not "soon", as I define it.
Well, perhaps I should not have said "gone". There will always be trace amounts of everything left. And nothing will suddenly
disappear. There will be a decline curve for everything. But let's deal with the one with the least future abundance, oil. I believe
we are at peak oil right, or very near it anyway. The bumpy plateau may last from 5 to 10 years. Then the decline curve will
be much steeper than the ascent.
Dennis, you must be familiar with the phrase "You cannot get blood from a turnip". High prices will not create more oil in the
ground. We will most definitely have higher prices but they will be high because we have reached the peak. So, $100 oil will not
create a higher peak.
Just my guess but I believe the plateau will average less than 82 million bpd.
Is it a trailing 12 month average of between 80 and 82 Mb/d?
I imagine we will break above 82 Mb/d in 2018 if oil prices are over $65/b (Brent in 2016$) for the annual average in 2016.
For the most recent 12 months (EIA data) ending August 2017 we are at 80.93 Mb/d.
In the low price environment since 2015 the trend in World output is an annual increase of 280 kb/d. This rate of increase
is likely to double (at minimum) with oil prices over $80/b, which would bring us to 82 Mb/d by 2019 or 2020, perhaps this will
be as high a output rises, but my guess is that there is a 50% probability that output will continue to rise above this and perhaps
a 25% probability it may reach 85 Mb/d around 2025.
I thought I did that Dennis. I the bumpy plateau will average about 82 million barrels per day or less. There could be spikes
and dips and it will last from 2 to as much as 10 years. But when it heads down, it will do so with a vengeance.
Ehrlich underestimated the Green Revolution and Haber/Bosch factor that was really upping food production at the time.
Ultimately, he will be proven right.
I met Ehrlich personally when he visited Va Tech sometime around 1972. Visiting scholars often have smaller seminar meetings after
making their presentation to the larger U community, which he did. Not many people attended the particular seminar I participated
in , probably less than a couple of dozen. I was taking some ag courses there at the time, and enjoyed a long conversation with
him.
You're dead on. He badly underestimated what we farmers could do, and are still doing, given the necessary industrial support
system that keeps industrial level agriculture humming.
Sooner or later . We are going to have to deal with the Population Bomb. The resources we are devoting to industrial ag aren't
going to last forever. Neither are nature's one time gifts of soil and water so long as we are in overshoot.
I was head over heels in love with a milk and corn fed girl from Ohio and we were about ready to join the Peace Corp or something
along that line, and go someplace and save the people in some backwards community by teaching them how to farm the American way
all day and enjoy each other all night of course.
But one of my crusty and profane old professors took me aside and asked me if I really wanted to go to XXXXX and teach starving
people how to produce twice as much food so that twice as many of them would starve a generation down the road.
HE was right about the increase in production just resulting in more mouths to feed . back then. Since then, things have changed
dramatically . in SOME countries.
There are good reasons to believe that birth rates may fall dramatically within the next decade or two in at least some of
the countries that still have exploding populations. Maybe a few of them will manage to avoid starvation on the grand scale long
enough for their populations to stabilize and decline.
It's too late for falling birth rates to prevent famine on the grand scale in a hell of a lot of places.
First off, do I think it's technically possible that we can feed a population that peaks around nine billion a few decades
down the road?
This answer depends on how well energy supplies and the overall world economy holds up, with some wild cards thrown in relating
to climate, depletion of certain critical resources such as fresh water and minerals such as easily mined phosphate rock, etc.
New technology and the reactions of the people to it will also play a big role.The role played by governments local to national
to international will be critical, and huge, because only governments will have power enough to FORCE some changes that may and
probably will be necessary.
Here are a few examples.
It may be necessary to force well to do people aka the middle classes, to give up eating red meat for the most part, so that
grain ordinarily fed to cattle and hogs can be diverted to human consumption.
(I expect rich people will still be able to get a ribeye or pork chop any time by buying up ration tickets, or buying on the
black market, or paying an exorbitant consumption tax, or any combination of these strategies.)
Fuels, especially motor fuels, may be tightly rationed, so that enough will be available to run farms and food processing and
distribution industries.
Large numbers of people may be paid or coerced into going to work on farms or in community gardens or greenhouses.
A substantial fraction of the resources currently devoted to other needs or wants may have to be diverted to building sewage
treatment infrastructure designed to capture and recycle the nutrients in human sewage.
I could go on all day.
Bottom line, I think that barring bad luck, it is technically possible that we can feed that many people that long, and for
a while afterwards, as the population hopefully starts trending down.
As a practical matter, I don't think there WILL BE food enough for nine billion.
It's more likely in my opinion that some countries are going to come up desperately short of food, and be unable to beg, buy
or steal it from other countries. Some people, and some countries, are likely to resort to taking food, and other resources of
course by force from weaker neighbors .. maybe even "neighbors" on the far side of oceans.
I may be too pessimistic, but I'm one of the regulars here who think that climate change for the worse, much worse, is in the
cards, and I spend a few hours every week reading history. Humans have always been ready to go to war, even without good reasons.
A lot of people in desperate situations are going to see war as their best option, in my opinion, over the next half century.
Maybe my fellow Yankees will be willing to give up their burgers for beans so that kids in some far off country can eat. I'm
not so sure we are compassionate enough to do so on the grand scale.
If total fertility ratios continue to fall (for the World they fell from 5 in 1965 to 2.5 in 2015) about a 1.38% per year,
there may be no catastrophic collapse.
If that average rate should continue for 16 years then World TFR would be at 2 (below replacement level) by 2031. If the rate
of decrease in TFR experienced from 1965 to 2015 continues for 35 years (to 2050), the TFR for the World would be 1.54 in 2050.
Based on UN data from 2015, 65% of the World's population had a weighted average TFR (weighted by population) of 2.05, but
a more sophisticated calculation using estimates of the population of Women of child bearing age I have not done, I simply used
total population to weight the TFR from each nation which implicitly assumes the age structure of each nation is identical which
is clearly false.
Exactly! That's been my point from the very beginning. It is already way too late to fix things.
We have a predicament that must be dealt with, not a problem that can be solved.
Yeah, they shot white people. Can't have that. Nowadays the cops shoot three people on average every day in America. Nobody cares,
life is cheap in America. Gun deaths are the price of freedom. Native Americans run about three times the risk of white folks,
and black folks run about twice the risk.
It is obvious that humans are the major drivers of extinction on the planet. We are in the Sixth Extinction event and we cause
it directly and indirectly through our actions. the why is quite obvious, all species live to propagate and expand to their limits,
our limits are global at this point and so are our effects. I don't see energy as much of a problem as there is plenty of it in
various forms and we can obtain it if we want it. That however means continuing the high tech industrial form of civilization
which we have embarked upon. Can that be made sustainable and much less harmful, even helpful? Of course it can, it's all about
wise choices and thinking before we act instead of just going for profit.
The loss of vertebrates is just horrible but the loss of invertebrates will be the undoing of our farming and food production
and much of the other life that depends upon them. The loss of insect life due to global human generated poisoning of the environment,
especially food production areas, will unwind much of the food production.
As collapse starts, the chaos of riots and crime will rise sharply. All those mentally ill and drug addicted people will no longer
have their chemicals, causing a trigger point of violence and chaotic actions.
However the major fast cause of loss of human life will be disease. People forget how it was just a few generations ago before
antibiotics. Diseases will spread rapidly among the weak and starving, public sanitation will fail causing more disease to spread.
Clean water supplies will become absent, compromised or even purposely wrecked. Hospitals will fail because of both being overrun
and the power will fail plus supplies will fail. Disease will grow and spread among both people and their animals. It could take
less than a generation to drastically reduce the population of the species, with the resulting loss of knowledge, technical ability
and industrial ability the cascade will go further.
In the bad case scenarios much of the infrastructure will burn putting up a cloud of aerosols and GHG's as well as causing a large
toxic pulse to the environment.
But on the other side humans are very inventive and determined to continue the system that supports a huge population. So we
may expand this time forward for quite a while, but only through smart choices and changing how we do things such as agriculture,
industry and technology. Smart choices, not choices just for profit.
Humans need not worry about the Falling EROI, the Falling Carrying Capacity or the degradation of the environment. Those no
longer matter now that BITCOIN is now trading over $11,000.
Technology will solve all our problems and Bitcoin will make us all wealthy once again.
Ron -- The full text of this paper in SCIENCE will cost you 15 bucks but in my opinion, is well worth it; below is the Abstract.
Commenters are welcome to talk about educating women, etc. but its too late for Africa for the balance of this century. I have
personally observed the situation in Central Africa where you can see a school each containing about 1,000 kids located at roughly
one-kilometer intervals along all significant roads -- a lot of kids. Virtually all schools in Africa are run by churches (of
all types), and you can guess what these guys are teaching about birth control: I've asked, and the answer is NOTHING. AFRICANS
LOVE KIDS. And, health care has improved greatly over the past few decades meaning general health has been upgraded and infant
mortality has been reduced greatly. In fact, I would say the bulk of the UN's efforts in Africa are directed towards improving
general health at which they have been successful.
Sorry for the inarticulate ramble but this is a rather personal interest of mine partly because our family is supporting a
young girl in Uganda who will soon become a medical doctor. I had promised to stop commenting on the Blog but the African over
population crisis issue is one dear to my heart.
WORLD POPULATION STABILIZATION UNLIKELY THIS CENTURY
"The United Nations recently released population projections based on data until 2012 and a Bayesian probabilistic methodology.
Analysis of these data reveals that, contrary to previous literature, the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century.
There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion
in 2100. This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is
expected to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also,
the ratio of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently
have young populations."
There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion
in 2100.
I think you are about 237,500,000 too low with your estimate of world population. Well, that was as of a few minutes ago. It
was 7,437,500,000 last time I checked. World Population Clock
However, I think the UN is way off on their population projection. I believe that world population will reach 9 billion by
2050, just about a billion and a half above where it is now. However, I doubt it will ever go much above that. The UN, of course,
is predicting no catastrophes. After all, that's not their job.
The UN systematically underestimates the fall in birth rate associated with better education for women and their access to health
care and contraceptives.
My work suggests that the world runs out of more land that can be put under grain by 2035. This is mainly Brazil and Russia. Just
about every country in Africa is importing grain now. Therefore most of their population growth has to be fed on imported grain.
Most of the costs in producing grain are in energy so a rising oil price will have a leveraged effect on food prices.
Glad you decided to comment. Yes Africa is indeed a problem as far as population growth. With education and improved access to health care and internet
access on smart phones, African women may become empowered and decide to control their fertility using modern birth control. The
transition to lower fertility can happen in a generation.
As an anecdotal example, my family and my wife's averaged a Total fertility ratio (TFR) of 5.5 for the two families (close
to the average sub-Saharan TFR), the next generation of 11 children in total had a total of 6 children for a TFR of about 1.1.
Unscientific and likely too optimistic, but not that different from what occurred in the upper middle income nations of the
World (population about 2.4 billion in 2015) where TFR decreased from 4.93 in 1975 to 1.93 in 2000 a period of 25 years.
It is the low income nations that have lagged in reducing TFR, economic development is a key ingredient to getting population
under control. Easier to say than to accomplish.
Dennis – I guess this site is rightfully energy-centric but what's your view on the other limits that are showing up like potable
water, top soil, phosphorus?
I think recycling human waste might help with top soil and phosphorus, though a Farmer would know more than me. I think recycling
water from sewers can also be done and eventually the expansion of solar power may allow desalination of sea water.
In short, I think there are solutions to these issues, especially as we move to more sustainability (less beef production would
help) and a peak in population as education levels improve would also help.
Some nations such as Iran have made amazing progress on their TFR, from 1990 to 2005 (15 years) the TFR fell from 5.62 to 1.97
and by 2015 it had fallen to 1.75.
African nations should find out what happened in Iran over that period and import some of the lessons learned.
Note that there are many examples of a rapid demographic transition, another is South Korea where total fertility ratio (TFR)
decreased from 5.63 to 1.60 from 1965 to 1990 and in 2015 had fallen to 1.26.
Using South Korea as an example of increased sustainability (the point here?) is not helping your case much Dennis. As their TFR
decreased, their consumption grew exponentially. Just since 1991:
Seems their per-capita energy use has skyrocketed in the last 60 years or so, and they now import most of their energy sources.
They became 9th in CO2 emissions as of 2005. Looks like increased standards-of-living and declining birth rates are not much of
a solution for reducing planetary impacts.
I agree. The point was that population growth can be reduced.
We need two things to happen, reduced use of fossil fuels (which peak fossil fuels will take care of by 2030) and reduced population
(which peak population in 2050 to 2070 will take care of).
Figure below is from page 1153 of the article linked above.
Note that in 2015 the TFR for South Korea was 1.26, if average life expectancy does not rise above 90 years and World TFR falls
to 1.25 by 2100, then World Population falls from 8 billion to 2 billion in about 100 years. This reduces the use of resources
and the pressure on other species.
Transition to wind and solar with pumped hydro, wind gas, and thermal storage backup can reduce carbon emissions and reforestation
as population falls will help to absorb some of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage of burned biofuels and
cement that absorbs CO2 would be other options for reducing atmospheric CO2.
As fossil fuel peaks prices will rise and the transition to non-fossil fuel will speed up.
The process will be messy, but we are likely to muddle through as there is not much alternative (or not a better one as I see
it.)
I think a common factor in all countries seeing large falls in birth rates is that they are preceded by large falls in death rates.
This typically takes a couple of generations, which is one of the biggest causes of population overshoot. In Iran it was maybe
a bit faster but not much – from above 20 per 1000 in the 50s and 12 in the eighties to around 4 now.
Regarding fertilizers, when you realize that there was a "human bones" market in the 19th century, and that for instance England
"emptied" the catacombs in Sicily for that, or took back the soldiers bones from Waterloo, you get a sense of the urgency for
fertilizer without phosphorus or natural gas based ones.
See for instance below :
"England is robbing all other countries of their fertility. Already in her eagerness for bones, she has turned up the battlefields
of Leipsic, and Waterloo, and of Crimea; already from the catacombs of Sicily she has carried away skeletons of many successive
generations. Annually she removes from the shores of other countries to her own the manorial equivalent of three million and a
half of men Like a vampire she hangs from the neck of Europe." https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/crops_04.html
Or below : https://medium.com/study-of-history/the-bones-of-waterloo-a3beb35254a3
I had a better link regarding the bones from Sicily catacombs (many due to the plague epidemia I think), but cannot find it
back.
And this page above (from "Justus Von Liebig : the chemical gatekeeper" p 178) is also interesting on other aspects, suggesting
Liebig would today address energy ..
The churches which promote childbearing must be destroyed. They are basically the enemies of humanity. Since they're losing in
North America, Europe, South America, and most of Asia, they are targeting Africa.
(And *targeting* is the correct word -- they are deliberately sending missionaries to spread their sick, twisted doctrines
and spending lots of money to do so.)
If you read my story below, Food for the Poor is a religious group. In Jamaica I believe it is affiliated with
Missionaries for the Poor , an international Catholic organisation.
So while they are doing yeoman service in providing shelter for poor folks, they are doing diddly squat to encourage poor folks
to stop creating more mouths to feed and bodies to clothe and shelter. Isn't that just dandy?
Incidentally here's a recent newspaper article from my neck of the woods:
Youth unemployment in the Caribbean is said to be the highest in the world, and crime, partly fuelled by this high rate
of joblessness, is a major obstacle to economic growth in the region, according to Christine Lagarde, managing director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF boss, who addressed the sixth High Level Caribbean Forum, held yesterday at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel in Kingston,
said that crime imposed several economic costs such as public spending on security and the criminal justice system, as well as
private spending on security. She also highlighted social costs arising from the loss of income owing to victimisation and incarceration.
Can anybody spot my comment? Hint: I used a pseudonym that should be familiar with everybody here.
Can we be so unpolitical correct to call for "A Pope onA Rope?"
Someone must draw a line in the sand- or should we all be under a religious spell?
Or do we want to break that spell?
This was discussed just this morning on NYC NPR, concerning homelessness and the housing provided for low income people. The gist
of it was that although there were programs to help the people with food and housing, very little was really being done to solve
the problems.
"This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is expected
to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also, the ratio
of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently have young
populations."
I have the impression that many of us myself included have an outdated and still colonialist view of African societies. I think
changes happening in many parts of Africa will surprise us and technologically leapfrog over much of the built infrastructure
of the OECD countries. I have seen it happen first hand in previously underprivileged parts of Brazil.
How we're using drones to deliver blood and save lives
Keller Rinaudo wants everyone on earth to have access to basic health care, no matter how hard it is to reach them. With
his start-up Zipline, he has created the world's first drone delivery system to operate at national scale, transporting blood
and plasma to remote clinics in East Africa with a fleet of electric autonomous aircraft. Find out how Rinaudo and his team are
working to transform health care logistics throughout the world -- and inspiring the next generation of engineers along the way.
BTW, I have a serious question! Does this kind of technology make the population crisis in Africa better or worse? Would like
to hear some thoughts on the matter.
It is uncanny how this lead post has come about just when I have been thinking about this subject recently. I am currently very
depressed, to the point I suspect it may be clouding my better judgment with respect to various matters. This depression is partly
caused by my views of the future of my little island in particular and the world in general. Let me try and illustrate how my
thoughts have been brought into focus recently.
I travel around the city I live in, passing through all the different types of communities from time to time. We have pockets
of extreme wealth as evidenced by palatial homes with swimming pools, tennis courts and all the creature comforts you would expect
in the home of a wealthy first world resident. Leaving these pockets of extreme wealth, one doesn't have to drive for more than
five minutes to reach pockets of extreme poverty, people who are so poor, they cannot pay rent and cannot envision ever buying
a plot of land or a house, so they build structures on any piece of land that they can get away with. This type of activity extends
across the island and there is no area that does not experience informal settlement (aka squatting). There is a political aspect
to this, in that in an effort to garner the votes of the large voting block that poor people make up succesive governments have
not discouraged squatting, to the point of encouraging it. See
yesterday's cartoon in one of the local rags
for a satirical perspective of the situation but, I digress.
I try to avoid too much contact with people outside my socioeconomic and educational class because it inevitably leads me to
being depressed but, sometimes I end up in that exact situation. This past Monday night was one such case and it was my observations
from Monday night that got me thinking about Peak Oil and carrying capacity and overshoot. I was invited to visit a gathering
and told to bring drinks and that they were going to cook so, I decided not to eat a meal before leaving the city. It was a forty
five minute drive, including a drive through late evening heavy traffic heading westward out of the city, past a big highway construction
project being carried out by a Chinese (honest to God, from China) construction firm that has been active in the island for a
number of years. On arriving at my destination I was told by my host that the gathering was at another house less than half a
mile away.
This particular house was one of
39 houses made
possible by the efforts of a couple from Grand Junction, Colorado (with pics) along with
the local branch of
Food For The Poor . I estimate that, these "houses" measure about
13ft. by 15 ft. inside and are supposed to include a kitchen, a bathroom and two bedrooms. The sister of my host was the recipient
of this house, being qualified for the charity as a result of being unemployed with four children, one of whom was either newborn
or yet to be born at the time the house was handed over to her. She was not yet thirty years old when her last child was born.
Does anybody see where I am going with this yet?
Back to the gathering. On arriving at the house my host informed that no food had been cooked. By this time I was hungry and
asked where was the nearest cook-shop where I could purchase a meal. I traveled with my host to Old Harbour, the nearest town
apart from Spanish Town. I can only describe Spanish Town as an overpopulated, crime infested, thug controlled mess, that becomes
a ghost town by midnight even though it is surprisingly busy by day. I asked my host if I should buy a meal for them also and
they declined but, by the time we got back to the house, they declared that they were hungry and needed to get something to cook
to go with the rice they had. So off we went to try and find a local shop that had what they wanted and was still open. First
one was a 24 hour joint, built using an old cargo truck body but it didn't have all they wanted so it was off to another one that
we managed to catch just as they were closing. We came away with a small packet of "veggie chunks" and some cooking oil. The little
propane stove had been fired up and the rice was almost done so in less than fifteen minutes a meal of rice and veggie chunks
was being served to four or five adults, one of whom had an infant, less than a year old, sharing the meal with her.
So let me weave together how all of this ties in with the subject of the lead post. First the "house" was only possible through
the generosity of citizens of a first world, developed country. The materials that made the house (lumber corrugated, galvanized
steel) are the products of extractive industries that rely heavily of FF, petroleum in particular. The soft drinks and alcohol
that I brought to the gathering were manufactured, distributed and retailed in a system, heavily dependent on external energy.
My vehicle runs of diesel. The rice for the meal I ate and the one at the house was imported from outside the island, again produced
and delivered with lots of help from petroleum. The chicken I ate was locally produced with imported grain, a product of industrial
scale agriculture, probably in the USA. Thankfully many of the chicken farmers are involved in a project that started with
15 kW systems at about 40 chicken
farms and seems to be expanding. The veggie chunks are a meat substitute protein made from soy meal, again a product of industrial
scale agriculture.
The cooking oil was probably one of soy, palm, canola, corn or coconut oil, produced at an industrial scale and imported to
the island. Jamaica was once an exporter of coconut oil before the industry was decimated by a disease called lethal yellowing
back in the early 70s. Virtually the entire population of coconut palms on the island was wiped out by this disease and even though
efforts have been made to resuscitate the industry using disease resistant varieties, more than forty years on, the manufacture
of coconut oil in Jamaica is a tiny cottage industry.
So here we have five or adults, two males and three females, one of which had four children with the other two having one each.
There were other people at the gathering but as far as I am aware only two had jobs, the brother of my host who left before the
meal and the woman with the infant who has a part time job selling lotto tickets. All of these people are living on the edge,
heavily dependent on a system that is in danger of collapse for their very survival and they are far from alone. there are thousands
of them if not hundreds of thousands on this island alone.
If for whatever reason industrial scale agriculture fails, the songbirds are going to be eaten out of the trees. I used to
dissect rats in my sixth form (12 and 13th grade) biology classes and there ain't much meat on them but, if we get hungry enough
maybe we'll turn on the rats. Without affordable propane, every tree and shrub will end up as firewood. This is the reason why
I have an almost obsessive focus on renewable energy, solar in particular. It is my hope that the deployment of renewable energy
can stay ahead of FF depletion long enough for global civilization to transition away from FF. It is my hope that our civilization,
seeing itself on a real time, renewable energy budget, will begin to recognize the fragility of our situation. I have to ask Ron
and others to forgive me as I continue to bring attention to the hopeful stories. It is the only way I can keep myself from sliding
into depression and despair. It is the only way I can cope.
The Green Revolution in the 60s was supposed to solve all our problems, and it solved a lot of them, especially in Europe and
Asia. It works well when you have a lot of water and farm intensively, but is destructive in semi-arid conditions and when used
in extensive agriculture, like the American Midwest.
After the Green Revolution, Asia boomed and Africa fell behind, prompting racist theories. Geography and climate are more likely
explanations. In India, for example, the more arid north did less well than the wetter south. The Chinese were the first to realize
the problem, and started a new generation of re-greening projects to boost agricultural production.
Meanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading
recently about a county in SD that lost 19 inches (not feet!) of topsoil between 1960 and 2014. Many places in America simply
abandoned farming, like New England and Appalachia. People blame red dirt and the crick risin' in Appalachia and glacial rocks
in New England, but that wasn't a problem before soil degradation set in.
The Green Revolution focused on genetics and chemistry, which makes sense if applied correctly. Development economists were
puzzled that Kenyan farmers were uninterested in high yield seeds, but the explanation as simple: They need a regular water supply,
not better seeds. A lot of places in the world get 3-4 weeks of rain a years, and good seeds don't solve this problem. Pumping
the water out of the aquifier isn't the solution either, just ask anyone in Antelope Valley CA, a former grassland turned desert
by the alfalfa farmers.
My mother warned my to watch out for flash floods when camping in the desert. It took me decades to understand why flash floods
are a particular problem in the desert: More or less by definition, deserts are places where there are flash floods. The flash
floods are both cause and symptom of soil degradation. Deserts aren't places where there isn't enough water -- they are places
where rainwater runs off the surface instead of seeping into the soil. Degraded soil can't absorb water fast enough, surface runoff
degrades soil.
The problem with industrial agriculture is that it treats the great outdoors like a hydroponic farm -- it ignores soil ecology
and just assumes the hydrology will work itself out.
A more modern approach starts with water and soil. It's spreading rapidly in Africa, for example with the sand dams in Kenya,
the terracing in Ethiopia and Kenya, and the various planting pit (like zai and demi-lunes) in the Sahel and agroforestry (planting
trees in fields, or crops in orchards) in a lot of arid places.
It's true that mankind is pushing the limits of what the current ecosystem can carry, but it's also true that the ecosystem
could be much bigger than it currently is.
Meanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading
recently about a county in SD that lost 19 feet of topsoil between 1960 and 2014.
There is a serious problem with that statement. No place on earth has 19 feet of topsoil, not even 19 inches over an entire
county.
Topsoil Wikipedia Topsoil is the upper, outermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 inches (5.1 cm) to 8 inches (20 cm). It has
the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms and is where most of the Earth's biological soil activity occurs.
EDIT: Here's a shot from Kalkriese, Germany where they are digging out a Roman-German battlefield. The artifacts are all found
at or just below the border between the black topsoil and the red dirt underneath it -- that was 7 BC
In the Kalkriese area, the farmers used sod planting ("Plaggendüngung"), i.e. they removed the top soil on large areas to improve
the soil on their fields.
Therefore, Kalkriese is an example how NOT to do it.
I think the thickness of the topsoil in the area speaks for itself.
My point is that as Ron points out, there is a limited carrying capacity for the planet, but I don't really think we are there
yet, because there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface. Of course, even if it's
possible, it isn't clear it will happen.
there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface.
That seems to be an incomplete sentence. Make huge areas of the Earth's surface what ? Desert? We sure can do that.
We are doing more of that every year. Scrubland? We are doing that also by cutting down the forest and trying to make farmland
out of it. After a few years the land will row nothing of value. That's happening in the Amazon right now.
There is nothing we can do to increase human habitual area without reducing the wild habitual area. That is what my post is
all about. We are destroying every wild thing by destroying their habitat, by taking their habitat for ourselves.
Your last paragraph is not correct. Much of the world is desert, and that desert could be much more productive than it is,
given the right agriculture methods.
Whether that will actually happen is another question of course.
That very same first world country that donated the materials has plenty of homeless and large amounts of poor. It also has large
amounts of empty buildings and huge amounts of food waste, yet they do not take care of their own. That is even a sadder situation
as people freeze to death, starve, and die of simple preventable health problems in one of the richest countries in the world.
Basic needs are not met and the governing bodies are constantly fighting to reduce the paltry benefits that are given. It's a
country full of hate for their own people and hate back at the haters.
There's no inherent evolutionary advantage to caring for people you have no relation to. That's the real reason why all of these
'safety net' programs you describe are hated in the general sense and under attack as time marches on.
Now Tony, we all know the public programs are under attack because of the greed and selfishness of people who already have too
much money and stuff.
We all know it is the greed and the overconsumption that is causing the destruction of our environment and possibly the whole
human race. That is a huge evolutionary disadvantage.
Helping, sharing and cooperating is the advantage. The selfish and greedy are like ticks sucking the world dry for their own personal
benefit.
I study the evolution of human ultra-sociality and the role of culture in enabling it. I am especially interested in how
humans evolved the capacity to cooperate with millions of genetically unrelated individuals, and how this links to the origins
of moral sentiments, prosocial behavior, norms, and large-scale warfare. To address these issues, I combine formal modeling of
the evolution of cooperation with fieldwork among the Turkana. The Turkana are an egalitarian pastoral society in East Africa
who cooperate, including in costly inter-ethnic raids, with hundreds of other Turkana who are not kin nor close friends. Through
systematic empirical studies in this unique ethnographic context, my research project here aims to provide a detailed understanding
of the mechanisms underpinning cooperation and moral origins.
I haven't read your good article just yet (although it is doubtful any of it will surprise me or add to what is already more
or less understood), but just to mention that I recently listened to a
podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees from the University of BC
Two things about the podcast that stood out was that William was in fine form (articulate, clear, concise, passionate, 'deathly'
serious, etc.); and the second was his mention of possibly fundamentally changing the natural system of Atlantic cod (fisheries),
so that they may never recover. Not everything can simply reverse, and quickly enough, if they can, such as, say, with the depletion
of the ozone layer, and when it involves all kinds of living systems– much, and the intricacies/complex interconnections, of which
we are blissfully unaware of, despite some of our arrogant pretensions to the contrary (such as with regard to the avocation of
most if not all forms of geoengineering)– it is very serious.
What concerns me also is how some people, such as on this site, can ostensibly claim a required greenwashed BAU from out of
one side of their mouths, while on the other side, express grave concerns for the ecosystem. We cannot have it both ways.
To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability
for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change.
Loren, assuming that's you, I am certain that radical decline, if not outright collapse, is already well underway, despite
the obstinate mindlessness of some people. Just because some don't see something or want to see something doesn't mean it is not
there.
My simple recommendation, especially for certain people WRT this deathwish-for-a-culture is to let go/
get out (and in the process, learn things like permaculture and
local community resilience, and how our ancestors did some of it). Your comforts are much of an illusion (and predicated, for
example, on natural draw-down).
I knew you'd show up sooner or later and since you've always been critical of my support for renewables and EVs, let's bite.
"To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability
for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change."
Are you saying that "there is no real change" going from corporate owned, centrally located, large scale, FF fired generators
to small scale, individually or community owned, distributed renewable generators? If so, that's not what the FF and corporate
generator class in Australia thinks. They have captured the Australian federal government and are fighting renewables as hard
as they can.
Are you saying "there is no real change" going from ICE powered vehicles to EVs that, are perfectly happy to suck electrons
from any source including renewable sources individually owned or owned by a co-op of which the vehicle owner is invested? That's
not an opinion shared by the Koch brothers who are spending millions of dollars to try and paint EVs in a bad light in the eyes
of the public.
Surely you realize that an individual with solar on their roof and an EV is giving a big middle finger to the status quo, including
FF corporations and utilities who will no longer be able to feed at that individual's trough. In case you don't realize it, that
is a very big disruption of "system, along with its 'power-politics'" and no, in case you haven't been listening, "The system,
along with its 'power-politics'", will not be "still intact."
Now if you read my fairly long narrative further up, I hope the point I am trying to make does not escape you. That point is
that there are millions, no lets make that billions of poor poorly educated folks who depend on things like industrial agriculture
and the current status quo for the basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. If the status quo collapses they are
dead, let me say that again, dead! I'm all for dismantling the status quo and replacing it with something that is much kinder
to all life on this pale blue dot we call home but, I shudder at the thought of millions or billions of human beings starving
to death, just as I shudder at what we are doing to the biosphere. Can you see why I'm depressed right now?
There is no real change if we are still relying on the monstrosity that is the crony-capitalist plutarchy/government-big-biz
symbiosis, such as for solar panels, etc. and/or what some misleadingly refer to as 'renewable'.
If you are in the biz– and I think you wrote hereon that you indeed are– then some might suggest, maybe even me, that you are,
say, 'soft-shilling' and/or rationalizing for your product using POB as your platform, and maybe problematically skewing the narrative
a little more towards a dystopic system that we should be getting the hell out of, while making preparations to do so, like learning
how to do the basics in a local, resilient context so that we do not need industrial agro. The longer we rely on industrial anything–
and as if it's somehow morally/ethically neutral– the harder/faster we will likely fall, maybe along something of a seneca curve.
We cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.
Attempting to play on people's heartstrings, such as about poor people in so-called undeveloped locales to sell a product they
don't need and that would risk locking them– and others– into a certain ('Western') lifestyle, in some contexts, approaches contemptible,
by the way.
You should already know how sociogeopoliticultural ideologies like Westernisation is foisted upon the global masses through
physical, cultural, mental and intellectual colonialism, with the result often being wars and deaths to people and traditional
ways of life. Just consider the Middle East right now. In the name of what? Oil and oligarchy?
You've said it yourself hereon that you have some kind of slavery in your family, yes? Well, many people are still slaves anyway,
if with coats of white paint. Libya was in the news recently about that– slavery– incidentally.
If we want to do solar panels etc. the right, ethical ways, we need sea changes, such as that avoid slavery and privilege-by-gun,
but I highly doubt we will manage them in time, and suspect that we are already long past that time.
I am not yet in the business of doing anything with solar PV so, as of right now I have no product that I am shilling for, soft
or hard. I am in a business connected to entertainment if you must know. The entertainment business can by no means be classified
as non-discretionary and recent technology has allowed far more people to compete with me so it will be necessary to get out of
that at some point. How about viewing this as something I see as as worthwhile pursuit for the future of mankind, given my skill
set and thus my advocating it as a worthwhile area for me to pursue a vocation in? I am not only advocating for solar PV because
it's a field I can participate in but, because I think it can contribute a great deal to reductions in carbon emissions among
other noble aspirations.
Are you going to start suggesting that I want to get into the business of manufacturing and selling EVs just because I am suggesting
that large scale EV adoption would be a good thing? I ain't no Elon Musk if that's what your thinking. Now, if the shit hits the
fan and motor fuels became really unobtainium, I might take a stab at an EV conversion business, a la Jack Rickard but, right
now even Jack seems disillusioned with that pursuit, having posted only one new video since the middle of August and only two
new blog posts since the last week of July. At any rate the necessary preconditions for such a business to be successful in an
age of factory made EVs, do not exist.
I am with OFM on the point that some of your ideas for agriculture cannot adequately serve the needs of a rapidly growing population
of 7.5 billion people. My dad who was a descendant of rebel runaway slaves, known in Jamaica as
Maroons , was into agriculture and left me and my
surviving sister a six acre homestead when he died. I can tell you agriculture ain't a walk in the park. It's damned hard work
and carries all sorts of risks not faced by other pursuits (droughts, thieves, diseases pests etc.) . You seem to have some romantic
view of agriculture that I do not share.
As for locking people in to a western lifestyle, that doesn't apply to Jamaica. The western lifestyle came with colonization
and slavery. Do you think that people outside of the developed word should forgo electricity, computers, cell phones, the internet
and other modern conveniences?
Despite all of that, the Caribbean has been bucking western culture for centuries. Trinidad and Tobago has their carnival and
it's music and Jamaica has had as big an impact on western culture with our music (reggae and ska) as western culture has had
on us. Even this past weekend, a dark skinned Jamaican woman sporting a huge afro, placed third in the Miss Universe pageant.
The girl that won was from South Africa and could pass for Caucasian whether she is or not and I didn't see any other black women
in the contest sporting an afro hairstyle (not that I watched it).
When it comes to some things, that train has already left the station. No point in romanticizing about what could have been.
I'd rather focus on what small steps we can take to improve things in the here and now, while moving us to a more sustainable
future. I will probably remain depressed until the new year. Probably more to with not having any immediate family around for
"the festive season" than anything else. Maybe the new year will bring some good news on the renewable/sustainability front! That
would cheer me up!
Islandboy–
After being in Central America for quite a while, and that heavy Catholic noose around everyones neck, it was so liberating to
get out to the islands.
Lets Party Mon!
Now you're talking! We in the Caribbean know how to party! I wouldn't be surprised if we woke up the morning after the collapse
and said, "Collapse? What collapse? We were too busy partying to notice"
Having said that, Trinidad is heavily influenced by catholicism, their carnival being associated with the catholic observance
of Lent. I don't see any evidence of the Trinis (as they are known in the islands) taking the admonitions of their various religious
leaders too seriously. Hell! I've never been to Trinidad carnival but, I hear it's one wild party!
On the other hand, Trinidad should have some long term concerns about what they are going to do after Oil and Gas production
fall below consumption and they have to start importing hydrocarbons. What if either prices are too high or supplies are limited?
What if prices collapse due to lack of demand as Seba suggests will happen after EVS and solar begin to dominate transport and
electricity generation?
Way too early to say. The article dated October 4, 2017 says this:
"The feasibility study will evaluate the viability of installing the wind farm, which would represent one of the first offshore
wind installations in Jamaica and the greater Caribbean region."
I expect the feasibility study is going to take months and I would expect them to do some detailed analysis of the offshore
wind resource in the process. It is good that this study is being done so soon after two devastating hurricanes have hit the region.
Should keep hurricanes very much in the picture.
Looking at some Caribbean buoy data it looks like wind would be a good source of power for the islands.
Beside the wind, the island has about 54 billion kwh/day of sunlight falling on it. That is more than ten times the total energy
production per year for the island. Energy is not a problem, how the energy is generated is the problem.
Cover less than 0.1 percent of the island with solar panels and make up the difference with wind power.
I have done some numbers in terms of what it would take to power the island entirely with renewables, mostly solar. Not impossible
but the technocrats, one of whom is a college classmate of mine, cannot wrap their head around 100% renewable electricity!
Incidentally, I came across a video presentation on Youtube (with a really annoying backing track) that at about
3 minutes in contains the following text:
"Seba's forecasts are predicated on the assumption that the cost of generating and storing electricity will continue to fall
– to the point where just about all generation will be solar by 2030. But electricity production would only have to increase by
18 percent in the US to cope with a complete switch to EVs, he said"
That 18% figure squares quite nicely with some back of the envelope calculations I have done.
I've made good friends with a couple of guys from Jamaica who have friends and family here that have managed to get their permanent
paperwork taken care of.
Unfortunately it doesn't look as if they will ever be able to get permanent resident status. They're older guys, and about
as mellow and fun people to be around as I have ever met. They come up for an extended family visit every fall, which just HAPPENS
to be the time of year local farmers need a lot of extra help, lol.
As soon as I'm finished with family duties, I'm going down to spend a month with them.
Will be spending some money on food and utilities and a few new nice things for them of course, because while they're friends,
they're not well off.
We cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.
Than do the world a favor and unplug yourself from all sources of electricity! At least we here won't have to read your fantasies!
BTW there are plenty of people who understand that the current capitalist system is not the answer, read Kate Raeworth's, Donut
Economics for starters.
Modern humans could no more live without electricity in the 21st century than they could live without food and water. Try living
without refrigeration in any city in the world. You would cause massive starvation in a few days. Try providing medical care to
an urban population without electricity.
You have to be completely delusional to suggest that electricity is not a necessity!
That's all irrelevant to my point which still stands– especially when the system is destroying our planet. We have lived with
electricity for a relative split second of our existence as a species on this planet.
Besides, if we're not treating the planet properly, do we even deserve electricity and its conveniences? I think not.
And then there are assorted uses for electricity, some being more questionable as priorities than others.
Electric car versus fridge?
FWIW, I have personally lived without refrigeration for months in a major city, at least at home after shopping at the grocery
store LOL, but also in the country– more hard-core.
If your local community especially is growing and processing its own food, then it's easy.
There's pickling, drying, fermenting, spicing/salting, alcohol, etc., and natural cool-storage, such as root cellars and simple
cooling-by-evaporation systems.
There's also 'eating as you go'. Other animals do that, and I've never heard of an animal that needs a fridge or electricity,
have you? Maybe your cat at home, but even Meow Mix can last outside the fridge, yes?
But some of us have to actually help make the changes, such as to the narrative, and limit the cling to some kinds of BAU narratives
and fantasies.
Do it for Mother Earth, Fred. Or me. Or Harvey Weinstein or whoever/whatever motivates you. Coral.
Obviously, we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, but there are plenty of ways to manage, maintain and consume
food that don't require a fridge. So if we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, maybe we should start talking
more about how to live without them and/or with greater resilience.
But even if the juice stays on forevermore, some juiceless skills and knowledge are great to learn, have and apply.
BTW, I just watched this documentary on rare earths– the apparently
highly-polluting stuff that's supposed to help power, until they run out, all these new and relatively-useless electrical gadgets
now and in the future to get off of those other pollutants.
but just to mention that I recently listened to a podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees
from the University of BC
Highly recommended.
And I'm not a fan of some of Martenson's guests.
I came across the podcast indirectly via another site, but do sometimes run into Chris' material. He seems good at interviewing
and is easy to follow in videos.
This post is going to be a gold mine for me, because it relates directly to so much of what I'm working on for publication in
book form if I ever manage to finish it to my satisfaction. Here's hoping it attracts over a thousand comments, lol! I'm especially
interested in comments that dispute my own, because those are the ones enable me to understand my own blind spots.
Now so far, nobody has said anything about what I will refer to as the SECOND key fact that one must understand to understand
evolution. Hoyle missed the first one altogether, making a total fool of himself, although he was a brilliant scientist, one of
the top men in HIS field, his mistake being that he failed to understand that evolution BUILDS on it's PAST " accomplishments".
The second key fact I am hereby pointing out is that while evolution creates new life forms that reproduce to fill any and
all available niches, there's no GUIDANCE involved, no overall PLAN, no GOD in charge, if you wish to put it that way.
Evolution is characterized in large part by parsimony, by being conservative in the use of resources. Animals that don't have
use for claws don't have claws like tigers, lol, and animals that don't eat grass out in the fields don't have digestive systems
like COWS. Evolution creates organisms that are "good at" taking advantage of whatever resources are available, WITHOUT REGARD
ANY FUTURE CONSEQUENCES because there is NO LONG TERM PLAN. Behavioral BRAKES that aren't needed don't evolve, lol, and countless
things that would be extremely useful, like eyes in the back of our heads, which would keep us from being attacked from the rear,
don't often evolve either, because .. well because of more factors than I have any inclination to cover at this minute. Half of
the SHORT answer is that eyes in the back of our heads would cost us more in terms of sacrificing something else than they would
gain for us. The other half of the SHORT answer is that since pure chance plays such a big role . the odds are astronomically
high against it happening anyway.
This a comment/ rant, not a BOOK. The BOOK is in the works, and will be available free to member of this forum who may want
to read it and point out shortcomings in it before I publish it, most likely for free on the net. I'm not so arrogant as to think
anybody will PAY for it, lol.
Dead ends, blind alleys, and death, at the individual level, and or at the species level, means absolutely NOTHING to "Mother
Nature" because she is not sentient, she's not moral, she's not even ALIVE in the usual sense. She's just an artifact, a tool,
that we naked apes have invented in our efforts to understand reality.
What I'm getting at, since She IS parsimonious, is that She does not provide brakes where none are needed.
Sometimes things do evolve that prove to be useful under new circumstances, but when this happens, it's just a lucky accident
for the creature involved. If for instance a creature evolves a forelimb capable of grasping a branch, so that it can climb better,
lol, later on the ability to GRASP something MAY come in very handy, because it sets the stage for that creature being able to
grasp a stone which can be used as a tool or weapon. This does NOT mean the creature WILL eventually discover the use of tools
and weapons. It DOES mean the probability of such evolution is vastly enhanced. There's NO PLANNING INVOLVED . except in the minds
of deists who accept the reality of evolution while also retaining the concept of a God or gods or some guiding force of some
sort.
IF the need arises for BRAKES, well then, die off, or even extinction, takes care of the problem. If a given species eats only
a given plant, and that plant goes extinct, Mother Nature does not grieve for either the plant, nor the species that feeds exclusively
upon it,which very likely also goes extinct. She doesn't even consciously keep score, as indifferently as a hired bookkeeper keeps
books for a client he has never met and will never meet. She does however inadvertently create a RECORD of historical "scores"
, which we can read. It's the fossil record.
It's rather amusing that professional biologists go around talking about human stupidity as if there is something inherently
WRONG with people, as if we are collectively DEFECTIVE. We are what we are because we are final product ( up until today ) of
our own evolutionary history. We're as " good " or "well designed "as we are evolved to be, like all other living creatures.
Engineers build in safety margins, and add features that may be useful, under certain circumstances, when they design things,
because they DO work with and from PRECONCEIVED PLANS. Mother Nature doesn't make plans, she just deals and redeals the cards,
over and over, and will continue to do so until all life on this planet perishes which won't be until the sun expands sufficiently
to destroy the last vestiges of life on it.
We are NOT something different from the rest of biological creation, we do NOT operate under different rules, we aren't on
some sort of fucking pedestal, separate from the rest of the biosphere. THAT whole crock of shit sort of thinking is one of the
cornerstones of kinds of the thinking that some of the regulars here like to make fun of, such as religion, nationalism, racism,
etc.
A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up
his ass. NO. NO. No.
We have succeeded,basically for no other reason that accident in the last analysis, to the point we compete mostly with each
other, rather than other species.
The evolved PROGRAMS hard wired into our brains that drive our behavior DO NOT include much in the way of built in brakes,
because BRAKES HAVE COSTS. If we over populate, if we use up critical resources on which we depend for our survival, and perish,
there's NOBODY who gives a shit.. other than some of us who are aware of the fact that we ARE in overshoot. Mother Nature is INCAPABLE
of giving a shit.
The whole fucking idea that we are SOMETHING SPECIAL was probably originated by the first priests and their allies. It's an
idea that has little to do with any discussion based on real SCIENCE within the context of understanding our own overshoot .
Now none of this rant should be interpreted as indicating I don't know and understand that humans are tribal creatures, that
we are social creatures, and that we survive and thrive because we DO live and work cooperatively. The thing is , we survive and
thrive as COMPETING communities, tribes, and nations, rather than as a SINGLE global community. Wolf packs compete. Prides of
lions compete. Bands of chimps compete. We humans compete with each other. Talking as if we are DEFECTIVE because we behave this
way is a waste of time.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough and fast enough, we do sometimes cooperate with our former enemies, at least temporarily.Old
enemies can be new allies.
It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe
even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global
level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate
to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control
agreements.
But just because it's theoretically possible that we can cooperate at the species level globally doesn't mean it's going to
happen. I don't think there's any real likelihood of it happening, although alliances consisting of the various major economic
and military powers do exist and will continue to exist and some of these alliances will prove to be critically important in determining
the course of future history.
"A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his
ass. NO. NO. No." Do you mean E. O. Wilson has his head up his ass?
In his newly published The Social Conquest of the Earth -- the 27th book from this two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize
-- Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too. Ants
rule the microhabitats they occupy, consigning other insects and small animals to life at the margins; humans own the macroworld,
Wilson says, which we have transformed so radically and rapidly that we now qualify as a kind of geological force. How did we
and the ants gain our superpowers? By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish
desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. There are plenty of
social animals in the world, animals that benefit by living in groups of greater or lesser cohesiveness. Very few species, however,
have made the leap from merely social to eusocial, "eu-" meaning true. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals
must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least
some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough to be a eusocialist. Wouldn't you rather just grab, gulp and
go? Yet the payoffs of sustained cooperation can be huge. Eusociality, Wilson writes, "was one of the major innovations in the
history of life," comparable to the conquest of land by aquatic animals, or the invention of wings or flowers. Eusociality, he
argues, "created superorganisms, the next level of biological complexity above that of organisms." The spur to that exalted state,
he says, was always a patch of prized real estate, a focal point luring group members back each day and pulling them closer together
until finally they called it home. "All animal species that have achieved eusociality, without exception, at first built nests
that they defended from enemies," Wilson writes. An anthill. A beehive. A crackling campfire around which the cave kids could
play, the cave elders stay and the buffalo strips blacken all day. Trespassers, of course, would be stoned on sight.
As is evident by some of the comments on this thread, while the hive may be able to display collective intelligence, the individual
ants can still be pretty dumb! Do check out the link I posted to 'The Mind's I' chapter 11 Prelude to Ant Fugue.
The idea is still sound! If humans have not yet evolved to the point that they are able to include the whole globe as a part of
their hive Well, that's a separate issue and may indeed mean that we are collectively fucked! Because not enough of us have reached
that particular point in our evolution.
As George Carlin once said: "The Planet is fine, it's the people that are fucked"
An idea is sound only if it can be implemented, otherwise it is just a bunch of sugars turned to heat and in this case trees turned
to wastepaper.
My point was not that E.O. Wilson is wrong, but that he would not have presented such a point if he did not think it possible
or even probable. It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. Humanity
cooperates on large scale right now.
Looking at the update of Limits to Growth I get the feeling that the flattening out of some of the parameters (energy, industrial
output) may be misinterpreted. The same thing would happen if an energy and industrial transistion were occurring.
The key question is what does a transistion look like initially?
A field to a forest transistion looks a lot like field, then some bushes with a few small trees, then eventually almost all
trees. Originally the trees are hardly there at all and don't seem to be having much effect as their leaves smoother a lot of
plant life around them and they take up more and more of the solar energy that used to reach the ground. It starts small then
spreads to complete takeover.
An energy and industrial transistion goes hand in hand with a social/governmental transistion. It looks small and scattered
at first but steadily fills in even despite the resistance of the legacy systems. Key to the fast takeover is the weakening of
the previous growth and it's demise leaving easy space for the takeover.
For example, I have a kitchen ceiling light fixture. It has three bulb positions. I had replaced the three 60 watt incandescent
bulbs years ago with a 100 watt CFL (running actual 25 watts).
Last night the CFL started flickering so I pulled it and it had burn marks on the base of the bulb. The CFL bulb has now been
replaced by two 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs which together use only 16 watts and provide more light than the CFL.
Also the LED bulbs may never have to be replaced in my lifetime. 180 watts to 16 watts and no more replacement, that is high ground
transistion! Now $4 replaces over $500 on the user end and eliminates large amounts of pollution.
The power cost and economics have overshadowed the legacy instrument in an inexorable way. The death of an individual instrument
allowed the replacement by a superior one.
I think that effect has been happening all across the world in many areas of energy use and industrial process for decades. This
effect may have been interpreted as a reduction in energy and industrial output while it is really mostly a transistion in process.
So how do we get a fast takeover? Strand and remove the old legacy assets and systems plus do not replace dead systems with
the same system. The action is harsh, but that is how it is done.
I will know we are on the right course when I see those large glass buildings being stripped of their components, their glass
re-used, their steel reused and recycled, their wiring removed as they are removed. Why and how do we put up R2 buildings that
soak up huge amounts of energy for heating and cooling? They need to go now. Passenger vehicles that get less than 150 pMPG need
to go now and no passenger vehicle that gets below 400 pMPG should be built ever again. There are many inefficient, harmful and
problematical systems that could be removed and changed.
Trash the old ways now and insert better ways, ones that work longer with less harm. Make new systems that heal soil and nature
in general. The collapse is occurring now, take advantage of it by putting in superior systems that allow E.O. Wilson's Half-Earth
idea to flourish, not finish.
Personally, until a lot of the old stupid harmful systems are put aside we can't see clearly if a fast collapse is at hand
or not. Maybe if we just stop following bad and stupid we can ease off our consumption of the planet and reverse some of the major
problems we face. There may be no real need to go through a grand scale collapse and huge loss of species.
""It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. "
BULLSHIT.
Here's what I actually said in a comment upthread. It was posted a day previous to your comment, lol.
"It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe
even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global
level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate
to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control
agreements. "
Perhaps I ought to lecture you a little on the meaning of the word EXPECT within the context I used it, which I think is obvious
enough to anybody who WANTS to understand. In this context, expect means (or not ) that cooperation will happen spontaneously,
or with only moderate incentives.
I don't think global level cooperation will happen, IF it happens, until the incentives to cooperate are OBVIOUS and overwhelming,
when it comes to really changing the way we do things. I don't think any competent biologist will argue with this position, speaking
in the broadest terms, painting with the so called broad brush.
We do after all have a few thousand years of known history that indicates that we are as apt to fight as cooperate, lol.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough, id it also hits slowly enough for us wake up , I EXPECT ( PREDICT ) that WE WILL COOPERATE
on the grand scale, at least up to the nation state level, in most nations, and frequently at the international level, and MAYBE
even at the global level.
I must admit I'm a little behind in reading E O Wilson, who is as capable a scientist as any in his field, and head and shoulders
above almost all the rest, in my opinion. He's also one of the best writers ever in his field, probably THE best writer in biology
in my personal opinion.
But so far as a I know, and I have read all of his older books, unless I'm mistaken, he would basically agree with me, because
I am, as I interpret his work, AGREEING WITH HIM.
There's a HELL OF DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING people to cooperate on the grand scale, and believing they are capable of doing
so.I believe we are capable of cooperating on the grand scale, given sufficient motivation to do so, and have said so already
in this thread. I don't EXPECT us to cooperate with people we see as outsiders and enemies, but given new circumstances, new conditions,
new problems, new fears, we can and sometimes do find new common ground, and make friends with former enemies.
I'm ready to bet the farm that I'm WITH E O WILSON, rather than AGAINST HIM.
Nuance matters.
To me at least, lol.
A couple of days back in another thread, you lectured me, telling me to THINK GLOBALLY, as if to imply I 'm unaware that most
of the people in the world are still desperately poor. I have never said that most of humanity is well off. I have never IMPLIED
that most of humanity is well off.
What I DID say, is that FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, quoting myself, that there is a sound case to be made for the trickle down effect,
and that a substantial number of even very poor people humanity HAVE ALREADY benefited greatly from economic and technological
progress.
Hundreds of millions of desperately poor people are benefiting today from progress made in fields ranging from public health
to industrial agriculture to renewable energy , etc. Hundreds of millions of very poor people are making relatively fast economic
progress by some measures, for instance in the rate at which they are able to make use of at least some electricity, even if it's
only a single light powered by a battery recharged by a small solar panel.
The less you have, the greater the marginal value of anything new you are able to get.
Just one rechargeable light is worth a LOT to a person who has no other option than perhaps a candle or kerosene lamp or a
home made torch.
Incidentally I can remember being told by my grand parents that back when they were kids, it wasn't at all usual to literally
light a ( corn ) shuck to provide some light so as to make a quick run to the outdoor privy or take care of some other after dark
chore. They had kerosene, but it was considered wasteful to use it unnecessarily.
Things can and do get better sometimes, even on the global scale, lol.
E.O. Wilson would not have written the book Half Earth if he did not think that people could and would cooperate on a grand scale.
I don't think he was just blowing wind. Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others.
I have not read his latest book yet " The Social Conquest of Earth" which relates to this subject.
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."
Bullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up his name, and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again. There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people
EXCEPT when circumstances leave the various groups little or no choice, and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND that the only real option
they have IS to cooperate.
ONCE various competing groups or societies come to understand that they have little or nothing in the way of viable choice
other than cooperation, well then I PREDICT OR EXPECT them to cooperate.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
If you want to play word games,I'm ready, because it's TRAINING as well as entertainment for me. I need all the practice I
can get when it comes to making my arguments clear before I go out on my own with my own book and web site .. EVENTUALLY.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
You ask for opposing opinions then you get nasty and personal and show no sign of wanting to learn or discuss anything, just shove
your ideas. Since you apparently are not capable of dealing with opinions or thoughts other than your own, I will cease interacting
with you. Plus you are always yelling in your comments, very rude.
Here is what you actually said ""A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like
consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No."
I want opposing opinions , and I'm always on the lookout for new facts. I do NOT want my words twisted into pretzels so that they
appear to mean something diametrically opposite to what I actually said, by taking them out of context.
I think you are more interested in finding personal fault with me than you are in actually discussing facts, possibilities,
and ideas.
I use a lot of caps, but seldom more than five or six words at a time, because caps are a lot quicker for me than taking time
to use italics or bold.
I'm not presenting a paper for publication here, lol. I'm just participating in a conversation. If you want to take offense,
feel free, it's still somewhat of a free country.
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."
Bullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up Wilson , and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again.
There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people under ordinary
circumstances versus under new and compelling circumstances.
IF AND WHEN circumstances leave various groups little or no choice other than cooperation, , and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND
that the only real option they have IS cooperation , well then .
I expect or predict that such groups WILL cooperate, sometimes, maybe even almost every time.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
Well, MOST of the audience here , anyway.
Understanding is tough for those who prefer NOT to understand.
This is pretty much nonsense. People are very different than other animals because they get ideas in their head and follow them.
That's the secret to our success -- we change our game plan all the time instead of being stuck in a single niche like most species.
It's always hard to guess which ideas are going to work out, but societies choose -- so to speak -- whether to destroy themselves
or not.
America has been choosing self destruction for several decades, and the eschatology our wacky creed planted in our minds seems
very attractive, especially to old farts -- the alternative is to try something different.
Many societies have shown themselves to be resilient an sustainable. America has a colonial mentality that doesn't support
that, even when it's obvious. My grandmother was born in Kansas and when she talked about the Dust Bowl she would shake her head
and say, "I always told them not to cut down those cottonwoods -- they were the only thing keeping the farm from being blown away".
Now they're depleting the aquifier in Kansas by planting maize for diesel. So the desert will continue to spread.
But the Japanese aren't like that at all. They've been planting trees for centuries. They don't have much choice, because the
hills aren't very stable there. They'll get through.
And the Sahel Zone, the world's worst and poorest place, is changing as well. They've started replanting. A lot of them will
survive.
Crazy hippies like this may do better than you think. Civilizations come and go, the species won't die for a while.
Root hog or die, as my father used to say. You can't imagine a world without Walmart, but it isn't the end of the world.
Another thought -- The Tasmanians. They were probably the wolrd's most primitive culture. They were cut off from the very old
Australian mainland after the Ice Ages, and seems to have even forgotten fishhooks one of mankind's oldest technologies. But they
had their ways, and they survived.
thank you Ron for this posting. I am in complete agreement with you on this.
nothing more important. it is a bizarre and tragic spectacle to behold, and to participate in.
what a poor use of such an incredible biosphere.
Many people from the looks of it here try to deal with the crises we face as a species and civilization the same way as myself.
I spend much time here in front of modern electronic gadgetry. It's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world
along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated
humans with. Yes this is truly a sick sad world we live in now. Matthew 13:38-40.
It's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord
and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated humans with.
You are likely to be waiting a very long time. Religious stupidity makes the problem worse, never better.
1. Any quotes of someone's book on collapse and how collapse happens based on history . . . all worthless. There is no history.
2) There is no history because there has never been 7 billion before. There has never been collapse with nuclear weapons involved
before. There has never been collapse with the maggot and fly total in the atmosphere from 6.5 billion corpses before.
3) Chinese oil consumption lags US per capita and they are striving mightily to correct that, as they should. When per capita
consumption growth becomes difficult, they HAVE to take oil from someone else. That someone else's population starts to starve
for lack of food production or transport. They object to the theft of "their" oil. War. They must. War or starve.
4) Consider Japan. Consider the relations between China and Japan. Japan cries out . . . you're taking this oil to improve
your country's standard of living and you are starving our country to death to do this. How can you find morality in this? China
will have no trouble whatsoever contriving morality in this.
5) Simply that. When there isn't enough to go around, no one will quietly accept inadequate amounts. Nor should they. All other
stuff about global warming and debt and sacrificing lifestyle for someone else is just so much bizarre delusion. You got too little
to live, you kill whoever took it.
'Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning' by Timothy Snyder is quite good. If you're not into the minutia of east European
history circa WW2 then just cut to the conclusion. 'Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin' is good too.
Almost anyone, I suppose, can call himself or herself an anarchist, if he or she believed that the society could be managed
without the state. And by the state -- I don't mean the absence of any institutions, the absence of any form of social organisation
-- the state really refers to a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preëmpt the control of
society from the people. So that would include the military, judges, politicians, representatives who are paid for the express
purpose of legislating, and then an executive body that is also set aside from society. So anarchists generally believe that,
whether as groups or individuals, people should directly run society.
-Murray Bookchin
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough
to rule others.
-Edward Abbey
Let's assume for a moment a World without any governments at all.
Let's also assume there at 7.4 billion people in the World.
I just don't see how that works. The World is not a perfect place, but it is far from clear that a World without any government(s)
would be an improvement.
When some one comes up with a plan that is appealing to the majority of citizens in some nation, perhaps such a form of non-government
will be instituted.
Collapse Dynamics: Initial Conditions, Media Manipulation and The Short-Circuiting of Consensuality
Hi Dennis,
I see anarchy, if it is understood correctly, as potentially having government if it is optional/consensual/legitimate.
For example, if I want you to represent me until which time as I say otherwise , then you can if you wish
.
I also see anarchy as potentially 'hierarchical', or at least pseudohierarchical, if it is chosen freely.
So, for example, if I want you to tie me to a bed and have your way with me as your 'slave' if you wish ,
until which time as I or you opt out , then that is still ok. (fans face with hand)
It is about consensuality and a large part of the whole idea behind media manipulation of the masses is to 'short-circuit'
consensuality– IOW, to make the masses consent to what they might not have normally consented to.
At the moment, I do not consent, for example, to what we call 'government' to take my money, or 'skim my labor', such as in
the form of taxation. It is an 'initial condition' (think the butterfly effect) that can cascade, and seems to have cascaded,
over time into dangerous, 'hurricane', territory. I mention this angle also to hopefully appeal to your apparent understanding
and appreciation of physics and physical dynamics over time.
Right now, there is software available, ostensibly to support government governing consensually, called
Loomio . There are likely others as well.
Your assertion does not necessarily stand to reason and is just an assertion without support. I could flip/modify it this way:
If taxes were consensual, then people would likely feel a greater sense of belonging to their locales and how they are shaped
and so give them freely and as they see fit.
Consensual tax collection could be viewed as part of the modus operandi of actual government, rather than as a kind of
large-scale centralized armed coercive mob, such that it appears.
See also here . I'll paraphrase
some of it for you (again)
" if economics is to become an instrument of freedom and prosperity instead of an instrument of statism, then there are
certain fundamental fallacies that must be continually challenged and discredited. Chief among these is the persistent non
sequitur from externality to coercion -- that is, the bogus conclusion that coercion is a proper means to solve problems involving
economic externalities.
One of the most blatant examples of this non sequitur occurs in discussions of the 'free rider problem' and the alleged
solution of government provision of so-called 'public goods'. This is a particularly insidious economic theory that bears a
great deal of the responsibility of derailing economics into the ditch of statism." ~
Ben O'Neill
A system that works for many more people, rather than a handful of elites, would appear to be a system that truly echoes what
the people actually want, rather than what they are forced to.
On the matter of carrying capacity, I have a minor quibble with some of the ideas presented here. Let me start by outlining my
understanding of what is being said about carrying capacity.
"So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained at about two hundred million tons, give or take"
So that lays a base line for carrying capacity but, unnatural selection, the selection of higher output varieties of crops
or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would
be sustainable indefinitely. The use of fertilizer, primarily organic types, if done in a sustainable way and by that I mean,
returning animal and human waste streams to the soil, would also result in a more or less permanent increase in carrying capacity.
So far, I've outlined two methods that humans could have used to positively influence carrying capacity more or less permanently.
The big change in carrying capacity comes with the FF age and the industrial revolution, first with the advent of mechanization
and then with the Haber-Bosch process. A quick Internet search to refresh my memory of what the Haber-Bosch process entails, reveals
that it is the chemical synthesis of ammonia (NH3) from nitrogen and hydrogen. Herein lies the basis for the connection between
the petroleum industry and fertilizer industries and by extension carrying capacity. However, if we have enough excess energy
we can easily get nitrogen from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water though I'm not sure how well that would work at a industrial
scale at a global level.
So between the manufacture of fertilizers and the use of diesel powered machinery in farming, we have seen a huge increase
in the ability to produce food. Ostensibly this ability can only last as long as the NG used to obtain hydrogen at an industrial
scale and the petroleum to fuel the farm machines. However, the University of Minnesota has a Wind to Nitrogen
Fertilizer project that aims to use excess wind power to manufacture ammonia so, it may well be that, if sufficient amounts
of renewable energy can be harnessed, the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers could be extended way beyond the end of the petroleum
age.
That is the basis for my minor quibble. Obviously, fossil hydrocarbons have allowed us to increase the carrying capacity of
the planet in a way that can only last as long as the finite hydrocarbon reserves do. Might it not be the case that, a transition
to renewable energy on a massive scale would allow a more or less sustainable increase in the carrying capacity of the planet
above and beyond the 200 million tons of terrestrial vertebrate biomass that existed 10,000 years ago? I would argue that, from
the standpoint of energy, renewable energy has the potential to yield a far more sustainable increase in carrying capacity than
fossil energy has. What the level of that carrying capacity is would require a fair amount of academic research.
I fully concede that there are all sorts of other resource limits that will negatively affect carrying capacity. Maybe I'm
just bargaining.
Islandboy, there is no doubt that the carrying capacity of human beings can be increased somewhat by the use of organic
fertilizers. But it is chemical fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity.
Of course when the carrying capacity of humans is increased the carrying capacity of wild species, especially megafauna is
decreased.
That is one thing that just drives me up the wall. Everyone is concerned about the welfare of human beings. No one seems to
give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species.
Hi Ron, I hope your doing well. Thank you for a great post. It sure explains why Costco was so F'n busy last weekend.
"No one seems to give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species"
That's just not all true. I'm pretty sure GoneFishing cares about his dog a lot more than myself.
"the selection of higher output varieties of crops or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity
and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would be sustainable indefinitely"
I think you could include the knowledge of harvesting water and controlled irrigation also increasing sustainable capacity
Humans evolved to become the equivalent of RNA in cells. We use tools and information, primarily in technological cells and use
them with ATP equivalent fossil fuels to do work. Like organisms or cells in the ecosystem, human organizations seek to grow,
profit and take market share – to further their existence.
The human brain is primarily a reward seeking organ as is most neural tissue in the ecosystem. Since humans are dissipative
structures, not seeking rewards is the greatest threat they face. Most other threats, short of being chased by a pack of wild
dogs, can be watered down and ignored since the brain must concentrate on getting resources and energy. Even though a human can
think about things, it does not substitute for being greedy and gathering as much wealth as possible and reproducing prolifically.
We're selected for doing that.
The natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological
setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction.
Civilization is an explosive cancer that emerged from the ecosystem to consume and destroy the ecological body. Humans are the
RNA that can't stop reproducing and stimulate the growth of new cells and distribution systems until the entire consumable earth
is covered and the ecosystem dies or at least becomes much less complex.
In many wealthy nations total fertility has fallen below the replacement level, in fact for about half the World's population
TFR is below replacement (dividing things up by nation state). Generally it is higher income nations where this is the case and
correlation between education level and total fertility is very strong.
These facts and the trend in Global education levels for women don't square very well with your theory.
As Ron has suggested, homo sapiens sapiens is not your average species.
Even the education occurs in schools, the cellular equivalent of the nucleolus. Instead of pursuing the rewards of children, women
are pursuing "wealth" created by the technological system. I'm not sure which one is most damaging.
The natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological
setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction.
And out of which orifice did you pull all that BS out of?! Let me guess, you are of the Neo-Liberal Economist school of though,
right? Try cracking a few tomes on human evolution and anthropology instead of failed 20th century memes about the nature of man
and rationality of markets.
You don't see any greed? None in the ecosystem? Why is everyone trying to accumulate more wealth? Why do all organisms struggle
to eat and reproduce to the maximum? Look in the cell, it's all happened before, but mostly with sunshine at the base.
Why do we worship the likes of Warren Buffett?
Cooperation exists, but only to enhance competition against a similarly cooperating group.
Blowing Up the Territory Trump's biggest break came from the Democratic party. Booking Hillary Clinton as the good guy in this match was a colossal
error, especially when the most improbable thing in all of politics was waiting in the wings: a legit babyface.
Bernie Sanders came off like Paddington Bear next to Hillary Clinton. Bernie was a nice old Jewish man from Vermont who legitimately
meant well, and he got a real pop from his fans. He drew like crazy. Hell, even I sent him money, the first time I have ever contributed
to a political campaign -- every time he got on TV and started shooting about marijuana smokers going to jail while Wall Street
hoodlums were walking, I Paypaled him five bucks. I had waited my whole life to hear a politician cut a promo like that -- I think
he eventually ended up with a Jackson from me, straight from my personal pot budget.
As a face, Clinton just had too much baggage, a lot of it achingly familiar: A partner known for predatory sexual behavior,
wicked family ties to big business, an entitled daughter, a family charity fund loaded with foreign money, lies, flip flops. .
. . What was good for the goose might have been tolerable for the gander, but all she really got was a cheap pop, and if she had
any moral high ground at all, she lost it when former Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working for CNN, leaked potential
questions to the Clinton campaign before a debate with Sanders. That was cheating, behavior clearly unbecoming to a babyface.
But more important was that she failed to deliver on the only thing that matters: she didn't draw. For a while it looked like
there might be a "Dusty finish," a gimmick ending (named for Dusty Rhodes, the legendary wrestler and booker who invented it)
in which one wrestler is declared the winner, only to have the decision reversed on a technicality -- for instance, interference
from Russian hackers. This was a finish guaranteed to drive crowds insane, but Hillary couldn't put it over.
So who's the best worker? If we are using the Hulk Hogan index, it is indisputably Donald Trump. He won the election. He's
the president.
But when it all comes tumbling down, be ready for a fresh wave of Trump-brand kayfabe -- transparently flawed in both conception
and execution, except that he actually believes it. He'll ride off in his helicopter claiming that Washington was too dirty to
clean up, that he tried but he couldn't drain the swamp, that they wouldn't accept the One Honest Man. He'll blame obstructionist
Democrats for staging a witch hunt, and the Republicans for not having the guts to back him. In wrestling parlance this is called
"blowing up the territory."
Pundits will argue: How much of it was real, how much reality show? How much was a put-on, how much of it was a guy legit
skating at the edges of madness and dementia? Was it a work, a shoot, or a worked shoot? The only thing we can be sure of is that
the secular writers will get it wrong. And, existentially, at least, Trump will still wear spandex when he mows the lawn. He can't
help himself, that's just the kind of jerk he is.
Organisms evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power. With greater power, there is greater opportunity to allocate
energy to reproduction and survival, and therefore, an organism that captures and utilizes more energy than another organism in
a population will have a fitness advantage.
Individual organisms cooperate to form social groups and generate more power. Differential power generation and accumulation result
in a hierarchical group structure.
"Politics" is power used by social organisms to control others. Not only are human groups never alone, they cannot control their
neighbors' behavior. Each group must confront the real possibility that its neighbors will grow its numbers and attempt to take
resources from them. Therefore, the best political tactic for groups to survive in such a milieu is not to live in ecological
balance with slow growth, but to grow rapidly and be able to fend off and take resources from others[5].
The inevitable "overshoot" eventually leads to decreasing power attainable for the group with lower-ranking members suffering
first. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals
who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain it. Meanwhile, social conflict will intensify as available power continues
to fall.
Eventually, members of the weakest group (high or low rank) are forced to "disperse."[6] Those members of the weak group who do
not disperse are killed,[7] enslaved, or in modern times imprisoned. By most estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all the people who
lived in Stone-Age societies died at the hands of other humans.[8] The process of overshoot, followed by forced dispersal, may
be seen as a sort of repetitive pumping action -- a collective behavioral loop -- that drove humans into every inhabitable niche
of our planet.
Here is a synopsis of the behavioral loop described above:
Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or
over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation
result in a hierarchical group structure.
Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power available to some members of the group, with
lower-ranking members suffering first.
Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original group. Low-rank members will form subgroups
and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions
to maintain power.
Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share of the remaining power.
Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.
Step 6. Go back to step 1.
The above loop was repeated countless thousands of times during the millions of years that we were evolving[9]. This behavior
is inherent in the architecture of our minds -- is entrained in our biological material -- and will be repeated until we go extinct.
Carrying capacity will decline[10] with each future iteration of the overshoot loop, and this will cause human numbers to decline
until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene. http://www.dieoff.org
"There's no indication that we're going to do anything philosophically different," said Jim Blackburn, an environmental law
professor at Rice University. "With a few modifications, it's business as usual."
As Houston rebuilds from the most expensive hurricane in U.S. history, local officials plan to dredge waterways, build new
reservoirs and a coastal barrier to protect against storms that experts say are growing in intensity due to a warming climate.
They have asked Washington for $61 billion to pay for it all.
Apart from our own actions there may be random events that can take us out. There's a report in the Times today of research into
super-eruptions. The Toba explosion, 75,000 years ago, almost took out Homo sapiens. The latest research indicates such events
(maybe not quite as bad) happen on average every 17,000 years instead of every few hundred thousand as previously thought, and
we are currently in an unusually long hiatus from these.
The biggest explosion since "civilization" started was probably Krakatoa in the 6th century, which has been proposed as the
beggining of the dark ages in Europe and the end of a couple of other civilizations, though there's a bit of controversy about
that theory, but it was much milder than an explosion from one of the major calderas would be.
Continuing from above (this mirrors my own experience in Central Africa where families currently seem to be averaging about four
kids each):
POPULATION GROWTH IN AFRICA: GRASPING THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE
"In the past year (2016) the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will
exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. This comes to 3.5
million more people per month, or 80 additional people per minute since the early 1990s, family planning programmes in Africa
have not had the same attention (as Asia and Latin America), RESULTING IN SLOW, SOMETIMES NEGLIGIBLE, FERTILITY DECLINES. IN A
HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES, PREVIOUS DECLINES HAVE STALLED ALTOGETHER AND ARE REVERSING."
WHY HAVE FOUR CHILDREN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE SEVEN? FAMILY PLANNING IN NIGER
" but Hamani is unusual in that three babies are enough for her. Despite having the highest fertility rate in the world, women
and men alike in Niger say they want more children than they actually have – women want an average of nine, while men say they
want 11."
Sounds like an explosion that will lead to implosion and migration. Families used to be fairly large in the European and American
regions not long ago. Some still are. There are 27.7 million people in Uganda. But by 2025 the population will almost double to 56 million, close to that of Britain,
which has a similar land mass. In 44 years its population will have grown by nearly as much as China's.
"You look at these numbers and think 'that's impossible'," said Carl Haub, senior demographer at the US-based Population Reference
Bureau, whose latest global projections show Uganda as the fastest-growing country in the world. Midway through the 21st century,
if current birthrates persist, Uganda will be the world's 12th most populous country with 130 million people – more than Russia
or Japan.
That sounds about right and from personal observation almost all 27.7 million of them are school kids who (currently) are quite
well nourished and with decent health care. A big problem, as I see it, is that virtually all schools in Uganda are run by "Western"
churches who seen determined to increase the size of their flock by NOT teaching their students about contraception and the benefits
thereof: sound familiar?
Doug – like you I have some sponsorship in Africa – a general women's group rather than an individual. From their letters what
they want is education (both formal for the children and also just tips on farming and running a business), enough money (very
little) to start a business so they can feed their children, a way to manage HIV if they are infected (many still are) and peace
and quiet. What they don't want is more children, forced marriage through kidnap, the return of their husbands to beat them up,
interference from the elders (all men) in their business. Often they only realise these options are even possible after they have
had contact with the groups set up by the charity.
George – My African experiences are mainly restricted to Uganda (the pearl of Africa) where my family visit annually and have
done so for almost 20 years; we love the country, the people, the wildlife. Its been a joy watching the girl we assisted progress
from kindergarten to medical school; to meet and relate to her extended family who've become our close friends. The country (Uganda)
and the people are currently doing well, very well indeed (unless you happen to be gay). Wildlife parks flourish and are well
managed. My concerns relate to the future. There are too many kids. In my opinion, without reigning in population growth the country
will face immense over-population problems in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Having said that, I agree with your comments -- all
of them. And its true, woman's business groups are in many respects the future of Africa.
For anyone seeking a plausible scientific explanation for why:
– one species has a uniquely powerful brain
– why the brain of that species is capable of visiting the moon but incapable of understanding or acting on it's own overshoot
– why one small group of hominids exploded about 100,000 to take over the planet
– why religion emerged simultaneous with the behaviorally modern mind about 100,000 years ago
– and more big questions: https://un-denial.com/2017/06/25/why-my-interest-in-denial/
I find this theory by Ajit Varki and Danny Brower very satisfying.
That's a smart site you have there. I read that book some time ago, it's interesting but I thought a bit of a just-so story, but
that's maybe becasue the ideas woud be so hard to prove one way or the other. It's a pity Brower died before his ideas got out
to more discussion.
Your initial reaction to the theory is perfectly reasonable and common.
If you dig deeper and start connecting dots I think you may find it is the best available explanation for many big unanswered
questions. The theory may not be correct but there are no known facts that slay it, nor any other equally elegant theories that
fit the data better.
Varki acknowledges the difficulty of testing the theory, but does point to some promising avenues of research. Unfortunately
Varki's speciality and day job is in a different domain so his theory is likely to sit on the shelf until some young scientist
with a defective denial gene picks up the baton.
I did find it neat and convincing as you say, but that's the point of just-so stories, plus it's difficult to know where to go
if it is correct, but I'm going to be visiting your site without question.
WILL OVERPOPULATION LEAD TO PUBLIC HEALTH CATASTROPHE?
"Our new projections are probabilistic, and we find that there will probably be between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people in 2100,"
Prof. Raftery told Medical News Today. "This projection is based on a statistical model that uses all available past data on fertility
and mortality from all countries in a systematic way, unlike previous projections that were based on expert assumptions."
"A key finding of the study is that the fertility rate in Africa is declining much more slowly than has been previously estimated,
which Prof. Raftery tells us "has major long-term implications for population."
No discussion about human evolution or even biological evolution across all species can be considered complete without at least
a basic understanding of the biochemical and molecular biological basis of CRIPR-Cas9 gene editing technology and gene drives.
Sam Harris' latest podcast has a discussion of this technology with Jennifer Doudna.
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jennifer Doudna about the gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9.
They talk about the biology of gene editing, how specific tissues in the body can be targeted, the ethical implications of changing
the human genome, the importance of curiosity-driven science, and other topics.
E.O. Wilson
I have always been a great admirer of E.O Wilson. I have followed his work for years. I especially liked "Sociobiology" and "Consilience".
I have followed his feud with Stephen J. Gould, Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin, and Leon Kamin, (as reported by Steven Pinker and
Richard Dawkins). (I always came down on the side of Wilson et al.) And I am very proud to say he is a fellow Alabamian.
That being said, there are areas where I must disagree with him. For instance:
From Kirkus Reviews of "Half Earth": In this final volume of his trilogy, Wilson (The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014, etc.) opens with a compelling proposal on
how to slow current species extinction rates: set aside half of the planet (noncontiguously) as wilderness preserves free from
human encroachment, a measure that the author claims would stabilize more than 80 percent of species.
Fred Magyar, above, quotes from Edward O. Wilson's New Take on Human Nature: Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too ..
By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join
forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe ..
To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of
labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough
to be a eusocialist.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous. Which parts of the U.S. would
we set aside, parts that make half the land area? Could we convince every African nation to do the same? Or Russia? Or China,
South Korea or Japan?
Second, as much as I admire Wilson, I think he is just flat wrong on his new take on human nature. And I think Pinker and Dawkins
would agree with that opinion. If you had read Pinker's "
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature ," and I have, you would know exactly what I mean. Our minds are not blank
slates to be molded by society, to be made to behave like ants in a colony, like a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. All those
traits that Wilson says we must give up are in our genes, human nature.
I will not deny that humans can be ruled. An Iron Fist could compel us to behave in such a matter. But all such Iron Fists
carry within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's just human nature.
After reading your eight fifty six am, I'm telling ya straight .. Between your ears, where you live intellectually, you are
a TRUE conservative.
The people who we refer to today as conservatives, meaning those who inhabit the right wing politically, are not REAL conservatives,
not according to my definition.
Don't forget that I am a follower of the Humpty Dumpty School of Linguistics. Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean,
when I use them, rotfl.
To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound
grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders
.. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers,
and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.
I'm just teasing you a little, not making fun of you.
Decent people, left or right wing, want the same things, when you get down to the basics. Peace, dignified life, freedom from
unnecessary worries, etc.
I haven't yet read Wilson's latest books. Hoping to get around to it, this winter.
We need to keep it in mind that just because somebody presents a grand plan in a book, and writes as if it might be possible
to implement it, he does not necessarily believe there's a snowball's chance on a red hot stove that his plan will ever actually
be implemented.
Such books are sometimes intended as sources of inspiration for a new generation of people following along in his footsteps
.. and such a plan MIGHT be implemented . a few centuries down the road, lol. Stranger things have happened, historically.
Such a book can be the result of an old man's dreams being put in libraries so as to achieve a sort of immortality . Wilson
had that already of course.
I reckon you're even older than I am, and here's wishing you the best at the personal level.
To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound
grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders
.. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers,
and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.
Sorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True
Liberal.
I am a conservative when it comes to conserving the environment, saving animal habitat and saving species from extinction.
But those are qualities held by most liberals and not held by so-called conservatives. Right-wing Republicans call themselves
conservatives.
So I just have to accept the lexicon as it exist today. I am a liberal, not a conservative.
"Sorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True Liberal."
You DO GET IT, Ron, except you haven't yet quite got around to thinking of labels as jokes or weapons . Labels are for partisans.
Labels are clubs we use to pound each other into submission.
People with real working brains generally come to the same basic conclusions, regardless of the way they're labeled by themselves
or others. There's usually more than one route by which we can travel and arrive at the truth.
You're a man willing to tell it like it is, as for instance when you have pointed out the realities of the way things work
in some countries where you worked yourself. A partisan D just won't repeat that sort of stuff, true or not.
When you say you're a liberal, you're just labeling yourself. What you ARE is something else. You're a man with a working brain,
a man who understands reality, a man who tells it like it is, as you perceive it to be.
It is however true that the so called liberals are more often right by a substantial margin than the so called conservatives
in terms of having objective facts on their side when considering issues such as the environment, public health, and many others.
But they're not always right. Sometimes the liberal camp seems to have it's head as far up its backside as the conservative
camp.
The leaders of both camps seem to be more interested in having plenty of foot soldiers to serve as cannon fodder than they
are in the actual welfare of the country.
I can provide as good arguments for any sort of truly sound public policy from a conservative pov as you can from a liberal
pov.
To me this proves we both have working brains, and are capable of looking the truth in the eye, and publicly agreeing on what
IS true, and what is not.
If we could free ourselves of goddamned infernal partisan politics and identity politics , based on our community cultures,
we could make things happen politically.
If for instance we could put the question of subsidizing wind and solar power to a referendum, I could easily convince most
of the so called conservatives I know that voting in favor of subsidies would be a GREAT BARGAIN for them, long term. Well, the
ones with brains enough that they know a little about the business world anyway. That's at least half of them, and more than enough.
They won't ordinarily support subsidizing renewable energy as part of a package deal because they perceive the PACKAGE to be
weighted in favor of their political and cultural enemies. Supporting renewable energy subsidies would mean voting for D's and
they don't like the overall D agenda.
I'm not sure WHERE this comment will appear, but hopefully it will be below my two forty pm.
Allow me to approach this liberal/ conservative label thing from a different direction.
Suppose you meet a new person, and get to talking about oh let us say water pollution, and fishing, and having to spend your
local tax money on a sophisticated water treatment plant, because there's too much of this or that and the other as well in the
river that passes your town to drink the water, without spending a lot of money. .
If you NEVER MENTION anything that LABELS you as a liberal or conservative, you can talk meaningfully to just about anybody
about this issue.
Identify yourself as a liberal, or a conservative, you more or less automatically blow your opportunity to say anything to
your new POTENTIAL friend who thinks of himself as your opposite and enemy, politically, other than something he already knows
and believes, even if what that something is factually incorrect.
Label yourself as a liberal, and the typical serious Christian voter in the state of Alabama automatically thinks of you as
a murderer of yet to be born children. Forget labeling yourself, avoid it to the extent you can, and you have an EXCELLENT shot
at talking to that voter about supporting only candidates who have a decent record of being respectful to women, immigrants, minorities,
etc.
If I label myself as a conservative, I've automatically blown my chance to have a serious conversation with a liberal about
the possibility of having some real choice in education . meaning breaking the teacher's unions and government's de facto monopoly
control of our educational system.
You may not like this idea, but think about this how much better are your options NOW, given that we have email, fax, UPS,
Fed Ex , etc, when it comes to getting a letter or package where it needs to go FOR SURE and RIGHT AWAY?
I have heard lots of liberals say that allowing any real choice in the schools would mean the end of any real opportunity for
poor kids, inner city kids, etc, to get a decent education. Sometimes, in the same breath almost, I hear those same liberals admit
that the public schools in lots of communities large and small are literal disaster areas, where hardly any of the kids learn
anything. I used to know quite a few of this sort , back in my younger days, when I was living in the Fan and hanging out with
the older ( grad students mostly ) kids at VCU having a good time, taking a course or two per semester to keep my grad student
ID up to date. I spent about ten years there off and on.
Ya know WHAT? EVERY LAST COUPLE I knew among them moved out of town when their OWN kids got old enough to go to school.
Quite a few of them spent their careers as teachers, lol. And my guess is that not more than one out of ten of those couples
ever moved to a place where the schools were the sort of hell holes we read about so often these days .. and that tenth couple
of course had NO KIDS, lol.
Yet they almost universally believe in the de facto teacher / government educational monopoly as it exists today, as it totally
ruins the prospects of millions of kids denying them, or more accurately, their parents, any real choice in the schools their
kids attend. If liberal versus conservative comes into the conversation, it's OVER. The liberals aren't going to listen, any more
than conservatives listen.
How many members of this forum think Roy Moore ought to be tarred and feathered ? How many have ever had the intellectual integrity
to say the same thing about Bill Clinton?
Liberals are liberals, and conservatives are conservatives, and the gulf between can be as vast as the gulf between East and
West. Communication is tough to impossible.
But if we avoid the labels . communication can happen.
Incidentally this rant does NOT mean I am a supporter of the Trump administration in general, or the Trump education department
in particular. Nothing I know of concerning the Trump administration seems to be about the good of the COUNTRY or of the majority
of the people of this country.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.
Even stopping the rape and scrape accelerating is highly unlikely.
This is total fantasy.
At best, the survivors (if any) on the other side of the wall we are about to crash into, will have enough wisdom and intelligence
to embrace the condition they are in.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.
That isn't what he proposes even though it is the title of his book. May I suggest you read it! What he is really arguing for
is more along the lines of a network of ecological corridors that might connect already existing nature preserves, parks and private
property and therefore allow isolated pockets of natural ecosystems to be connected with others.
To be very clear, E.O. Wilson is not in any way naive about our predicament and says so.
That's not to say he has thrown in the towel, especially given that he is now in the later portion of his 80's. He apparently
doesn't want to go down without a fight.
I have read his book twice already and have the Kindle version on my laptop. To be honest I'm not what anyone might call overly
optimistic about the prospects of his proposals coming to pass. Having said that, I do admire his deep knowledge base about the
natural world and have the greatest admiration for the man! More power to him for trying!
Fred, I read Half Earth and have to agree with E.O. Wilson. I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans
can do what is needed. All the gadgetry in the world cannot replace a functioning ecosystem. Those functions are mandatory for
the preservation of life on earth. We need to preserve, expand and enhance (if we get smart enough) natural ecosystems around
the world.
Why not build armies? Armies called the United Conservation and Environmental Protection Corp, whose job is to protect and expand
natural areas around the world. It would increase employment and be funded by monies that otherwise go to military purposes. This
and other organizations could be doing things that make the people proud to be human, rather than just wheels and cogs in basically
destructive system.
This is not naïve, this is just choices. Humans make choices, that is one of our inherent abilities. Our current state and
appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old choices, time to make new ones.
I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans can do what is needed.
Really now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as
fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed
it is goddamn time they got started.
Our current state and appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old
choices, time to make new ones.
Those choices were made, and are being made, by 7 billion people. And yes, it is time those 7 billion people changed the way
they are behaving, it is time they made different choices. But don't hold your breath.
I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism.
Yup, reminds me of China, driving to a restaurant half way across Beijing with a car full of Chinese because they knew about a
hot spot where some endangered species or other was on the menu: get it before you're too late. Life in the real world!
"Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year.
Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct
every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction
by mid-century."
"If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. "
"I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism."
By destroying the environment we destroy ourselves. I think that will soon become quite apparent and then those who are already
on track can leverage that.
Really now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as
fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed
it is goddamn time they got started.
Ok, let's assume for a moment using round numbers that there are currently 7.5 billion humans living on this tiny planet as
I type these words. How many of those humans do you suppose are actually aware of the fact that we are probably in the midst of
the sixth mass extinction? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess about a couple hundred thousand.
Now most of those couple hundred thousand are in shock and denial of reality. So there are maybe 100,000 humans who are aware
and are actually starting to do something.
While that may sound like a minuscule amount I can cite data and research that shows that may be enough to really start to
change the current paradigm in a big way.
Yea, the feud between Gould/Lewontin/Rose VS Wilson/Dawkins/Dennett has been interesting.
Being somewhat Marxist in my orientation, I was kinda presupposed to the Gould camp, but the Wilson/Dawkins have proven to ring
much truer. The Blank Slate puts the nails in the coffin for Marxist view of human nature, as Marx viewed it as totally a function
of environment. Pinker buried that view.
Orr was always Gould and Lewontin's go to guy with media, as he had power in the NYT's and Boston Globe, and could often control
reviews and and coverage.
It has been interesting.
I'm sure most here are familiar with what Carl Sagan said about our Pale Blue Dot
This excerpt from Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan's suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February
14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for
one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees
above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result
of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.
At present, the Voyager 1 spacecraft is 21 billion kilometers from Earth, or about 141 times the distance between the Earth
and Sun. It has, in fact, moved beyond our Solar System into interstellar space. However, we can still communicate with Voyager
across that distance.
This week, the scientists and engineers on the Voyager team did something very special. They commanded the spacecraft to fire
a set of four trajectory thrusters for the first time in 37 years to determine their ability to orient the spacecraft using 10-millisecond
pulses.
FURTHER READING
The Voyagers have reached an anniversary worth celebrating
After sending the commands on Tuesday, it took 19 hours and 35 minutes for the signal to reach Voyager. Then, the Earth-bound
spacecraft team had to wait another 19 hours and 35 minutes to see if the spacecraft responded. It did. After nearly four decades
of dormancy, the Aerojet Rocketdyne manufactured thrusters fired perfectly.
"The Voyager team got more excited each time with each milestone in the thruster test. The mood was one of relief, joy,
and incredulity after witnessing these well-rested thrusters pick up the baton as if no time had passed at all," said Todd Barber,
a propulsion engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
So was I. Well, sort of. My dad was a Deacon in the Primitive Baptist Church but he was not a crusading evangelical.
I have told this story before but I will do it again here.
I was about 17 or so when I sidled up to my dad who was sitting in his easy chair. I asked: "Dad, how did them kangaroos get
from Australia to over there where Noah's Ark was? And how did they get back?" Dad jumped up from his chair, stuck his finger
right in my face and yelled: "Son, that is the word of God and that is not for you to question."
When countries begin to hit the wall economically ( as happened in Germany in the 1930's for example), the populace will often
out of desperation (and ignorance of course) enable a dictator to come to power. This is with the false hope that grandiose promises
of prosperity will be fulfilled.
This explains why Trump was elected, even though the American has yet to be tested by disruption, much.
As the world hits the wall of growth limits, the risk is for more and more leadership failures, the rise of warlords, the failure
of functioning democracies.
Violent choices and dysfunctional government will serve to be a mechanism of population decline, ugly population decline. Current
events can be seen through this lens as time unfolds.
Hard to watch.
May be better to have no TV.
The de-evolution will be televised, will be televised, will be televised
The general population in Germany did not really enable Hitler to come to power. He was appointed as a compomise by the two leading
parties in an election who had split the main vote. They both thought he would make such a mess of it that they would sweep the
board at the next election. As soon as he was appointed he started killing or imprisoning these smart opposition leaders, and
there wasn't another clean election. It was more like an extended coupe, admittedly with a large number of supporters, often ex
WW-I soldier thugs, in the general population.
George is in the bullseye about how Hitler came to power, considering he was painting fast with a broad brush in such a short
comment. I have devoted many a long evening to reading the history of war in the twentieth century, so as to better understand
the history of my time.
Wars are usually the result of politicians either wanting them, or being boxed into situations where they either can't avoid
them or consider them the best of an assortment of bad options.
Point taken George. Despite that the general notion that as crunch time develops, there will be a trend towards extremist and
totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Along with pockets of failed states, anarchy and warlords. 'Have nots' will take big
risks.
No devolution involved. Just human nature.
The loose knit groups with similar hates, anger and dislikes were temporarily brought together. It was an inverse election that
utilized the negative and more volatile side of human nature. it only hangs together with constant stirring and occasional negative
results (pound the enemy). Finger pointing and passing the buck is not enough, the groups start fracturing.
A question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse,
at least for the next 200 years or so.
Dennis, I understand your very optimistic outlook for the welfare of future human populations. I don't agree with it but I
understand your argument. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, your entire argument deals with the
human population of the earth. I don't remember reading your predicted outlook for the rest of the animal kingdom? Perhaps
you did make one and I just missed it.
That being said, you have read my outlook many times. And it was all repeated in my post above. Do you agree or disagree? Just
where do you see the large wild animal population in the year 2100? Please elaborate.
Edit: Dennis, I know you do not consider yourself a cornucopian, however, I was just comparing your outlook for the
future of civilization to mine. And using that comparison?
Nice! I was just thinking about a response to a comment following
one of mine
further up and this pops up, which dovetails nicely into what I've been thinking. In my comment I mention using wind power
to make ammonia as a foundation for chemical nitrogen fertilizer and you (Ron) in you reply stated that, " But it is chemical
fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity." I don't know if you realized
this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical fertilizer using excess wind
(and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity by allowing us to continue
the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in the absence of oil and NG.
This can be viewed as a downside to the ongoing exponential increasing capacity of renewable electricity generation. If renewables
grow big enough fast enough, there will be incentives to use any excess to do things like manufacture fertilizer allowing mankind's
expansion into wild habitats to continue. I think it is important that the existing population of the planet continues to have
more or less adequate food supplies in order to avoid the sort of situation that exist in Haiti but, the real problem as I see
it, is to get poor people in less developed countries to believe that they would be better off not having as many children. Based
on utterances I have heard in my neck of the woods, as recently as last night, many of these people do not see any problem with
having lots of kids. There seems to be an attitude abroad that there is a great big world out there, just ready for the taking.
No limits. I wonder whatever gives people that idea?
I wanted to post some pictures of garbage, sitting in open storm water channels, just waiting for the next big shower of rain
to be washed out of existence. At least that must be what the people who dump this stuff into the drains think. I have to wonder
if they ever bother to think about where it's going to end up but, it seems to be a simple case of out of sight, out of mind.
I guess some readers will have figured out that if you visit any area of the Jamaican coastline that does not have a regular,
structured clean up crew, you will see where the trash ends up. I have seen it and it is depressing.
I don't know if you realized this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical
fertilizer using excess wind (and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity
by allowing us to continue the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in
the absence of oil and NG.
Errr . I don't know if you realize it but you cannot make nitrogen fertilizer without natural gas . or some other source of
hydrogen. Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive.
Fertilizer Made with Natural
Gas Is Lifting Our World Referred to by some as the most important technological advance of the 20th century .Between 3 and 5 percent of the world's
annual natural gas production – roughly 1 to 2 percent of the world's annual energy supply – is converted using the process to
produce more than 500 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer, which is believed to sustain about 40 percent of the world's 7 billion
people. Approximately half of the protein in today's humans originated with nitrogen fixed through the Haber-Bosch process.
"Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive."
Not if you are experiencing negative electricity prices as has happened when there's lots of wind and no demand or transmission
capacity for the electricity being generated. I think OFM has alluded to this a few times in his ramblings, suggesting that hydrogen
production via electrolysis or desalination might be useful ways of avoiding otherwise wasted electricity when the resource is
available but, there is limited demand or transmission capacity.
We are pursuing a Grand Challenge – the challenge to feed the world while sustaining the environment. In the spirit of this
grand challenge, a team of researchers across the University are pursuing an elegant concept in which wind energy, water, and
air are used to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
WCROC energy from the windEnergy generated from the wind is used to separate hydrogen from water. Nitrogen is pulled from air.
The hydrogen and nitrogen are then combined to form nitrogen fertilizer that nourishes the plants surrounding the farmer.
Next to water, nitrogen fertilizer is the most limiting nutrient for food production. Minnesota farmers import over $400
million of nitrogen fertilizer each year and are subjected to volatile price swings. Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer is currently
produced using fossil energy which contributes significantly to the carbon footprint of agricultural commodities.
Siemens is participating in an all electric ammonia synthesis and energy storage system demonstration programme at Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford. The demonstrator, which will run until December 2017, is supported by Innovate UK. Collaborators
include the University of Oxford, Cardiff University and the Science & Technology Facilities Council.
I do not know much about the subject so I should probably not offer an opinion, but because you asked
I agree that humans are the problem and believe that fewer humans (as in reduced population) will improve the situation. Will
humans choose to protect some of the mega fauna, until population falls to a more sustainable level? I have no idea.
Is it possible? I would say yes.
High probability? My guess would be no (less than a 66% probability).
So I do not have a prediction for the Earth's megafauna in 2100, except to say I doubt your prediction that we will be reduced
to rats and mice, etc. is correct. This is no doubt because I believe there will be a gradual transition to a more sustainable
society. I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200).
Most likely in North America, Scandanavia, and Siberia, and perhaps in the Himalaya and parts of South America. The rapid expansion
of population in Africa makes it less likely the megafauna will survive there.
I am using the 40 kg cutoff for megafauna, though there are many definitions.
Note that some would consider cornucopian an insult.
Certainly I do not think fossil fuels are as abundant as those who believe scenarios such as the RCP8.5 scenario (with about
5000 Pg of carbon emissions) are plausible.
I also do not believe resources are unlimited or infinitely substitutable, which tends to be the cornucopian viewpoint. There
is great need to utilize resources more efficiently and to recycle as much as possible (cradle to grave manufacturing should be
required by law).
Now if you define cornucopian as someone who is less pessimistic than you, then I am by that definition a cornucopian.
I am certainly more optimistic than you, but if we all agreed there would be little to discuss.
Clearly the future is unclear.
The outlook for the wild megafauna is tragic and we should do what we can to preserve species diversity. Getting human population
to peak and decline would improve the situation of other species, but I share your pessimism that this will be enough, I am just
less pessimistic than you.
I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200).
Okay, let's do the math. It looks like the world will reach 9 billion people by 2050. Then if it were to fall to 1 billion
by 2150, that would be a decline of 80,000,000 per year or 219,178 per day. That is deaths above births. That would be a catastrophic
collapse by any stretch of the imagination. And of course, most of those deaths would be by starvation. And for sure, as I said
before, we would eat the songbirds out of the trees.
Hell, if that scenario takes place, there will likely be no rats left. No, no, no, Dennis, please forgive me. You are definitely
not a cornucopian. Oh God, how could I have been so wrong?
The most rapid population decreases have been from disease. A few bouts of virulent diseases in a world with little medical help
and control could dramatically reduce population.
Population Collapse in Mexico (Down to about 5% in a century)
See chart below. If total fertility ratio (TFR) falls to 1.5 by 2050 then population can fall from 9 billion to 4.5 billion
by 2125 and to 2.25 billion by 2200 and to 1 billion by 2300, a fall in TFR to 1.25 (South Korea is about 1.26) would result in
more rapid population decline. It is not clear how low TFR can go for the World, it was cut in half in 40 years, whether that
can continue so that 1.27 is reached in 2055 is unknown. This scenario assumes life expectancy rises to no higher than 90 for
the World.
Deaths would be natural rather than from starvation, this is just a matter of people choosing to have fewer children as is
the case today in many East Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan and in many European nations as well.
Education for women and access to birth control and electrification (watch tv, instead of other forms of entertainment leading
to increased family size), and empowerment of women in general will reduce population growth. Higher income also helps.
Keeping things in perspective, why not go with the experts until they're proven wrong?
WORLD POPULATION LIKELY TO SURPASS 11 BILLION IN 2100
"American Statistical Association. "World population likely to surpass 11 billion in 2100: US population projected to grow
by 40 percent over next 85 years."
THERE'S A STRONG CHANCE THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL PEOPLE WILL BE AFRICAN BY 2100
The combination of declining mortality and relatively high fertility is the driver of rapid population growth in Africa. Even
if fertility would continue to decline, as assumed by the UN medium scenario, it will not bring down the growth rate in the near
future, let alone halt population growth. This is because of "demographic inertia". And this is because Africa has a high proportion
of young adults of reproductive age. Even if each one had very few children, the number of births would remain high.
We are all African– it's just some of us have been gone for a while.
(well if you are east of the Wallace Line, you are part Denisovan, and west, part Neanderthal and a species we haven't discovered
yet)
Dennis, you are assuming that the population will alter their fertility rates to a lower value. Yes, that has already happened
in developed countries. The fertility rates in undeveloped countries are still controlled by what their economy and environment
will bear.
The vast majority of the human population lives in undeveloped countries. They will continue to push, push, push against the
very limits of their existence. And that will still be the case 50 years from now, and 100 years from now, and 150 years from
now.
There are reasons the fertility rate is dropping in developed countries. Female empowerment, contraception, and so on. There
are entirely different reasons the fertility rate is dropping in undeveloped countries. Poor nutrition, almost no prenatal care
and so on. Also, much higher infant death rate helps keep the population in check. Please check my chart above from the Population
Reference Bureau.
I think that if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely
different outlook. You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses.
Again, check the Population Reference Bureau chart above.
" if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely different outlook.
You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses."
Wouldn't take a year, one week would do it: even keeping the rose-colored glasses on.
I spent a bit of time on leave in "Liberated Burma"/Karen State shortly after the fall of Manerplaw. A week would do it, however
I was there for about 3 months. I haven't had a bad day since.
I linked up with some folks in Mae Sot on the Thai side. It was well planned before hand. There's was a lot of back and forth
across the border in those days. Did some long range mobile medical patrols in Karen and Karenni State. Got chased around by Tatmadaw/SLORC
a bit. When I was 25 that was my idea of a good time. Yeah, kinda fucked I know.
Yea --
I was the only Farang around in Masi, and everyone else was going back and forth.
Very interesting place.
That was a long time ago, in a land far, far away.
It would be impossible in the homogeneous police state we are currently inhabiting.
I spent about 5 months hitchhiking through North and West Africa in 1981-2. Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Gabon, Republic
of Congo, and Zaire (as it was known in 1982).
The TFR of half the World's population as of 2015 is less than 2. The World TFR decreased from 5.02 in 1965 to 2.51 in 2015.
The problem I see with fertility rates is the same problem I see with planting trees. Even though I support a foundation to plant
trees I realize that future changes could allow people to wipe out those and other trees very quickly, thus rendering the effort
useless. I also realize the preserved areas of nature and wilderness could quickly disappear or be irreparably harmed by government
decree, war and material/food pressures.
The same goes with lower fertility rates. Since they are only based on decisions and not biological, the lower rates could reverse
quite quickly. Just stress the population and see how fast it will change.
Once people realize that technological progress is an empty dead system that moves us to an empty dead world, birth rates will
climb quickly.
Rather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make
us dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the
logic of that cell phone has been imposed on us.
"The computer is a mechanism for acceleration, it accelerates economic activity and this is eating up the world. It's eating
up resources, it's processing, it's manufacturing, it's distributing, it's consuming. That's what the computer's real work does
and it does that 24/7, 365 days a year, non-stop just to satisfy our own narrow needs."
Tompkins foresees a dark future dominated as he puts it by more ugliness, damaged landscapes, extinct species, extreme poverty,
and lack of equity and says humanity faces a stark choice; either to transition now to a different system or face a painful collapse.
"The extinction crisis is the mother of all crises. There will be no society, there will be no economy, there will be no
art and culture on a dead planet basically. We've stopped evolution."
Rather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make us
dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the logic
of that cell phone has been imposed on us.
So put the damn cell phones to better use. They can also make us smarter They can be used to track illegal logging in endangered
rain forests. The fact that I have a device in my pocket that gives me access to all of human knowledge and access to GPS does
not make me dumber.
Really? You have cell service in the rain forests? I barely have cell service where I live and it disappears totally between the
mountains near me. I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.
Let the rest feel nervous as they get out of touch. For many it's a disaster if they lose their phones, fully dependent.
I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.
I actually learned how to use a sextant and a compass but GPS is available so I admit that I do use it upon occasion.
In any case my point was that it is possible to use technology for purposes other than tweeting or posting selfies of oneself
to Facebook every ten minutes.
Fred, they are highly capable machines but just machines. How they are used is determined by the machine and the operator interface.
I could go on for hours how they have had very bad effects on personal time and personal interactions. For many people life is
a series of texts and phone calls with real time life being the background now. Interruptions are the norm now. Sacrilege is when
they have to turn them off.
@Fred
I come close to nailing a textwalker or walkytalky nearly every time I am out on my bike. SOP, watch out for the buggers. It amazes
me that people are unable to move about (foot, moto, car, bus, truck) without a phone in their hand.
A question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse,
at least for the next 200 years or so.
Ok, I'll take a nibble!
First of all, why do we have to accept the current definition of what the economy has to be? All of nature has existed on renewable
energy since the beginning of life on this planet 3.8 billion years ago, so obviously the problem isn't renewable energy. If it
were, life wouldn't even exist. The extractive, linear growth based neo liberal idea of the economy that we have come to accept
as normal, is a relatively recent construct that was created by a small group of people at the beginning of the 20th century and
it certainly is an aberration! Personally I don't think it is worth saving.
That economy will certainly collapse and no energy source can ever make it sustainable. Therefore it will by definition collapse.
However there is nothing that says we need to continue on that path. There are indeed choices that people and societies can make.
Even to the point of something that is considered radical and taboo like limiting population growth. (that is a separate dissertation
from my point here)
With regards alternative economic thinking maybe start with Kate Raeworth. Not everyone in the world who has ideas that are
out of the box are automatically naive cornucopians.
How to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. 45:00 minutes.
What is the goal of economics? Does GDP really tell us all we need to know about a country's wealth and well-being? Our
guest in this show argues that our economic system should be designed to meet everyone's needs, while living within the means
of the planet.
Kate Raworth is the author of the acclaimed book 'Doughnut Economics', and she will join us in the studio for an exploration
of a new 21st century economic model and why she believes so many economists have got it wrong for so long.
The implications of her Doughnut Economics are profound and and can be read and embraced as a roadmap for change not just
by experts or economists, but by everyone! This is a chance to challenge her with your questions and critiques.
If you want to think a bit more about how ideas like E.O. Wilson's Half Earth might look here's a TED talk that touches on
it.
Nature is everywhere -- we just need to learn to see it 16:00 minutes
How do you define "nature?" If we define it as that which is untouched by humans, then we won't have any left, says environmental
writer Emma Marris. She urges us to consider a new definition of nature -- one that includes not only pristine wilderness but
also the untended patches of plants growing in urban spaces -- and encourages us to bring our children out to touch and tinker
with it, so that one day they might love and protect it.
Emma Marris is a writer focusing on environmental science, policy and culture, with an approach that she paints as being
"more interested in finding and describing solutions than delineating problems, and more interested in joy than despair."
I agree with Gone Fishing, we do have choices! There are people all over the world who are making them.
Regarding the first paragraph of your reply. Conflating the functioning of ecosystems
using the renewable energy from the sun with the 'Renewable Energy' required by industrial civilisation is a common mistake. The
energy from the sun is renewable.
The infrastructure required to collect and store that energy requires the mining of the
requisite minerals,transportation,smelting,manufacturing,installation. The energy
required for all of that is supplied by fossil fuels. All of that infrastructure,and all of the
rest of the human-constructed industrial world,has to be rebuilt. Solar panels last
about 25-30 years. Wind Turbines about 50 years. Our industrial constructed world
has an immense amount of embedded fossil fuel energy. The mineral density of many ores are declining now,which means that the
energy required to extract a given amount of mineral is increasing. I haven't done much reading on this site. No doubt someone
has posted this link before. It gives a good idea of the scale of the construction required.
Natural ecosystems are quite different. The energy collection occurs using biodegradable
and recyclable materials,without the energy input of fossil fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Have a read of the numbers in the link. All recycling requires energy. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis of the amount
of energy
required,but it would be very large. It is also worth remembering that some of the minerals in that infrastructure are difficult
to separate and
recycle.
Plenty of people have investigated recycling and are doing it. You obviously haven't. Even the Giga-Factory is building a recycling
facility.
On the personal level, I have just replaced my washing machine and stove as the old ones were falling apart – literally. The
stove is ready to go to the local recycler where it will be separated and then sent to be melted back to new steel. The washer
will be checked over by a refurbisher who will decide if he can use it or it's parts and what is left will go to the recycler.
Simple. All my waste metal goes to the recycler but, unfortunately, we have no glass recycling so that just has to go to land
fill.
Elton John blares so loudly on Donald Trump's campaign plane that staffers can't hear themselves think. Press secretary
Hope Hicks uses a steamer to press Trump's pants -- while he is still wearing them. Trump screams at his top aides, who are subjected
to expletive-filled tirades in which they get their "face ripped off."
And Trump's appetite seems to know no bounds when it comes to McDonald's, with a dinner order consisting of "two Big Macs,
two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted."
[ ]
In another episode, Lewandowski describes how staffer Sam Nunberg was purposely left behind at a McDonald's because Nunberg's
special-order burger was taking too long. "Leave him," Trump said. "Let's go." And they did.
Trump's fast-food diet is a theme. "On Trump Force One there were four major food groups: McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken,
pizza and Diet Coke," the authors write.
The plane's cupboards were stacked with Vienna Fingers, potato chips, pretzels and many packages of Oreos because Trump, a
renowned germaphobe, would not eat from a previously opened package.
The book notes that "the orchestrating and timing of Mr. Trump's meals was as important as any other aspect of his march
to the presidency," and describes the elaborate efforts that Lewandowski and other top aides went through to carefully time their
delivery of hot fast food to Trump's plane as he was departing his rallies.
One of the biggest problems we face as population and industry grows is obtaining enough fresh water. Sure there is a lot of water
on the planet, but it is mostly salty.
Marcia Barbosa talks about the many anomalies of water and how exploiting them with nano-tubes could help address the problem
of freshwater shortages.
Marcia Barbosa has a PhD in physics from Brazil's Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, where she is now the director
of its Physics Institute. She studies the complex structure of the water molecule, and has developed a series of models of its
properties which may contribute to our understanding of how earthquakes occur, how proteins fold, and could play an important
role in generating cleaner energy and treating diseases. She is actively involved in promoting Women in Physics and was named
the 2013 L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science Awards Laureate for Latin America.
Tks, GF!
LOL! I'm head over heels in love with her!
I kept imagining her giving her talk to this sound track
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wunq6YlcSX0
Can you see all the dancers dressed as raindrops on a Samba Float in a Carnival Parade?
Fred – As you know my bag is astrophysics, with climate change denial being merely irritating BUT when I see science news headlines
like the following then I really get pissed off, or feel sick. Who gives a shit if Earth can "carry" 7 or 9 or 11 billion people
when dolphins & elephants are relegated to "bush meat" and when species are disappearing at increasingly alarming rates. You're
probably the only one here qualified to assess this issue so please give us your thoughts.
CURRENT EXTINCTION RATE 10 TIMES WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
"Life on earth is remarkably diverse. Globally, it is estimated that there are 8.7 million species living on our planet, excluding
bacteria. Unfortunately, human activities are wiping out many species and it's been known for some time that we are increasing
the rate of species extinction. But just how dire is the situation? According to a new study, it's 10 times worse than scientists
previously thought with current extinction rates 1,000 times higher than natural background rates."
Doug, if you get a chance, watch the ASU Origins project debates to which I have posted links recently addressing the topic of
extinction. This is a very serious cross disciplinary discussion and can't really be done justice in a quick response here. It
probably necessitates a full post of similar length to Ron's.
I look on space habitats as being trapped inside a giant iron lung. Exploration is one thing, but actually thinking of Mars as
a possible home for humans is just sad.
Couldn't agree more! And that's from someone who lived and worked in a hyperbaric chamber as a saturation diver on oil rigs. I'd
say that is pretty close to living in an iron lung as well
The part about going to Mars that has always bothered me is the radiation exposure.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were
public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising.
Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
Strong global economic growth and Saudi Arabia bringing a risk premium to oil prices could
send Brent oil prices surging to $80 next year ,
more than
25 percent compared to current prices, according to economist Jim O'Neill, a former
chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
"While oil prices could be about $60 per barrel in November 2018, my guess is that they will
have risen to about $80 per barrel in the meantime," O'Neill wrote in Barron's on Saturday.
Although the economist himself admits that predicting oil prices is a tough job at which he
failed when he said in January 2015 that prices would not continue to fall, he now differs from
most of the analysts who expect oil prices to be around $60 next year. O'Neill doesn't believe
that oil prices will stagnate for a year.
On the demand side, world economic growth has picked up this year "and is now probably
growing at a rate of 4 percent or higher. With the exception of India and the United Kingdom,
eight of the 10 largest economies are expanding at the same time," O'Neill said.
Although many oil consuming countries try to lessen their dependence on oil, the transition
won't take place overnight, so the oil market is adjusting to stronger demand, the economist
notes. Looking at the supply side, events in Saudi Arabia are suddenly adding a premium to oil
prices. "The Saudi government has been implementing radical changes, both domestically and in
its foreign policy, and its reasons for doing so are not entirely clear," O'Neill writes. In
addition, the economist argues that the Brent spot price has now moved above the five-year
forward price, which suggests that a trend change may be underway. "For my part, I'm unsure,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened," O'Neill says, referring to the trend change.
Venezuela's oil production has been sliding for years, but the descent accelerated in 2015
amid low oil prices and a deteriorating cash position for PDVSA and the government. Production
dipped below 1.9 million barrels in recent weeks, the lowest level in more than three
decades.
The problems will only grow worse, especially because they tend to snowball. Without cash,
PDVSA will struggle to import diluent to blend with its heavy oil – the result could be
steeper production losses. Again, without cash, existing facilities cannot be maintained,
likely leading to an accelerating pace of decline. An array of refineries are "completely
paralyzed," the head of an oil workers union told Bloomberg. Defaults on more debt payments
could spark retaliation from creditors, which could eventually put oil exports in jeopardy.
In short, the woes in Venezuela's oil industry contributed to the crisis, but the dire
economic situation will accelerate the decline of oil production.
A group of analysts told Bloomberg that they expect Venezuela's output to average 1.84 mb/d
in 2018, a level that seems surprisingly optimistic given the pace of decline underway. Other
analysts predict output will plunge much lower.
Strong global economic growth and Saudi Arabia bringing a risk premium to oil prices could
send Brent oil prices surging to $80 next year ,
more than
25 percent compared to current prices, according to economist Jim O'Neill, a former
chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
"While oil prices could be about $60 per barrel in November 2018, my guess is that they will
have risen to about $80 per barrel in the meantime," O'Neill wrote in Barron's on Saturday.
Although the economist himself admits that predicting oil prices is a tough job at which he
failed when he said in January 2015 that prices would not continue to fall, he now differs from
most of the analysts who expect oil prices to be around $60 next year. O'Neill doesn't believe
that oil prices will stagnate for a year.
On the demand side, world economic growth has picked up this year "and is now probably
growing at a rate of 4 percent or higher. With the exception of India and the United Kingdom,
eight of the 10 largest economies are expanding at the same time," O'Neill said.
Although many oil consuming countries try to lessen their dependence on oil, the transition
won't take place overnight, so the oil market is adjusting to stronger demand, the economist
notes. Looking at the supply side, events in Saudi Arabia are suddenly adding a premium to oil
prices. "The Saudi government has been implementing radical changes, both domestically and in
its foreign policy, and its reasons for doing so are not entirely clear," O'Neill writes. In
addition, the economist argues that the Brent spot price has now moved above the five-year
forward price, which suggests that a trend change may be underway. "For my part, I'm unsure,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened," O'Neill says, referring to the trend change.
Venezuela's oil production has been sliding for years, but the descent accelerated in 2015
amid low oil prices and a deteriorating cash position for PDVSA and the government. Production
dipped below 1.9 million barrels in recent weeks, the lowest level in more than three
decades.
The problems will only grow worse, especially because they tend to snowball. Without cash,
PDVSA will struggle to import diluent to blend with its heavy oil – the result could be
steeper production losses. Again, without cash, existing facilities cannot be maintained,
likely leading to an accelerating pace of decline. An array of refineries are "completely
paralyzed," the head of an oil workers union told Bloomberg. Defaults on more debt payments
could spark retaliation from creditors, which could eventually put oil exports in jeopardy.
In short, the woes in Venezuela's oil industry contributed to the crisis, but the dire
economic situation will accelerate the decline of oil production.
A group of analysts told Bloomberg that they expect Venezuela's output to average 1.84 mb/d
in 2018, a level that seems surprisingly optimistic given the pace of decline underway. Other
analysts predict output will plunge much lower.
"... An interview by Gordon T. Long of the Financial Repression Authority. Originally published at his website ..."
"... One of the most important distinctions that investors have to understand is the difference between secular and cyclical trends Let us begin with definitions from the Encarta® World English Dictionary: ..."
"... Secular – occurring only once in the course of an age or century; taking place over an extremely or indefinitely long period of time ..."
"... Cycle – a sequence of events that is repeated again and again, especially a causal sequence; a period of time between repetitions of an event or phenomenon that occurs regularly ..."
"... Secular stagnation is when the predators of finance have eaten too many sheeple. ..."
"... Real estate rents in this latest asset bubble, whether commercial or residential, appear to have been going up in many markets even if the increases are slowing. That rent inflation will likely turn into rent deflation, but that doesn't appear to have happened yet consistently. ..."
"... Barter has always existed and always will. Debt money expands and contracts the middle class, acting as a feedback signal, which never works over the long term, because the so encapsulated system can only implode, when natural resource liquidation cannot be accelerated. The whole point is to eliminate the initial requirement for capital, work. Debt fails because both sides of the same coin assume that labor can be replaced. The machines driven by dc technology are not replacing labor; neither the elites nor the middle class can fix the machines, which is why they keep accelerating debt, to replace one failed technology only to be followed by the next, netting extortion by whoever currently controls the debt machine, which the majority is always fighting over, expending more energy to avoid work, like the objective is to avoid sweating, unless you are dumb enough to run on asphalt with Nike gear. ..."
"... . . . The whole argument for privatization, for instance, is the opposite of what was taught in American business schools in the 19th century. The first professor of economics at the Wharton School of Business, which was the first business school, was Simon Patten. He said that public infrastructure is a fourth factor of production. But its role isn't to make a profit . It's to lower the cost of public services and basic inputs to lower the cost of living and lower the cost of doing business to make the economy more competitive. But privatization adds interest payments, dividends, managerial payments, stock buybacks, and merges and acquisitions . Obviously these financialized charges are factored into the price system and raise the cost of living and doing business . ..."
GORDON LONG: Thank you for joining us. I'm Gordon Long with the Financial Repression Authority. It's my pleasure to have with
me today Dr. Michael Hudson Professor Hudson's very well known in terms of the FIRE economy to-I think, to a lot of our listeners,
or at least he's recognized by many as fostering that concept. A well known author, he has published many, many books. Welcome, Professor
Hudson.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes.
LONG: Let's just jump into the subject. I mentioned the FIRE economy cause I know that I have always heard it coming from yourself-or,
indirectly, not directly, from yourself. Could you explain to our listeners what's meant by that terminology?
HUDSON: Well it's more than just people getting fired. FIRE is an acronym for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Basically that
sector is about assets, not production and consumption. And most people think of the economy as being producers making goods and
services and paying labor to produce them – and then, labour is going to buy these goods and services. But this production and consumption
economy is surrounded by the asset economy: the web of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate of who owns assets, and who owes the debts,
and to whom.
LONG: How would you differentiate it (or would you) with what's often referred to as financialization, or the financialization
of our economy? Are they one and the same?
HUDSON: Pretty much. The Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector is dominated by finance. 70 to 80% of bank loans in North
America and Europe are mortgage loans against real estate. So instead of a landowner class owning property clean and clear, as they
did in the 19 th century, now you have a democratization of real estate. 2/3 or more of the population owns their own
home. But the only way to buy a home, or commercial real estate, is on credit. So the loan-to-value ratio goes up steadily. Banks
lend more and more money to the real estate sector. A home or piece of real estate, or a stock or bond, is worth whatever banks are
willing to lend against it
As banks loosen their credit terms, as they lower their interest rates, take lower down payments, and lower amortization rates
– by making interest-only loans – they are going to lend more and more against property. So real estate is bid up on credit. All
this rise in price is debt leverage. So a financialized economy is a debt-leveraged economy, whether it's real estate or insurance,
or buying an education, or just living. And debt leveraging means that a larger proportion of assets are represented by debt. So
debt equity ratios rise. But financialization also means that more and more of people's income and corporate and government tax revenue
is paid to creditors. There's a flow of revenue from the production-and-consumption economy to the financial sector.
LONG: I don't know if you know Richard Duncan. He was with the IMF, etc, and lives in Thailand. He argues right now that capitalism
is no longer functioning, and really what he refers to what we have now is "creditism." Because in capitalism we have savings that
are reinvested into productive assets that create productivity, which leads to a higher level of living. We're not doing that. We
have no savings and investments. Credit is high in the financial sector, but it's not being applied to productive assets. Is he valid
in that thinking?
HUDSON: Not as in your statement. It's confused.
LONG: Okay.
HUDSON: There's an enormous amount of savings. Gross savings. The savings we have that are mounting up are just about as large
as they've ever been – about, 18-19% of the US economy. They're counterpart is debt. Most savings are lent out to borrowers se debt.
Basically, you have savers at the top of the pyramid, the 1% lending out their savings to the 99%. The overall net savings may be
zero, and that's what your stupid person from the IMF meant. But gross savings are much higher. Now, the person, Mr. Duncan, obviously-I
don't know what to say when I hear this nonsense. Every economy is a credit economy.
Let's start in Ancient Mesopotamia. The group that I organized out of Harvard has done a 20-study of the origins of economic structuring
in the Bronze Age, even the Neolithic, and the Bronze Age economy – 3200 BC going back to about 1200 BC. Suppose you're a Babylonian
in the time of Hammurabi, about 1750 BC, and you're a cultivator. How do you buy things during the year? Well, if you go to the bar,
to an ale woman, what she'd do is write down the debt that you owe. It was to be paid on the threshing floor. The debts were basically
paid basically once a year when the income was there, on the threshing floor when the harvest was in. If the palace or the temples
would advance animals or inputs or other public services, this would be as a debt. It was all paid in grain, which was monetized
for paying debts to the palace, temples and other creditors.
The IMF has this Austrian theory that pretends that money began as barter and that capitalism basically operates on barter. This
always is a disinformation campaign. Nobody believed this in times past, and it is a very modern theory that basically is used to
say, "Oh, debt is bad." What they really mean is that public debt is bad. The government shouldn't create money, the government shouldn't
run budget deficits but should leave the economy to rely on the banks. So the banks should run and indebt the economy.
You're dealing with a public relations mythology that's used as a means of deception for most people. You can usually ignore just
about everything the IMF says. If you understand money you're not going to be hired by the IMF. The precondition for being hired
by the IMF is not to understand finance. If you do understand finance, you're fired and blacklisted. That's why they impose
austerity programs that they call "stabilization programs" that actually are destabilization programs almost wherever they're imposed.
LONG: Is this a lack of understanding and adherence to the wrong philosophy, or how did we get into this trap?
HUDSON: We have an actively erroneous view, not just a lack of understanding. This is not by accident. When you have an error
repeated year after year after year, decade after decade after decade, it's not really insanity doing the same thing thinking it'll
be different. It's sanity. It's doing the same thing thinking the result will be the same again and again and again. The result
will indeed be austerity programs, making budget deficits even worse, driving governments further into debt, further into reliance
on the IMF. So then the IMF turns them to the knuckle breakers of the World Bank and says, "Oh, now you have to pay your debts by
privatization". It's the success. The successful error of monetarism is to force countries to have such self-defeating policies that
they end up having to privatize their natural resources, their public domain, their public enterprises, their communications and
transportation, like you're seeing in Greece's selloffs. So when you find an error that is repeated, it's deliberate. It's not insane.
It's part of the program, not a bug.
LONG: Where does this lead us? What's the roadmap ahead of us here?
HUDSON: A thousand years ago, if you were a marauding gang and you wanted to take over a country's land and its natural resources
and public sector, you'd have to invade it with military troops. Now you use finance to take over countries. So it leads us into
a realm where everything that the classical economists saw and argued for – public investment, bringing costs in line with the actual
cost of production – that's all rejected in favor of a rentier class evolving into an oligarchy. Basically, financiers – the
1% – are going to pry away the public domain from the government. Pry away and privatize the public enterprises, land, natural resources,
so that bondholders and privatizers get all of the revenue for themselves. It's all sucked up to the top of the pyramid, impoverishing
the 99%.
LONG: Well I think most people, without understanding economics, would instinctively tell you they think that's what's happening
right now, in some way.
HUDSON: Right. As long as you can avoid studying economics you know what's happened. Once you take an economics course you step
into brainwashing. It's an Orwellian world.
LONG: I think you said it perfectly well there. Exactly. It gets you locked into the wrong way of thinking as opposed to just
basic common sense. Your book is Killing the Host . What was the essence of its message? Was it describing exactly what we're
talking about here?
HUDSON: Finance has taken over the industrial economy, so that instead of finance becoming what it was expected to be in the 19
th century, instead of the banks evolving from usurious organizations that leant to governments, mainly to wage war, finance
was going to be industrialized. They were going to mobilize savings and recycle it to finance the means of production, starting with
heavy industry. This was actually happening in Germany in the late 19 th century. You had the big banks working with government
and industry in a triangular process. But that's not what's happening now. After WW1 and especially after WW2, finance reverted to
its pre-industrial form. Instead of allying themselves with industry, as banks were expected to do, banks allied themselves with
real estate and monopolies, realizing that they can make more money off real estate.
The bank spokesman David Ricardo argued against the landed interest in 1817, against land rent. Now the banks are all in favor
of supporting land rent, knowing that today, when people buy and sell property, they need credit and pay interest for it. The banks
are going to get all the rent. So you have the banks merge with real estate against industry, against the economy as a whole. The
result is that they're part of the overhead process, not part of the production process.
LONG: There's a sense that there's a crisis lying ahead in the next year, two years, or three years. The mainstream economy's
so disconnected from Wall Street economy. What's your view on that?
HUDSON: It's not disconnected at all. The Wall Street economy has taken over the economy and is draining it. Under what economics
students are taught as Say's Law, the economy's workers are supposed to use their income to buy what they produce. That's why Henry
Ford paid them $5 a day, so that they could afford to buy the automobiles they were producing.
LONG: Exactly.
HUDSON: But Wall Street is interjecting itself into the economy, so that instead of the circular flow between producers and consumers,
you have more and more of the flow diverted to pay interest, insurance and rent. In other words, to pay the FIRE sector. It all ends
up with the financial sector, most of which is owned by the 1%. So, their way of formulating it is to distract attention from today's
debt quandary by saying it's just a cycle, or it's "secular stagnation." That removes the element of agency – active politicking
by the financial interests and Wall Street lobbyists to obtain all the growth of income and wealth for themselves. That's what happened
in America and Canada since the late 1970s.
LONG: What does an investor do today, or somebody who's looking for retirement, trying to save for the future, and they see some
of these things occurring. What should they be thinking about? Or how should they be protecting themselves?
HUDSON: What all the billionaires and the heavy investors do is simply try to preserve their wealth. They're not trying to make
money, they're not trying to speculate. If you're an investor, you're not going to outsmart Wall Street billionaires, because the
markets are basically fixed. It's the George Soros principle. If you have so much money, billions of dollars, you can break the Bank
of England. You don't follow the market, you don't anticipate it, you actually make the market and push it up, like the Plunge Protection
Team is doing with the stock market these days. You have to be able to control the prices. Insiders make money, but small investors
are not going to make money.
Since you're in Canada, I remember the beginning of the 1960s. I used to look at the Treasury Bulletin and Federal Reserve
Bulletin figures on foreign investment in the US stock market. We all used to laugh at Canada especially. The Canadians don't
buy stocks until they're up to the very top, and then they lose all the money by holding these stocks on the downturn. Finally, when
the market's all the way at the bottom, Canadians decide to begin selling because they finally can see a trend. So they miss the
upswing until they decide to buy at the top once again. It's hilarious to look at how Canada has performed in the US bond market,
and they did the same in the silver market. I remember when silver was going up to $50. The Canadians said, "Yes, we can see the
trend now!" and they began to buy it. They lost their shirts. So, basically, if you're a Canadian investor, move.
LONG: So the Canadian investors are a better contrarian indicator than the front page cover, you're saying.
HUDSON: I'd think so. Once they get in, you know the bubble's over.
LONG: Absolutely on that one. What are you currently writing? What is your current focus now?
HUDSON: Well, I just finished a book. You mentioned Killing the Host . My next book will be out in about three months:
J is for Junk Economics . It began as a dictionary of terms, so I can provide people with a vocabulary. As we got in the argument
at the beginning of your program today, our argument is about the vocabulary we're using and the words you're using. The vocabulary
taught to students today in economics – and used by the mass media and by government spokesmen – is basically a set of euphemisms.
If you look at the television reports on the market, they say that any loss in the stock market isn't a loss, it's "profit taking".
And when they talk about money. the stock market rises – "Oh that's good news." But it's awful news for the short sellers it wipes
out. Almost all the words we get are kind of euphemisms to conceal the actual dynamics that are happening. For instance, "secular
stagnation" means it's all a cycle. Even the idea of "business cycles": Nobody in the 19 th century used the word "business
cycle". They spoke about "crashes". They knew that things go up slowly and then they plunge very quickly. It was a crash. It's not
the sine curve that you have in Josef Schumpeter's book on Business Cycles . It's a ratchet effect: slow up, quick down. A
cycle is something that is automatic, and if it's a cycle and you have leading and lagging indicators as the National Bureau of Economic
Research has. Then you'd think "Oh, okay, everything that goes up will come down, and everything that goes down will come up, just
wait your turn." And that means governments should be passive.
Well, that is the opposite of everything that's said in classical economics and the Progressive Era, when they realized that economies
don't recover by themselves. You need a-the government to step in, you need something "exogenous," as economist say. You need something
from outside the system to revive it. The covert idea of this business cycle analysis is to leave out the role of government. If
you look at neoliberal and Austrian theory, there's no role for government spending, and no role of public investment. The whole
argument for privatization, for instance, is the opposite of what was taught in American business schools in the 19 th
century. The first professor of economics at the Wharton School of Business, which was the first business school, was Simon Patten.
He said that public infrastructure is a fourth factor of production. But its role isn't to make a profit. It's to lower the cost
of public services and basic inputs to lower the cost of living and lower the cost of doing business to make the economy more competitive.
But privatization adds interest payments, dividends, managerial payments, stock buybacks, and merges and acquisitions. Obviously
these financialized charges are factored into the price system and raise the cost of living and doing business.
LONG: Well, Michael, we're-I thank you for the time, and we're up against our hard line. I know we didn't have as much time as
we always like, so we have to break. Any overall comments you'd like to leave with our listeners who might be interested this school
of economics?
HUDSON: Regarding the downturn we're in, we're going into a debt deflation. The key of understanding the economy is to look at
debt. The economy has to spend more and more money on debt service. The reason the economy is not recovering isn't simply because
this is a normal cycle. And It's not because labour is paid too much. It's because people are diverting more and more of their income
to paying their debts, so they can't afford to buy goods. Markets are shrinking – and if markets are shrinking, then real estate
rents are shrinking, profits are shrinking. Instead of using their earnings to reinvest and hire more labour to increase production,
companies are using their earnings for stock buybacks and dividend payouts to raise the share price so that the managers can take
their revenue in the form of bonuses and stocks and live in the short run. They're leaving their companies as bankrupt shells, which
is pretty much what hedge funds do when they take over companies.
So the financialization of companies is the reverse of everything Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and everyone you think of as a
classical economist was saying. Banks wrap themselves in a cloak of classical economics by dropping history of economic thought from
the curriculum, which is pretty much what's happened. And Canada-I know since you're from Canada, my experience there was that the
banks have a huge lobbying power over government. In 1979, I wrote for the IRPP Institute there on Canada In the New Monetary
Order . At that time the provinces of Canada were borrowing money from Switzerland and Germany because they could borrow it at
much lower interest rates. I said that this was going to be a disaster, and one that was completely unnecessary. If Canadian provinces
borrow in Francs or any other foreign currency, this money goes into the central bank, which then creates Canadian dollars to spend.
Why not have the central bank simply create these dollars without having Swiss francs, without having German marks? It's unnecessary
to have an intermediary. But the more thuggish banks, like the Bank of Nova Scotia, said, "Oh, that way's the road to serfdom." It's
not. Following the banks and the Austrian School of the banks' philosophy, that's the road to serfdom. That's the road
to debt serfdom. It should not be taken now. It lets universities and the government be run by neoliberals. They're a travesty of
what real economics is all about.
LONG: Michael, thank you very much. I learned a lot, appreciate it; certainly appreciate how important it is for us to use the
right words on the right subject when we're talking about economics. Absolutely agree with you. Talk to you again?
Interesting, but after insulting Duncan, Hudson says the banks stopped partnering with industry and went into real estate,
which sounded like what Duncan said.
I mention this because for a non- expert like myself it is sometimes difficult to tell when an expert is disagreeing with someone
for good reasons or just going off half- cocked. I followed what Hudson said about the evils of the IMF, but didn't see where
Duncan had defended any of that, unless it was implicit in saying that capitalism used to function better.
"As we got in the argument at the beginning of your program today, our argument is about the vocabulary we're using and the
words you're using. The vocabulary taught to students today in economics – and used by the mass media and by government spokesmen
– is basically a set of euphemisms ."Almost all the words we get are kind of euphemisms to conceal the actual dynamics that are
happening."
May consider it's about recognizing and deciphering the "doublespeak", "newspeak", "fedspeak", "greenspeak" etc, whether willing
or unwitting using words for understanding and clarifying as opposed to misleading and confusing dialectic as opposed to sophistry.
What I objected to was the characterization of today's situation as "financialization." I explained that financialization is
the FIRST stage - when finance WORKS. We are now in the BREAKDOWN of financialization - toward the "barter" stage.
Treating "finance" as an end stage rather than as a beginning stage overlooks the dynamics of breakdown. It is debt deflation.
First profits fall, and as that occurs, rents on commercial property decline. This is already widespread here in New York, from
Manhattan (8th St. near NYU is half empty) to Queens (Austin St. in Forest Hills.).
I wrote an article you might be interested in reading. It outlines a tax policy which would help prevent what you are discussing
in your article. The abuse of credit to receive rents and long term capital gains.
Thank you for another eye-opening exposition. My political economy education was negative (counting a year of Monetarism and
Austrian Economics around 1980), so I appreciate your interviews as correctives.
From your interview answer to the question about what we, the 99+% should do,I gathered only that we should not try to beat
the market. Anything more than that?
From my understanding, post Plaza banking lost most of its traditional market to the shadow sector, as a result, expanded off
into C/RE and increasingly to Financialization of everything sundry.
Disheveled Marsupial interesting to note Mr. Hudson's statement about barter, risk factors – ?????
One of the most important distinctions that investors have to understand is the difference between secular and cyclical
trends Let us begin with definitions from the Encarta® World English Dictionary:
Secular – occurring only once in the course of an age or century; taking place over an extremely or indefinitely long period
of time
Cycle – a sequence of events that is repeated again and again, especially a causal sequence; a period of time between repetitions
of an event or phenomenon that occurs regularly
Secular stagnation is a condition of negligible or no economic growth in a market-based economy . When
per capita income stays at relatively high levels, the percentage of savings is l
http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/The_Next_Million_Years__how_to_kill_off_excess_population___1953_.pdfNathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:18 pmFirst of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:15 pm
Well, perhaps I should not have said "gone". There will always be trace amounts of everything left. And nothing will suddenly disappear. There will be a decline curve for everything. But let's deal with the one with the least future abundance, oil. I believe we are at peak oil right, or very near it anyway. The bumpy plateau may last from 5 to 10 years. Then the decline curve will be much steeper than the ascent.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 1:26 pm
My work suggests that the world runs out of more land that can be put under grain by 2035. This is mainly Brazil and Russia. Just about every country in Africa is importing grain now. Therefore most of their population growth has to be fed on imported grain. Most of the costs in producing grain are in energy so a rising oil price will have a leveraged effect on food prices.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 12:31 pmHi Doug,George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:10 pm
I think a common factor in all countries seeing large falls in birth rates is that they are preceded by large falls in death rates. This typically takes a couple of generations, which is one of the biggest causes of population overshoot. In Iran it was maybe a bit faster but not much – from above 20 per 1000 in the 50s and 12 in the eighties to around 4 now.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 8:39 amRegarding fertilizers, when you realize that there was a "human bones" market in the 19th century, and that for instance England "emptied" the catacombs in Sicily for that, or took back the soldiers bones from Waterloo, you get a sense of the urgency for fertilizer without phosphorus or natural gas based ones.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 10:21 am
So how is that wind farm coming along?islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 9:04 amWay too early to say. The article dated October 4, 2017 says this:GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 11:01 am
Yea, the feud between Gould/Lewontin/Rose VS Wilson/Dawkins/Dennett has been interesting.Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 8:59 pm
Hi Ron,Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:27 pm
Keeping things in perspective, why not go with the experts until they're proven wrong?Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:36 pm