Doomstead Diner Menu => Economics => Topic started by: RE on April 26, 2015, 02:05:22 AM

Title: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 26, 2015, 02:05:22 AM









Discuss this article @ the

ECONOMICS TABLE inside the Diner



Musical Accompaniment


Follow us on Twitter @doomstead666

Friend us on Facebook



Kollapsnik.com



 




Published on the Doomstead Diner on April 26, 2015



Off the keyboard of RE

http://thecompanion.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/polyp-org-uk-No-Economic-Growth-cartoon-e1298661998815.jpg



Visit the New Diner News Page for Daily Updates from around the Collapse Blogosphere





 



Everywhere in the Political World you hear the phrase "Return to Growth", the Holy Grail for resolving the economic woes of the world.



http://gujarati.oneindia.com/img/250x90/2014/06/17-himalayas-glaciers.jpgWith Growth, the Greeks got no problems, they can pay off the Mole Hill of debt they owe to everybody.  With Growth, the FSoA can pay off the MT. EVEREST of debt owed to everybody.  Growth is GOOD.  It solves all problems.



Sadly of course, Infinite Growth on a Finite World is impossible, and as vast as the resources of the Earth may have seemed a century or two ago, an Exponentially growing population of Homo Saps has managed to burn through most of the good easy to get at stuff, and while burning through it load up the environment with the waste such consumption produces.  We are essentially DIGESTING the Planet, and leaving it loaded with the excrement from said consumption.



Problem in the Near Term here though is that the Monetary System we used to access and distribute all these resources itself is also predicated on perpetual growth, and when the growth stops, so also stops the Monetary system.  Except, not quite right away.  Everybody and every thing DEPENDS on the monetary system to keep functioning, and we have Geniuses up there at the top running the show who endeavor to make SURE it keeps functioning, no matter what reality is telling us here.



How ARE they keeping this running?  Two acronyms for you here which tell it all, ZIRP & NIRP.  Those are the modern bankstering acronyms for ZERO INTEREST RATE POLICY and NEGATIVE INTEREST RATE POLICY.



From Zero Hedge:




Earlier today, we were quite shocked when we heard two statements by central bankers uttered during a press briefing in Washington. The first comes from the ECB's Mario Draghi:



DRAGHI: LOW RATES FOR LONG PERIOD INCREASE FINANCIAL STABILITY RISKS



The second: from his supposed nemesis, if only for public consumption and not during the BIS' bimonthly meetings in Basel, Bundesbank head Jens Weidmann, who said a carbon copy replica of what Draghi had said minutes prior:



WEIDMANN SAYS LOW INTEREST RATES INCREASE FIN STABILITY RISKS



We were "shocked" because for once, we agree with central bankers. And to get a sense of just how right the two central bank heads are we go to Bank of America which overnight released a report in which it said that as of this moment, "53% of all global government bonds are yielding 1% or less (Chart 3)."






Let that sink in for a second.



And while you are contemplating that, here is another fact from Bank of America:



The global narrative remains maximum liquidity (Chart 2) & minimal interest rates. And it’s impossible to be max bearish with such an extravagant monetary backdrop.






Central bank assets now exceed $22 trillion, a figure equivalent to the combined GDP of US & Japan



So yes, low rates for a long period of time most certainly "increase financial stability risks" – the central planners are certainly correct about that. But next time they make that remark, perhaps someone from the media can ask Messrs Draghi or Weidmann the following question:



does the fact that central banks now collectively own nearly a third of global GDP in government bonds and equivalent assets – an amount that is greater than the GDP of first and third largest global economies, have anything to do with "low rates" and the fact that "financial stability risks" as of this moment have never been higher?



Oh, and good luck with that "renormalization."




Now, EVERYBODY KNOWS Money is supposed to "Make Money" in some kind of virtual perpetual motion machine.  If you save a small pile of the stuff for your retirement, your supposed to get a "decent return" which in the olden days was something like 5-10% depending on how much "risk" you were willing to take on your "investments".  Real risk averse people like my Mom who was a child during the Great Depression wouldn't invest in the Stock Market, too risky.  She put her little pile into CDs, considered one of the safest places to park your cash, which gave a slightly higher return than a typical Savings Account.  She probably collected an average return of around 3% over the years she was retired for this pile.



These days though, nobody including the Central Banks that issue out the money expects to get any return on it, they expect to LOSE money. If you are well connected enough, the Bank will PAY YOU to borrow money from them.  That's what a Negative Interest Rate means.  On the other side of the coin, if you happen to be someone with enough surplus income to actually save some of it, if you drop it in the bank for them to keep it "safe", they'll charge you for the priviledge of keeping your money "safe" with them.



So, basically the whole monetary system we have come to believe in is completely ass-backwards now, and what this really is is a recognition that Growth has stopped, and in fact reversed to contraction.  I hate that Newzspeak term "degrowth".  We're not "degrowing", at best we're shrinking and maybe DIEING.



Obviously, the super smart folks running the monetary system KNOW that there is no growth here in any real terms, but to keep the monetary system operational they need to present the ILLUSION of Growth.  Every last Politician and Technocrat…Wait!  Let me digress here for a moment on this "Technocrat" thing!



"Technocrat" is another nice Newzspeak Euphimism for a Fascist Apparatchik.  Prior to about 1930 this word didn't even fucking EXIST, and it didn't get much play after it was invented until the 1960s



technocrat_ngramFrankly, if Google's nGram stat system was updating this term from 2008 to today, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that "Technocrat" has reached still more dizzying heights in the world of NewzSpeak.  Notice how the word is a confabulation of the Positively Held notions and words of Technology & Democrat?  Technology is GOOD.  A Technocrat  must be SMART too.  Democratic principles are GOOD.  A Technocrat must care about Democracy, because it's right there in the name, right?  Here's a typical Technocrat:



http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2012-09-05/0905_mario_draghi_630x420.jpg



Super Mario Dragon



Do you think this former Goldman Bankster gives a flying fuck about "democracy"?  Of course he doesn't.  All he gives a shit about is keeping the system running here so he can stay at the top of the heap.  Far as his Technical Knowledge goes, he's as fucking clueless as everybody else running this show.   They don't have a solution to the problems we face, because short of a massive dislocation, probable World War and copious Death & Destruction, there really isn't a solution that works for everybody.  SOMEBODY (or really many somebodies) will get completely FUCKED here!  Super Mario's job is to make sure that isn't himself or any of his friends at Goldman.



He's not a stupid guy of course, so he certainly knows by now that there is no real Growth anywhere on the horizon for anybody, but in order to keep the system running, the ILLUSION of Growth must be maintained at all costs, and the costs are steep indeed.  So Super Mario and the rest of the CB Apparatchiks out there jawbone Growth, but even with all the Free Money dished out to the well connected, they tacitly acknowledge there is no Growth with a Zero Interest Rate.  How can you "grow" your personal little pile of Savings if you get no interest on it?  If the Bank or Bonds you use to park your money have a NEGATIVE interest rate, your pile doesn't grow over time, it shrinks.  Currently both Swissie and Kraut Goobermint Bonds are Negative Interest Rate "investments".  So why does anybody drop their money into this dogshit?  Because these Bonds are perceived as a "safe haven" when the inevitable Crash that Everybody Knows is coming arrives and the Magically Levitated Stock Market finally faces The Last Margin Call TM.



The evidence that there is no Growth is all over the place of course, all you have to do is look at the declining number of people in the Labor force…



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/part1202121_big.gif



…or the total Miles Driven and Gas Konsumed by the no longer working…



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/3ilesgas0213121_big.gif



…or the CRASHING count of Oil Rigs across Frackerville



Oil_Rig_Collapse



Watch Four Years of Oil Drilling Collapse in Seconds (Bloomberg)



Click the link to view the full Interactive Map



http://www.whatamimissinghere.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Bubble-Debt-Crisis-500x354.jpgHow was all that drilling financed to begin with?  With a lot of DEBT, that's how, which is about the only thing left that IS Growing, and Growing Exponentially.




Since the "Investors" out there couldn't get any kind of return on anything else, they started pitching out funny money at the drillers, "chasing yield"  as the saying goes.  Problem of course with this is that the folks who borrowed this funny money are in the process of Going Outta Biz.  Those loans aren't going to be paid back anymore than the pile of Student Debt will be paid off either.



Currently, of the somewhere around $1.3T in Student Debt, fully 1/3rd is currently delinquent or in arrears.



From Zero Hedge:




It’s no secret that America has a $1.3 trillion student debt problem and as we’ve outlined on a few occasions recently, the actual delinquency rate for student borrowers is far higher than the (also high) 18% that’s generally reported because as The St. Louis Fed recently pointed out, it’s important to look not at delinquencies over total student loans but at delinquencies over loans in repayment and when you do the math on the latter you discover that once America’s best and brightest come out of deferment and forbearance, one in three quickly fall 30 days or more behind on their payments. In other words, the real delinquency rate (i.e. the rate for those who are actually required to make payments) is closer to 30%.



And while the Obama administration debates more “efficient” ways to allow for the discharge of this mountainous pile of bad loans in bankruptcy proceedings, some folks saw their student debt ABS put on review for downgrade at Moody’s which cites default risk on nearly $3 billion worth of paper. As a reminder, these are the deals and tranches affected:







http://www.hyde.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/churchill.jpgNow, since this nonsense of ever escalating levels of debt and ever decreasing quantities of available resource has been ongoing and working (sort of, for .01% of the Population), clearly TPTB have deluded themselves into believing they can keep this Ponzi running in perpetuity.  Just KEEP ISSUING OUT MORE DEBT!



Problem of course is that the debt is only being issued out to .01% of the population, so consumption is shrinking and until they start issuing out the Funny Money to J6P to buy the junk on sale at Walmart at Low, Low Prices Every Day, it will keep shrinking.  The Central Banksters can Jawbone growth from now until the cows come home, but it won't get J6P increasing consumption, which represents about 70% of the GDP.



Eventually, as already is the case with the oil price, you get a crash in the prices and the losses get recognized.  Oil isn't like the Housing market, where you can keep all the unsold and foreclosed on McMansions in hidden inventory for years on end while you wait for a "rebound" in demand.  There's a limited amount of above ground storage space for Oil, and once it is all filled up you have to dump inventory at whatever price you can get for it until you can get all the production shut in to limit the supply to match the ever decreasing demand.



The Saudis are taking advantage of this situation to try and drive everybody else outta biz faster, by INCREASING rather than decreasing their production.  They're aware the prices are never going to go back up, so they're doing a Final Liquidation Sale. "Everything Must Go! 90% off all Merchandise!"



The ETP Model developed by the Hill's Group has been remarkably accurate in predicting the downward pressure on the price of Oil, and the conclusions drawn are inescapable.  Below, from the 4th Update to the ETP Model:




The price of petroleum is controlled by two factors:1) The cost of production.

2) The $ amount that the end consumer (the NEGs) can afford to pay for it.What the end consumer pays must be sufficient to cover the cost of production. All production cost must be borne by the end consumer, who includes the end buyer, and the societal cost required to produce petroleum, and its products.The Petroleum Price Curve, shown below, reflects the two factors that have, and will continue to control petroleum prices. The ETP derived Cost Curve is constructed from the ETP model, and has mapped the price of petroleum since 1960 with a correlation coefficient of 0.965. It is the most accurate pricing model that has ever been developed, (see report)*.The Maximum Consumer Price curve was also developed from the ETP model. It represents the maximum price that the end consumer can pay for petroleum. It is based on the observation that the price of a unit of petroleum can not exceed the value of the economic activity that the energy it supplies to the end consumer can generate.


A more complete explanation of how the Maximum Consumer Price curve was formulated is show in chart# 160 below:


depletion2022003.jpg



The two Maximum affordable price curves labeled 71% (black), and 62% (light blue) are skewed logistic curves. There is no explicit mathematical equation to describe them. They are derived numerically, and the dots represent values for specific years. The 71% curve is the maximum theoretical energy that can be extracted from a unit of 37.5° API crude. Its value is derived from the combustion equations of hydrocarbons. The 62% curve is the average energy extracted from the same hydrocarbon by the end user. It passes through the  ETP derived price curve at the inflection point of the ETP curve in year 2012. 2012 was the energy half way point for petroleum production. It was the year when it required one half of the energy content of petroleum to produce the petroleum, and its products.


The individual points are generated from the equation:  $/barrel = (Energy delivered – ETP value/ BTU/$) * 42.Energy delivered = 140,000 BTU/gal *0.62 (140,000 BTU/gal – the energy content of 37.5° API crude)

ETP value is derived from the ETP function

BTU/$ is taken from the BTU/$ graph – Graph# 12



The Maximum Consumer Price curve is curtailed at 2020 at $11.76/ barrel. At this point petroleum will no longer be acting as a significant energy source for the economy. Its only function will be as an energy carrier for other sources. Production will continue as long as producers can realize the lifting costs at existing fields. E&D expenditures, and field maintenance costs will have been curtailed. All production from that point forward will be from legacy fields only. The economic impact that will result from the energy lost to the general economy is beyond the scope of this report.



 






The energy content of a unit of petroleum is fixed by its molecular structure. The energy to produce a unit of petroleum, and its products increases with time as a result of the entropy production of the PPS (Petroleum Production System). The energy remaining for use by the general economy declines, and the economic activity that the petroleum can power also declines. Chart# 161 below shows the historical, and projected economic activity in 2014 dollars that a barrel of petroleum (37.5° API crude) has, and will be able to power.


 


Historically, petroleum has been a primary beneficiary to the economy. The economic activity that it powered was greater than the cost of the petroleum. Its historical effect can be seen in Graph# 25 (World GDP vs Cumulative Production). That benefit is now declining, and by the early 2020's an increased use of petroleum will no longer add to GDP. It will become more cost effective for society to begin limiting its use of petroleum as the use of petroleum transitions from a GDP enhancer to a GDP reducer.



The Hills Group isn't alone in having modeled this crash, Steve Ludlum on Economic Undertow modeled it also when he noticed two converging and irreconcilable trends, the increasing cost of what it takes Drillers to extract the Oil and Natural Gas vs. the decreasing price the customers can afford to pay.  Back in August of 2012 Steve published the first of his Triangle of Doom TM charts predicting the crash in Oil prices.



TriangleofDoomWe all know what occurred in November of 2014:



Triangle-of-Doom-1101141



…and here's the LATEST in Triangle of Doom Charts…



Triangle-of-Doom-041515



 



The rest, as they say, is History.  Steve predicted TO THE MONTH the collapse in the Oil Price, so when you read in the MSM "Who Cooda Node?" this would occur, you can tell them we knew.



Where does it go from here?  First off, as is obvious above here, Drillers are going Bankrupt and Outta Biz, the smaller operators first.  Rig counts in the Bakken and Marcellus drop daily (see the interactive map from Bloomberg above), and the most expensive to extract Oil is getting shut in first.  The biggest companies and largest exporters like the Saudis with the deepest pockets will last the longest, but they also inevitably will succumb to the downward spiraling demand from increasingly impoverished consumers.  As noted in the Hills Group Report, by 2020 Oil will be a negligible part of the economy as the cost to extract versus the price that can be paid to burn it becomes uneconomic for everyone.  It may even occur before that, since many enterprises driven by Oil such as Refineries can only operate at large scale.  Once refineries start shutting in, it doesn't matter if there is still some Oil left in the ground or a few people still with functioning money who could buy it.  It simply will not be available at ANY price.



How will our society function without Oil and it's products?  Simply stated, IT WON'T.  Not in its current form anyhow.  What sort of new society we will transition into and how we will cope with the many problems resultant from this kind of radical change is an open question.  The only thing you can say for certain is the transition will not be an easy one, and that life a decade into the future will not resemble much the life we are still living now, at least if you haven't yet fallen off the Economic Cliff.



The Dominoes are falling as we speak.  It is only a matter of time before it Comes to a Theater Near You.





 



 photo mr_know-it-all_zpsdea49f76.jpgMore Rogue Economist  Articles & Rants:



Money Valve I, Money Valve II, Money Valve III, Money Valve IV,David Korowicz Podcast:Financial Contagion & Tipping Points,Financial WWIII, Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money,Theory of Everything I, Theory of Everything II, Energy-Money Equilibrium I, Energy-Money Equilibrium II, Energy-Money Equilibrium III,Da Fed: Central Banking According to RE,Kurrency Kollapse,Large Public Works Projects I,Large Public Works Projects II,Large Public Works Projects III,Waste Based Society I, Waste Based Society II, Waste Based Society III,Smokin' Economista Crack,Demand Destruction, Swissie Capitulation,Energy & Banking Criminal Racketeering,Economic Ebola,Competitive Currency Devaluation & Deflation,Inflation, Deflation & FOOD!,Financial WWIII: Secessions, Sanctions & Anti-Dollars, Anti-Dollars III: Fining Putin,Anti-Dollars II,Anti-Dollars,Eurobanksters Pray for Jesus,Wealth Confiscation & Destruction,Monetary Kabuki,Peak Credit,Fictional Wealth & Putin's Billions,Student Loan Forgiveness,Deflation Doom,The Death of Debt,Emerging Markets & Peripheral Currency Collapse,Tower of Babel Moment,Submerging Markets,Musical Dollars,Energy, Money & Gold,History & Future of Coinage & Money,The Future of Money,Whither Gold?,Conduits,The Crucifixion of Money,Banks: Unsafe at Any Speed,More Musings on Money,Liquidity Traps & Asset Class Sinkholes,Small Bizness in the Sea of Irredeemable Debt,Now Why Don't They SHOP?,Debt Monetization Economics,Financing the Industrial Revolution,Manufacturing Money,Capital Controls,F7 Print Button in Lockup,Moving Beyond Capitalism,On Dignity & Comparative Wealth,Avalanche Theory of Debt Cascade Failure,The Concepts of Money & Capital,Dollar-Oil Nexus,Hyperinflation vs. Deflation: Rebutting FFOA,Hyperinflation vs. Deflation Continued,Energy, Money & Oil: Inter-relationships,Banksters go ALL IN,History of Economic Collapse & the End of the Age of Oil,Capital Flight & Unions: 40 years of History in the FSoA,Hyperinflation or Deflation?,In the Debtrix, there is no Red Pill,



Map


Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 26, 2015, 02:33:20 AM
Did I get enough Graphics into this one?  I can find some more if it is a little thin...LOL.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on April 26, 2015, 10:53:43 AM
Cheesy Graphics  ;D
(just kidding)


The other "thing" that's growing is the level of intensity
when it comes to bankster mental masturbation !
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Ka on April 26, 2015, 01:17:54 PM
Some comments:

Yes, 'degrowth' is an ugly word, but it is handy as a search term, while 'decline' or 'contraction' are not.

I take it your answer to your question is 'yes', the CB's know we are in contraction. That leads to two more questions: who else (in power) knows? The military? The deep state? POTUS? and what will they do about it? As I see it, the power structure has three legs: the corporations (including the banks), the politicians, and the military (including police). Currently, they are all working in tandem, but I have to wonder if the latter two realize that when TSHTF, they can continue in power by turning on the first.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 26, 2015, 01:40:19 PM
Some comments:

Yes, 'degrowth' is an ugly word, but it is handy as a search term, while 'decline' or 'contraction' are not.

I take it your answer to your question is 'yes', the CB's know we are in contraction. That leads to two more questions: who else (in power) knows? The military? The deep state? POTUS? and what will they do about it? As I see it, the power structure has three legs: the corporations (including the banks), the politicians, and the military (including police). Currently, they are all working in tandem, but I have to wonder if the latter two realize that when TSHTF, they can continue in power by turning on the first.

They'll do exactly what they are doing, which is to REACT to events as they occur, generally with reactions which have BLOWBACK they didn't forsee or discounted as a "tail-end risk".

You know how we have arguments all the time on the Diner on what the best way to proceed would be?  You think these clowns got it figured out any better than we have?  They also have one overarching principle which limits their thinking that we do not have.

Everyone in a position of power to make or implement policy, be it a Politician, a Tycoon or Military Commander is guided mainly by SELF-INTEREST.  Whatever they do is designed mainly to try and keep their position in the society and the power they have.  So nobody wants to "rock the boat".  Because of that, nobody is pro-active, only reactive.

When it does fall apart, there will be divisions between the Military and the Political ends of the Power struggle, that always occurs.  You saw it in Egypt, and it's an ongoing struggle in Russia too between the Security Apparatus of the old KGB (Putin's Power Base) and the Military.  So at some point here there will likely be a Military Coup d'Etat, but here in the FSoA still probably a few years away because the credit system hasn't completely failed here yet.

It's very predictable in terms of what will occur, just the timeline on it is muddy and difficult to predict.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Palloy on April 26, 2015, 11:23:29 PM
Definitely not enough charts.
How about the world price of coal, iron ore, copper, aluminium, timber?
How about the Price:Earnings ratio for Amazon, Facebook, Apple, IBM and other industry leaders?
How about yield on 10-year sovereign bonds, of US, China, Japan, South Korea, UK, Europe?
How about the cuckoo clock exports of Switzerland and CHF:EUR ?

And when you plug in ShadowStats figures for inflation, instead of USG's dodgy figures, and do it all again with the revised GDP figures and USD value, ...

... people will say "How did they pull the wool over our eyes for so long?"
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 26, 2015, 11:42:13 PM
Definitely not enough charts.
How about the world price of coal, iron ore, copper, aluminium, timber?
How about the Price:Earnings ratio for Amazon, Facebook, Apple, IBM and other industry leaders?
How about yield on 10-year sovereign bonds, of US, China, Japan, South Korea, UK, Europe?
How about the cuckoo clock exports of Switzerland and CHF:EUR ?

And when you plug in ShadowStats figures for inflation, instead of USG's dodgy figures, and do it all again with the revised GDP figures and USD value, ...

... people will say "How did they pull the wool over our eyes for so long?"

Get me the links to the charts, I'll plug them in as an Appendix.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: JoeD on April 27, 2015, 05:41:57 PM
Excellent work as usual RE. Thanks.
one minor item... technocrat = technologist and beaurucrat; not democrat.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 28, 2015, 06:37:00 AM
NOW #1 ON REDDIT r/COLLAPSE!  :icon_sunny:

http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse (http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse)

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on April 28, 2015, 01:35:22 PM
NOW #1 ON REDDIT r/COLLAPSE!  :icon_sunny:

http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse (http://www.reddit.com/r/collapse)

RE

Still at #2!  Also 30  :emthup: Votes, most on the Homepage of r-Collapse! This one has some legs!

Now with 525 Reads from 37 Countries!

No.CountryDate of Last VisitPercent & Number of Visits ↓
1
United States
Apr 28, 2015   62.48% 328  
2
Canada
Apr 28, 2015   9.71% 51  
3
United Kingdom
Apr 28, 2015   4.95% 26  
4
Australia
Apr 28, 2015   3.43% 18  
5
New Zealand
Apr 28, 2015   1.90% 10  
6
Germany
Apr 28, 2015   1.90% 10  
7
Ireland
Apr 28, 2015   1.71% 9  
8
Netherlands
Apr 28, 2015   1.52% 8  
9
Spain
Apr 28, 2015   1.33% 7  
10
Brazil
Apr 28, 2015   0.95% 5  
11
Poland
Apr 28, 2015   0.95% 5  
12
Norway
Apr 28, 2015   0.76% 4  
13
India
Apr 28, 2015   0.76% 4  
14
Switzerland
Apr 28, 2015   0.76% 4  
15
Hong Kong
Apr 27, 2015   0.76% 4  
16
Austria
Apr 28, 2015   0.76% 4  
17
South Africa
Apr 26, 2015   0.57% 3  
18
Philippines
Apr 27, 2015   0.38% 2  
19
Denmark
Apr 28, 2015   0.38% 2  
20
Finland
Apr 28, 2015   0.38% 2  
21
Slovenia
Apr 28, 2015   0.38% 2  
22
Korea, Republic of
Apr 28, 2015   0.38% 2  
23
Estonia
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
24
Bulgaria
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
25
Luxembourg
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
26
France
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
27
New Caledonia
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
28
Belgium
Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  
29
Portugal
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
30
Hungary
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
31
Czech Republic
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
32
Sweden
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
33
Romania
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
34
Thailand
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
35
Pakistan
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
36
China
Apr 28, 2015   0.19% 1  
37 - Apr 27, 2015   0.19% 1  

RE
Title: The Bigger Short
Post by: RE on May 27, 2015, 05:38:54 PM
When Billionaires Speak, Zero Hedgies Listen!

RE

Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager Paul Singer Reveals The "Bigger Short" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-27/billionaire-hedge-fund-manager-paul-singer-reveals-bigger-short)

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/27/2015 18:07 -0400

First it was Gross, then Gundlach. Now billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer of Elliott Management has unveiled what he believes is the trade of this generation: being short "long-term claims on paper money, i.e., bonds." He calls it the "bigger short." First hinted at during the Grant's Spring 2015 conference, he now goes into excruciating detail.

Select excerpts from Paul Singer's latest letter.

The Big Short, of course, refers to short positions in credit in the period 2005-2007, more specifically structured credit. To be even more precise, it refers to subprime residential mortgage securitizations. It is also the name of a best-selling book by Michael Lewis about the housing and credit bubble. It was called the Big Short because many forms of credit were so overpriced that the risk/reward of taking on short positions before the financial crisis was extraordinarily favorable.

Today, six and a half years after the collapse of Lehman, there is a Bigger Short cooking. That Bigger Short is long-term claims on paper money, i.e., bonds.

History shows that it is fiendishly difficult to preserve the value of money which is backed by nothing but promises, because it is so tempting for rulers to debase their currency when they think it will help them repay their debts. The long-term preservation of the real value (i.e., the purchasing power) of fiat money and bonds is obviously of little or no importance to today’s creators of money – the major central banks – who currently can’t debase money fast enough for their tastes. Yet, the current prices of bonds are at all-time highs, and thus yields are at record lows, because the central banks are buying bonds with trillions of dollars of newly printed money, despite the facts that 1) the global financial emergency ended over six years ago and 2) the developed world has not suffered a renewed financial collapse or deep recession. The central bank actions are unprecedented under these conditions, and their policies are partially responsible for the sluggishness of the economic recovery in the developed world since the 2008 crash. Below we discuss why that is the case, and we set out a number of elements that  lead us to the conclusion that the risk/reward profile of owning long-term high-quality bonds at today’s prices and yields is uniquely poor.

...

Our view is that central bankers have chosen, and doubled down on, a palliative (super-easy money and QE), which is unprecedented and extreme, and whose ultimate effects are unknowable. To be sure, the collapse in interest rates all along the curve, and a bull market in equities, “trophy real estate” and other assets, has had some effect on job creation. However, the effect is indirect, and in our opinion the benefits of complete reliance on monetary extremism are overwhelmed by the negatives and the risks. To begin with, such policies are inefficient in actually creating jobs and growth, and they worsen inequality: Investors prosper and the middle class struggles. The goal of leaders of developed nations and their central bankers should be more or less the same: enhanced growth and financial stability. But somehow the principal policy goal of both has become to generate more inflation. Both extreme deflation (credit collapse) and extreme inflation (which forces citizens to forego normal economic activities and become traders and speculators in a desperate attempt to keep up with the erosion of savings and value) are threats to societal stability, and we don’t actually think there is much to choose from between those  extremes. But central bankers are completely focused on erasing any chance of deflation, and the tool to do so – currency  debasement – is certainly near to hand. Therefore, the likelihood of deflation is highly remote. By contrast, the central bankers’ universal belief that inflation is easy to deal with if it accidentally overheats is arrogant and not supported by the historical record.

Furthermore, we fail to comprehend how owners of claims on money (that is, bondholders) can continue to ignore the fact that the goal of generating more inflation is aimed precisely at reducing the value of their capital. Central bankers obviously do not understand that the modern financial system is almost impossible to “manage,” and is fundamentally unsound as currently structured and leveraged. Given that reality, why should bondholders believe that central banks are capable of creating just enough inflation, and not a farthing more, in their current quest to rebubble-ize the world? We also question why bondholders believe that if inflation bursts its dictated boundaries despite central bank scolding, that policymakers can indeed, as a former Fed chairman and now immodest citizen blogger and incoming hedge fund advisor (Ben Bernanke) has said, cure it in “10 minutes.” We call to your attention the hand-wringing and agonizing now underway about raising U.S. policy rates by 25, 50 or 75 basis points over the next few months. Imagine the caterwauling in global financial markets if inflation surprises everyone on the upside and the right policy rate should be 2%, 4% or higher. Given the fragility of the financial system and its still-extreme leverage, even a few points of inflation and a few hundred basis points of increase in medium- and long-term interest rates could cause a renewed financial crisis.

Inflation is more or less a generalized diminution in the value of money. A bond is an instrument by which a promise to return, in the distant future, a fixed-in-currency amount of invested money is supplemented by periodic interest payments in the  meantime. That’s it, and that’s all you get. Such interest payments are meant to compensate the investor for the use of his or her money, taxes (if any) and expected inflation. At currently prevailing interest rates in the developed world, if there is ANY inflation in the next 10 to 30 years, investors who buy or hold bonds at today’s prices and rates will have made a bad deal. And if inflation emerges from the stone-cold dead and walks, trots or (heaven forbid) gallops into the future, they will have made a very, very bad deal.

Equity values depend to an important degree on confidence that policymakers will continue to allow private enterprise, profits and private ownership of assets. But bonds, in our view, represent a greater leap of confidence. It is so much easier to purloin value from bondholders, and so tempting to rulers; in fact, the current leaders and policymakers have said in so many words that there is not enough debasement (that is, inflation) underway at present. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows (according to Bob Dylan), but bondholders nevertheless continue to think, up to basically this moment, that it is perfectly safe to own 30-year German bonds at a yield of 0.6% per year, or a 20-year Japanese bond (issued by the most thoroughly long-term-insolvent of the major countries) at a little over 1% per year, or an American 30-year bond at scarcely above 2% per year.

Asset prices are skyrocketing because of massive public-sector purchases. The tinkering and experimentation that characterizes each round of novel central bank policy leads to more and more complicated unwanted consequences and convolutions. Central bankers are, in our view, getting “pretzeled” by all this flailing, yet they deliver it with aplomb and serene selfconfidence. Are they really taming volatility with their bond-buying, or just jamming it into a coiled spring?

* * *

Sometimes inflection points take a while to actualize, even when they are long overdue. For example, the unsustainable dotcom stock boom went on and on in the late 1990s, with the American stock market PE passing its all-time historical high in 1995, before topping out in March 2000 at a level twice the previous 1929 and 1972 peaks. All it would take at the present time for a collapse in developed-country bond markets to begin is a loss of confidence in paper money, central bankers or political leadership. Any combination of these could occur due to the market’s fear or projection of future increased inflation, which could bring about or accompany a self-reinforcing cycle of securities depreciation and other asset price and or wage/cost appreciation. Or perhaps a bond market collapse could ensue as part of a currency crisis in which one or more of the major currencies suffer an unexpected precipitous decline. Up to now, bond markets have acted more like puppets on a string. It would be a large and unpleasant surprise, shaking a lot of assumptions, if bond markets softened as QE continues to build and  expand globally.

Current conditions are extraordinary. There has been no global deleveraging since the GFC; in fact, worldwide debt has experienced a further massive increase in the last six years. Long-term entitlement programs have not been pared down to accommodate reality. Derivatives have not lessened in complexity and have actually grown in global size. Moreover, the  financial statements of global financial institutions have not moved from opacity to transparency. The ingredients for a renewed financial crisis are in place, as is a possible “surprising” transformation of money debasement into highly-visible inflation.

A good or great trade is not created by just the prospect of a big move in a direction. The ability of investors to engage in a superior risk/reward profile, and to finesse the question of when the expected move will occur, is what separates “just-ok” trades from great trades. It is the extreme overpricing of bonds, and the universal confidence (unjustified, in our opinion) of investors in central banks and in the current mix of perceptions about what is safe and what is not, that makes the Bigger Short into possibly a great trade. To be sure, while a great trade is not a guarantee, at current prices the bond markets of Europe, the U.S., the U.K. and Japan present precious little future reward and a great deal of risk. No investor’s actuarial requirements or investment return goals can possibly be met by today’s long-term bond interest rates, but investors are holding them nonetheless because they have been making money on their bond holdings persistently and seemingly inexorably for the last few years. The day when their perceptions are challenged and they change their minds, only to find that the exit door has been blocked by everyone else doing an about-face at the same time, is going to be one heck of a day for those who  have positions in bonds, whether long or short.

The Big Short was compelling pre-2007 because the pricing aberration in a specific type of debt was so huge that it didn’t cost much to wait for the trade to go right (the precise timing being impossible, as usual). We became interested in The Big Short when we saw data that subprime mortgages were defaulting at high rates even while house prices were rising. Today, the   Bigger Short is in a much larger marketplace, so it can be undertaken in whatever size one can stomach, and the cost of effectuating it during the waiting period is really low. However, the power of the herd on the current upward bond price stampede is beyond anyone’s control, so one can lose money waiting for the trade to work out.

In terms of directional trades representing extremes of value, the Bigger Short is in a rare category. It is certainly not riskless, because nobody can predict how much staying power policymakers can have when they are unconstrained and have a theory (as unnerving as their theory is), and when citizens are passive and complicit in what we regard as central bankers’ risky policies. Of course, not every trader or investor is in a position to actually short bonds, but our reasoning is equally applicable to the decision of whether or not even to continue owning medium- and long-term bonds at today’s prices and yields.

This analysis is not just about one of the more interesting asymmetries of risk and reward in market history. Rather, it is about leaders abnegating their responsibilities to their citizens (in the case of presidents, prime ministers and legislators), and other policymakers (central bankers) engaging in risky, extreme and untried policies to the point where they are in way over their heads and violating (by design) the moral compact between governments and citizens that is the basis of paper money. Central bankers like to protect their “independence,” but that is absurd in the current context. In what sense are central bankers independent if their extreme policies just give cover to political leadership to do next to nothing to restore sustainable levels of  growth? Central bank independence is a concept meant to protect the value of fiat money against grasping politicians, not to empower central bankers to pick winners and losers, allocate credit and behave as if they are fiscal authorities. Certainly the Fed’s “dual mandate” to pursue both monetary stability and maximum employment ought to be replaced with a single mandate to focus on financial and price stability. It doesn’t matter that the other major central banks are engaging in similar practices (QE and ZIRP or NIRP) despite lacking a maximum-employment mandate of their own; eliminating the dual mandate would still be an important symbolic act aimed at pushing back against the arrogance of the Fed and forcing the President and Congress to face up to their responsibilities for optimizing growth and sustainable employment.

The central bankers of the developed world are the architects and enablers of a policy mix whose most powerful result is to further enrich the already well-off, which is clearly posing a challenge to the social fabric of the developed world. It is possible that this situation could worsen if central bankers, frustrated by their economies’ refusal to dance to their incessant piping, step up the pace of their bond-buying and possibly convert it to more direct forms of money-printing, which at some point is certain to ignite the inflation that they have been trying merely to kindle. Don’t fall out of your seats if inflation then burns right through the finely-tuned “target” and keeps on going. If this happens, we all may find out whether they indeed can, or have the courage to, stop inflation in “10 minutes.

 

We, as usual, agree with most of what Singer has said, with one exception - the same exception we noted in "So You Want To Fight The Central Banks? Then Short Treasurys." Here is the key part:

    As central banks have scrambled to push risk assets ever higher in hopes of creating that elusive Keynesian inflationary "trickle down", they are limited in the security they can buy. In fact, most can only purchase government treasurys, which they have done en masse. This is known as QE.

     

    According to BofA calculations, central banks now own $22 trillion in "assets" - almost entirely in the form of government debt (an amount greater than the GDP of the US and Japan combined) - which they have to buy in order to create the balance sheet liability, reserves, which primary dealers and the world's commercial banking system use to bid up risky assets.

     

    Furthermore, according to Citigroup, the amount of debt monetizations in 2015 will be the greatest in history: so great is the scramble to reflate that central banks around the globe (most recently the BOJ's expanded QE and the ECB's brand new Q€) that the money printing academics have now gone all in.

     

     

    As the chart above shows, the global financial situation is so grotesque, central banks will monetize all net debt issuance around the entire world just to push everyone into the riskiest of assets: stocks.

     

    If there is still any question why nobody believes the fallacy of a "recovery", the chart above should be sufficient to prove to anyone that there is no self-sustaining economy in the world anymore just one massive printing orgy and a doomed attempt to reflate $200 trillion in global debt at all costs.

     

    But back to the topic of QE: as central banks rush to issue reserves, they have no choice but to buy government bonds. Some $22 trillion of them as we noted above. And what happens when epic, epic amounts of government debt are purchased by central banks (just yesterday the BOJ monetized about $10 billion in debt in its daily POMO - and this happens several time per week)? Well, as we have shown since 2012, the bond markets freeze up because central banks soak up all the liquidity, but more to the point, bond prices go up and yields go down.

     

    And this is where traditional economists #Ref! out. Because what is the fundamental prerogative behind QE? It is not to push the S&P to 2100, 3100, or higher. It is to stimulate inflation. The problem however arises when central banks just can't get enough of government Treasurys and their yields, as witnessed recently, go negative. In fact it was just a month ago when we showed that 53% of all global government bonds are yielding 1% or less!

     

     

    And the punchline: what are bond yields? Well, in a normal world, they telegraph the market's long-term inflation expectations. However, in this parallel banana universe in which everything is planned by a few clueless academics, all they "telegraph" is that central banks are the first, last and increasingly (hi Greece) only buyer of sovereign debt. The irony is that the higher stocks go, not because they should but because central banks push them higher, the lower yields slide as central banks buy more bonds to inject more reserves, to push stocks higher, to blow an ever greater asset bubble across all asset classes: both bonds and stocks.

     

    Even more ironic is that not a day passes without one clueless pundit after another appearing on TV and reading from the teleprompter like a stoned zombie that one must not fight the Fed (and central banks) and buy stocks while shorting bonds. And yet what are central banks buying?

     

    Not stocks (at least not officially in the case of the Fed; only the BOJ and the SNB admit to openly monetizing equities).

     

    The answer: bonds.

In other words by simple bond math, the more central banks monetize, i.e. buy, bonds in hopes of pushing stocks, and inflation higher, the lower yields go. Along the way you get such monetary abortions as ZIRP, NIRP and so on, but the math is clear: central banks hope to push up risk assets by kicking everyone out of so-called riskless assets. Which is precisely why bonds have performed so well in the past several years: everyone has been frontrunning central banks!

And the more central banks push, the more bonds they have to monetize. Indeed, as shown in the chart above, in 2015 central banks will inject a record amount of liquidity into the global market, surpassing even the year of the Great Financial Crisis! All this liquidity pushes stocks higher... and drives yields lower.

At the same time, and here we fully agree with Singer, the global economy continues to deteriorate as ever more zero-cost, money equivalent debt is piled up, debt which will implode the second yield shoot higher and lead to a global domino-like default wave while the rich get richer courtesy of their risk asset holdings, pushing class inequality to record levels and beyond, and leading other legendary hedge fund managers such as Paul Tudor Jones to hint that it all will end in either war or revolution.

So what do central bankers do? They have no choice but push harder, and do more of the same, as in the BOJ and the ECB, both of which have either launched or boosted their bond monetization program in the past year. End result: more than half of all global bonds traded under 1% recently. Why? Because bond investors know central banks will be there to buy these bonds.

And hence the biggest paradox: the more deflation there is, the more QE there will be, the lower the yields, the more deflationary signals, the higher stocks go, and so on, in the most paradoxical circular argument in monetary history. Of course, for the Fed to stimulate inflation, it has to step away from monetization altogether, but that would mean an uncontrollable collapse in bond prices, an epic "taper tantrum" and a surge in yields (see Bunds as of a month ago), and worse, a collapse of faith in central planning.

Central banks can not have that, which would mean they would promptly re-engage once more and double down on their bond purchases restarting the cycle afresh. And so on, and so on.

Which brings us to the other definition of Singer's bigger short: that of "long-term claims on paper money" which this complete sense, because Singer's real short is not on bonds, but the economic system as we know it: one built on trillions of obligations to the future, also known as debt, also known as paper money.

As such we are left scratching our heads: if Singer is really advocating shorting the entire closed monetary system, why short bonds? After all, you may be right, but...  in what denomination do you get your profits paid out: Dollars? Worthless. Euros? Just as worthless. Yen? Yeah, funny.

The point is that for Singer to be right, and he will be right one day, one can't bet on a collapse of the current monetary system with hopes of being paid out in claims of the current monetary system.

It just doesn't work.

Which leads us to believe that the real message in Singer's latest letter is what is unsaid. Yes, bonds will crash, and stocks will explode in a hyperinflationary supernova, but the currency they are denominated in will become worthless the moment the claim is transferred. But one thing will remain: the thing that has stood the test of millennia, and has survived all man-made monetary crises to date. The one thing that will also survive the next market crash. That one item, of course, is what the former Fed Chairman and current blogger, called nothing but "tradition" (which he then admitted he does not really undestand).
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on May 30, 2015, 02:57:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/mIUdEstRvx4&fs=1
Title: As Goes The Credit Market, So Goes The World
Post by: RE on June 06, 2015, 03:57:23 AM
http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/92757/goes-credit-market-so-goes-world (http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/92757/goes-credit-market-so-goes-world)


TijanaM/Shutterstock

As Goes The Credit Market, So Goes The World

When confidence cracks, we'll see it there first
Friday, June 5, 2015, 11:46 AM

During the prior economic cycle of 2003-2007, one question I asked again and again was: Is the US running on a business cycle or a credit cycle?

That question was prompted by a series of data I have tracked for decades; data that tells a very important story about the character of the US economy. Specifically, that data series is the relationship of total US Credit Market Debt relative to US GDP.

Let’s put this in simple English. What is total US Credit Market Debt? It's an approximation for total debt in the US economy at any point in time. It’s the sum total of US Government debt, corporate debt, household debt, state and local municipal debt, financial sector and non-corporate business debt outstanding. It's a good representation of the dollar amount of leverage in the economy.

GDP is simply the sum total of the goods and services we produce as a nation.

So the relationship I like to look at is how financial leverage in the economy changes over time relative to the growth of the actual economy itself. Doing so reveals an important long-term trend. From the official inception of this series in the early 1950’s until the early 1980’s, growth in this representation of systemic leverage in the US grew at a moderate pace point to point. But things blasted off in the early 1980’s as the baby boom generation came of age. I find two important demographic developments help explain this change.  

First, there's an old saying on Wall Street: People don't repeat the mistakes of their parents. Instead, they repeat the mistakes of their grandparents. From the early 1950’s through the early 1980’s, the generation that lived through the Great Depression was largely alive and well, and able to “tell” their stories. A generation was taught during the Depression that excessive personal debt can ruin household financial outcomes. Debt relative to GDP in the US flat-lined from 1964 through 1980.  As our GDP grew, our leverage grew in commensurate fashion. We were living much closer to our means compared with what happened afterwards.

In contrast, from the early 1980’s onward, we witnessed an intergenerational change in attitudes toward leverage. Grandparents that lived through the Depression were no longer around to recite personal stories. The Baby Boom generation moved to the suburbs, bought larger houses, sent the kids to private schools, financed college educations with home equity lines of credit, and carried personal credit balances that would have been considered nightmarish to their grandparents. What was the multi-decade accelerant that sparked this trend of ever-increasing systemic leverage relative to GDP?  Continuously lower interest rates for thirty five years -- falling to a level no one ever believed imaginable, grandparents or otherwise. Which is where we find ourselves today:

My underlying point: Increasing leverage has been responsible for total US economic growth for over 30 years.

And don’t let the slight decline in the last years of this series fool you. While the ratio of US total debt relative to GDP has fallen since the peak of 2008, in absolute Dollar terms, US total credit market debt has actually increased from $50 to near $60 trillion over this time. The numbers have just become so big that a $10 trillion increase over 7 years is now actually a 'taper'(!):

A lot of the taper came in the form of defaults on mortgages and corporate debt seen in the wake of the 2008 crisis. But, US Federal debt has grown from $8 trillion to close to $18.5 trillion since January 1, 2009, very much offsetting the deflationary pressures of such private sector debt defaults. Back to my main point: credit expansion has been a key support -- indeed, the most important one -- to the real US economy.

Why shout about this now? Two important, timely reasons.

First, we know the US Fed will need to raise interest rates. The bottom line is the Fed will be perceptually powerless if we enter the next recession with the Fed still at the zero bound. We’re now six years into this economic 'recovery' and yet interest rates just marked their seventh year at 0%. Hard to believe, but it has actually been 11 years since the Fed last raised rates. Although Wall Street is obsessing over when the Fed will start hiking them, I’d suggest the much more pertinent question is: Has the Fed waited too long? The answers to both of these questions lays ahead, but when we're talking about the Fed raising interest rates, we're talking about the repricing of credit inside the US financial system. If you believe, as I do, that credit is indeed the one big horse that has powered our economic growth over the last three decades, then anything that acts to reprice that cost of credit -- repricing in a manner that will handicap continued credit expansion -- will have direct and immediate repercussions on our economy.

Second, the current trend in a critical but oft-overlooked indicator of US credit conditions is flashing a yellow light.

In Part 2: The Central Banks Are Losing Control Of The System we analyze the cautionary alarm the data in the NACM Credit Managers Index is sounding, and note the increasing evidence that the central bankers are becoming increasingly panicked about losing control of the bond markets.

The stock market is a sideshow. It’s the credit markets where we see the most extreme bubble. It’s the credit markets that have danced most vigorously to the pied piper Central Banker music of the last six years, which is why we are watching them closely. When confidence in the Central Bankers finally cracks, I believe this is exactly where we'll see it first. And it’s this loss of confidence that will mark the decisive turn in the cycle for credit. 

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Eddie on June 06, 2015, 08:11:53 AM
Quick, borrow some money while you still can.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 08:28:17 AM

Does R.E./D.D./etc. Recognize there is NO GROWTH?

(Or at least not much growth, and slowing growth, except where growth is needed)

Quote

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77250.html#msg77250 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77250.html#msg77250)
 alan2102
 Waitstaff
 Posts: 275
 Re: Official Chinese Toast Thread
 « Reply #319 on: June 05, 2015, 08:47:34 AM »
   
Quote from: Eddie on June 05, 2015 - "Alan, the whole problem civilization faces is that economies based on perpetual growth are unsustainable, and will rapidly exhaust any and all the remaining resources on the planet, at currently projected rates of population growth."

"Perpetual growth" of what? Currently projected rates of population growth have us hitting a plateau around mid-century, followed probably by slow decline. Population in all of the developed countries is declining. Economies in the developed world are flatlining and will probably decline. Growth in China is slowing to around 7%, which is good (appropriate for their level of development). India will keep growing rapidly for a few decades, but then it NEEDS to; it is behind China. Same with Africa. At this moment the indications are that growth is going to slow and even halt at such time as it needs to slow and halt, i.e. when things have grown as much as they need to. I would agree with you to this (modest) extent: the U.S. and some other economies have over-grown, somewhat. The U.S. should have stopped growing in, say, 1980 or 1990. We had plenty by then and there was no need to grow anymore. So, we've had a couple or three decades of unnecessary growth, but I would not call that "perpetual".  It is likely that the U.S. will plateau or even start declining, which is good. We're too rich.

...................................................

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77273.html#msg77273 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77273.html#msg77273)
 alan2102
 Waitstaff
 Posts: 275
 Re: Official Chinese Toast Thread
 « Reply #328 on: June 05, 2015, 12:45:04 PM »

Reiterating, with new emphasis: it seems that, by some big macro-measures, things are unfolding approximately the way they SHOULD unfold. Growth is slowing down or even halting in the places where it ought to slow down and halt (U.S., E.U.). Growth is medium in places where it ought to be medium (China, ~7%). Growth is high in India and some other places (a few African countries) where it should be high. Population GROWTH is declining rapidly, along with fertility, worldwide. All of this is exactly what we want. There are exceptions to this: high fertility and population growth in some African countries, low economic growth in some African countries, etc. I'm not saying everything is rosy. But some -- quite a few -- of the big macro-indicators are going about the way I want them to go, about the way they need to go, in order for humanity and the planet to have a decent future. Now, of course there are several very big issues (cough-cough --climate-- cough-cough) that need to be addressed, urgently. But maybe those things, too, are in the offing. That IMF report was a mind-blower. Is it possible that humanity is "getting it" in the nick of time? I don't know. Just some observations. Things could be going a whole lot worse than they are.

...................................................

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77443.html#msg77443 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77443.html#msg77443)
 alan2102
 Waitstaff
 Posts: 275
 Re: Official Chinese Toast Thread
 « Reply #350 on: Today at 07:41:29 AM »

Quote from: monsta666 on Today - "in the end the Chinese are using the same economic models of the west which are growth dependent. You cannot have infinite growth in a finite environment"

Yes, that is endlessly intoned, but it wears thin. We cannot have infinite growth in a finite environment, true, and we WILL NOT, and we DO NOT. Growth will slow down, JUST AS IT IS NOW DOING in the places where things have already grown enough (or too much). The system appears to have a built-in pressure gauge that works.

Quote: "In the longer term especially if you pursue a policy of economic growth these environmental costs will exceed the Earth's capacity to recover from leading to environmental degradation."

Who needs economic growth after growth has been sufficient? Growth is already flat where it should be flat -- U.S., E.U. The policy-makers in the West have been trying, mightily, to stimulate growth for the past 7 years; they have not succeeded. The policy-makers in China tried to stimulate growth, and were partially successful; they headed off a depression after the GEC. At present they are running ~7%, which is about right. That's about where China SHOULD be right now. Other places are at higher levels of growth -- which is where they should be right now. Some places need to grow.

Strangely, you guys keep up this mantra of "you can't have unlimited growth",  seeming not to realize that YOU ARE RIGHT -- YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, AND THIS IS PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE IT. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. We grew and grew and grew -- AND THEN WE STOPPED GROWING. Get it?  You were right. What wasn't right was the implication that the stop-growing part had to be in the form of a great catastrophic collapse of industrial modernity, dieoff, road-warrior and all that bullshit.  False. Stop-growing does NOT have to be that way. We are stopping growing right now, and it is not happening. (Yeah, I know: next year. Just wait. It is coming. Collapse and descent into malthusian hell. Any year now.) We are stopping growing, and there will be a crisis moment, true. But it will not be of the total-and-unmitigated-permanent-collapse sort that you guys seem to think.

...................................................

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77438.html#msg77438 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77438.html#msg77438)
 alan2102
 Waitstaff
 Posts: 275
 Re: Official Chinese Toast Thread
 « Reply #346 on: Today at 06:15:33 AM »

SNIP

DD staff and whoever: If you want your message to remain relevant, and be consistent with the most likely direction of things, do this: focus on them up, us down. That's what's going to happen. The world is not going to collapse in flames. We are not looking at the end of industrial modernity.  Rather, the world will have a monetary/financial crisis moment and debt reset, and BRICS will emerge from it in relatively good shape, and WE WILL  NOT. We will struggle and flounder for the remainder of this century, probably, and that's good insofar as we are/were overgrown, too big, too rich. They will continue growing, and begin to level off as they approach maturity (like China is doing now). There will be no "perpetual growth on a finite planet"; there will be growth where and when it is needed, approximately. Renewable energy will keep coming on like gangbusters, probably faster even than current trajectory, and energy issues will (after a 2-decade crunchy period) mostly evaporate. Agriculture will make huge strides toward efficiency in water and fertilizer use. There will be no mass die-off. Climate change will be with us for a long time, but no McPherson-oid collapse.

That's how it is going to go, in a nutshell.  In case you were wondering.  :)

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Eddie on June 07, 2015, 09:16:07 AM
Alan, if this process we're in at the moment had begun perhaps forty years ago, I might tend to agree with your take. However, I don't and here's why.

If all growth stopped now, and even if cars and planes were made illegal, CO2 would continue to rise for at least several more decades, taking us into the kind of unprecedented climate change that appears most likely to result in large scale famine.

Population overshoot and climate change, even if they taper off, are  already way past any sustainable range. Only industrial agriculture keeps most (not all) people from starving now, and more people are starving all the time, resulting in mass immigration as we  speak.

There are limits around soil depletion. It's getting worse, not better. Exactly when is it all going to seamlessly change from a corrupt system that rewards evil, into the system you're (pipe) dreaming about? Answer: When it suddenly stops working.

Insufficient resources exist on the face (or under the face) of the earth to even provide the raw materials for the kind of scenario you keep arguing for. Smart, ernest people who actually have a scientific education have been trying to crunch the numbers for years, and none of them have come up with anything like the kind of soft landing you envision. As far as I can tell, nobody but you actually believes what you're saying.

The current balance of power in the world is really doing very little if anything to even move in the right direction. Mostly the power brokers in the world would prefer to see profits increase this quarter than to do anything to reduce their carbon footprint. The current empire is still traveling full speed ahead towards a brick wall, while practicing the kind of  economics that steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

You can't keep doing everything wrong and expect a good outcome, Alan. And that''s what mankind, collectively, keeps on doing.

Take your positive vibes and your copy of The Secret and piss off.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 10:14:23 AM
Alan, if this process we're in at the moment had begun perhaps forty years ago, I might tend to agree with your take. However, I don't and here's why.
[snip]
Got it. We started too late, and now everything is fucked, irretrievably. OK.

Quote
Exactly when is it all going to seamlessly change from a corrupt system that rewards evil, into the system you're (pipe) dreaming about? Answer: When it suddenly stops working.
Got it. Armageddon will come like a thief in the night. Any year now. OK. We're all waiting.

Quote
Smart, ernest people who actually have a scientific education have been trying to crunch the numbers for years, and none of them have come up with anything like the kind of soft landing you envision.
None of them that YOU read, it is true. In your little walled garden of doom 'n collapse websites, you will find no scientifically educated people who envision a soft landing. But if you were to step out of that garden, you would see other things. For one example, Scientific American's 2009 report: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 (google it).  And many more.

What do you make of the optimism of Dennis Meadows, coauthor of Limits to Growth (cited in adjacent thread: "Stormclouds forming...")? How is it possible that one of the MOST SCIENTIFIC, MOST HIGHLY-EDUCATED DOOMERS of yesteryear -- really one of the patron saints of enviro/resource doomerism -- is now saying that we have a problem with a superabundance of SOLUTIONS? Hmmm?

Quote
Take your positive vibes and your copy of The Secret and piss off.
Jeezuz. WHY are you so fucking mean? Is it innate in your character? Or is it something that DD brings out in you? Or is it something that doomerism in general brings out in you? What?

PS: Oh, wait. It is ME who brings it out in you, right? All MY fault. I hang my head in shame.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 11:03:50 AM
Geez,
I clicked on this thread of hopes of banker doom
& all I got was the Whiney Al show.
C'mon man !!!!!!!!!!! Let's man up here, loose the shame....
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 11:45:32 AM
Geez, I clicked on this thread of hopes of banker doom
& all I got was the Whiney Al show.
C'mon man !!!!!!!!!!! Let's man up here, loose the shame....

"I hang my head in shame" was sarcastic.

Do you have any comments about:
 Scientific American's 2009 report: A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030?

Do you have any comments about:
 Dennis (Limits to Growth) Meadows and his optimism?

Do you have any comments about:
 http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4680.msg77445.html#msg77445 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4680.msg77445.html#msg77445)

Do you have any comments about any of the last 50 specifics-rich, fact-based posts I have written?

 C'MON! MAN UP AND START WRITING SOME REAL SUBSTANTIVE POSTS!

I eagerly await your contributions.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 01:43:45 PM
hahahahahhha

You are a vertical being ! I was wondering what it would take to
see if you have a pulse.
There are only TWO {2} important topics to write about.
Our Sun & our planet.....
The rest is dramatic dribble. School boy games I tell you !

Al,
I left you a link to follow up on, what's your progress?
Aren't you still whooped on the 2 party bullshit.
Anyway glad to make your acquaintance. Around here,
the inmates run the asylum !

http://www.youtube.com/v/dIzw6KKZLgA&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? CEO's resign !
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 01:49:08 PM
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html)

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? CEO's resign !
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 02:29:59 PM
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html)

Good old Bix! He is in the stopped clock category. He WILL be right one of these days. WILL. WILL. WILL.   (Actually, believe it or not, I'm serious. One of his wild ideas WILL turn out to be correct -- possibly the one about silver.)
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 02:34:58 PM
I left you a link to follow up on, what's your progress?
If you're talking about Tsarion, I just could not handle the length and dilution.
Too many words. Thanks just the same.

Quote
Anyway glad to make your acquaintance.
Mutual.

Quote
Around here, the inmates run the asylum !
I would agree with you, but I won't, because if I do I will be accused of being a rotten rat troll mofo.   :P
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 07, 2015, 02:42:55 PM
Take your positive vibes and your copy of The Secret and piss off.
Jeezuz. WHY are you so fucking mean? Is it innate in your character? Or is it something that DD brings out in you? Or is it something that doomerism in general brings out in you? What?

PS: Oh, wait. It is ME who brings it out in you, right? All MY fault. I hang my head in shame.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1e/86/1a/1e861a11d22c736bfa08dac2d5ec3d3b.jpg)
This was pretty mild A21.  We can get a lot meaner than that on the Diner.  :o

Here's the deal.  You have decided to be one of the Contrarians on a board chock full of Doomers.  With the possible exception of Moriarty (also a Contrarian), about nobody agrees with anything that comes off your keyboard.

You basically ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your world view.  No matter how many articles we drop on demonstrating the putrid state of the Chinese economy and ecosystem, you will come back with a refutation of some type.

Stock Market Issues and BK Solar Companies?  NO PROBLEM!  Just a washout phase!

Air & Water Pollution?  NO PROBLEM!  There is a 5 year Plan to resolve it!

Like myself in the old days on TBP, you enjoy arguing with people who have an opposing viewpoint, so you gravitate toward a website where there are people who will engage you in these arguments.  Trust me, this is a waste of fucking time.

My suggestion to you is the same one I pitch at Moriarty.  Set up your own fucking Cornucopian Website.  You're not gonna make any headway here convincing Diners that China is the Empire of the Next Century.  That Dog Just Won't Hunt here on the Diner.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? CEO's resign !
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 02:43:43 PM
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/06/bix-weir-alert-both-ceos-of-the-worlds-largest-derivative-holder-suddenly-resign-2716992.html)

Good old Bix! He is in the stopped clock category. He WILL be right one of these days. WILL. WILL. WILL.   (Actually, believe it or not, I'm serious. One of his wild ideas WILL turn out to be correct -- possibly the one about silver.)


Shooting the messenger is a clear cut indicator of a TROLL !
That's not using your manhood wisely.
Careful or RE might put you in the contrarion room with Moriarty.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize OVERDOSE The next financial crisis
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 03:21:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/4ECi6WJpbzE&list=LL9g8PwQVdhxOkh8rTKdOAYQ&index=14&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on June 07, 2015, 03:33:54 PM
Take your positive vibes and your copy of The Secret and piss off.
Jeezuz. WHY are you so fucking mean? Is it innate in your character? Or is it something that DD brings out in you? Or is it something that doomerism in general brings out in you? What?

PS: Oh, wait. It is ME who brings it out in you, right? All MY fault. I hang my head in shame.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1e/86/1a/1e861a11d22c736bfa08dac2d5ec3d3b.jpg)
This was pretty mild A21.  We can get a lot meaner than that on the Diner.  :o

Here's the deal.  You have decided to be one of the Contrarians on a board chock full of Doomers.  With the possible exception of Moriarty (also a Contrarian), about nobody agrees with anything that comes off your keyboard.

You basically ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your world view.  No matter how many articles we drop on demonstrating the putrid state of the Chinese economy and ecosystem, you will come back with a refutation of some type.

Stock Market Issues and BK Solar Companies?  NO PROBLEM!  Just a washout phase!

Air & Water Pollution?  NO PROBLEM!  There is a 5 year Plan to resolve it!

Like myself in the old days on TBP, you enjoy arguing with people who have an opposing viewpoint, so you gravitate toward a website where there are people who will engage you in these arguments.  Trust me, this is a waste of fucking time.

My suggestion to you is the same one I pitch at Moriarty.  Set up your own fucking Cornucopian Website.  You're not gonna make any headway here convincing Diners that China is the Empire of the Next Century.  That Dog Just Won't Hunt here on the Diner.

RE


I've been doomin' since 91' 92' as best I can remember. I was working for
Henry Ford in Yucca, Az. as a test driver / instructor at the Az. proving grounds
facility. On grave yard shift we used to listen to Art Bell out of Vegas at the time
all night while testing trucks durability on various systems.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 07, 2015, 04:25:46 PM
RE i think china is well underway to being dominant in the 21st century ..  the whole world has defied the usa in joining their banking and direct currency deals because they are everyones major trading partner. Except i think canada who still has most trade with the us. Its going ahead but its a gamble on how far the us military will go to prevent it. Will they go to ww3?  Also the qusetion is as food prices rise and scarcity happens will govts around the world  allow so much to be exported there if there are food riots At home. Maybe maybe not.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 07, 2015, 05:15:40 PM
RE i think china is well underway to being dominant in the 21st century ..  the whole world has defied the usa in joining their banking and direct currency deals because they are everyones major trading partner. Except i think canada who still has most trade with the us. Its going ahead but its a gamble on how far the us military will go to prevent it. Will they go to ww3?  Also the qusetion is as food prices rise and scarcity happens will govts around the world  allow so much to be exported there if there are food riots At home. Maybe maybe not.

A strong possibility Unc, especially when one considers the Dragon's marriage to the Bear. Germany is next to join forces with Russia with great detriment to the US position imho. Realize this sounds silly to most but I truly believe it.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Ka on June 07, 2015, 07:16:03 PM
Another possibility is that AFTER a global financial collapse, the US comes to its senses, and withdraws from Asia, leaving China as domimant there, while the US continues dominatimg the Western Hemisphere. From then on, we'll see who does better: the US with 300 million vs. the Chinese with 1,300 million on roughly the same land area.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Snowleopard on June 07, 2015, 07:35:25 PM
My latest two cent speculation on where this might go.

USA is China's biggest customer, until that changes don't look for a financial or military confrontation. 

If USA financials byte the dust they take EU with them.  EU is Russia's largest customer and China's second largest.  The Bear-Dragon alliance is not about to shoot itself in the head, but it IS preparing to survive the inevitable.

About 2020 they (Bear-Dragon) may have a fully developed alternate financial system.  If they can indeed get Germany to join up then most of EU will follow.  Russia will be cranking out its new (better than Abrams) tanks by then.  If India joins, such an alliance could be unbeatable in a decade or so.  Nonetheless I don't see an empire emerging out of this any time soon. that requires a unified command structure. 

Alternatively. (And IMHO more likely)  the major multinational corporations gain control of the major governments enough to set up a world system that benefits corporations and lets governments atrophy.  IF that happens we could see a move to up China's influence for awhile, because the "China-way" has the lowest per worker cost.  Once the "China-way" is established, governments are allowed to  devolve into sectors ruled by a corporate world council with some high sounding name.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 07:47:40 PM
No matter how many articles we drop on demonstrating the putrid state of the Chinese economy and ecosystem, you will come back with a refutation of some type.
Stock Market Issues and BK Solar Companies?  NO PROBLEM!  Just a washout phase!  Air & Water Pollution?  NO PROBLEM!  There is a 5 year Plan to resolve it!
More like a 65-year plan.

Yeah, you're right, R.E. I always have an answer. A well-documented and reasoned answer. And when the going gets tough on the reason front, what happens?  A bunch of lurid photos of dead fish or some such gets posted. Now THAT'S a reply! Wow!  ;)

Quote
Like myself in the old days on TBP, you enjoy arguing with people who have an opposing viewpoint, so you gravitate toward a website where there are people who will engage you in these arguments.
Yes, for 3-4 days every 6 months or so. I enjoy it.

Quote
  Trust me, this is a waste of fucking time.
I don't agree. I don't think it is an optimal use of time, but it is not a waste of time either. Partly because having fun is not a waste of time. And partly because spirited repartee actually does keep the mind sharp and exercises certain faculties. It is all good. But since it is not an optimal use of time, I limit myself to a few days once or twice a year.

Quote
My suggestion to you is the same one I pitch at Moriarty.  Set up your own fucking Cornucopian Website.
I might just do that.

Are you kicking me off?  It is fine if you are, tho maybe wise to inquire of others, too.

Quote
You're not gonna make any headway here convincing Diners that China is the Empire of the Next Century.
Generally, that's not my purpose, R.E. I don't think it matters what DD'ers think about China. For that matter, at present it does not matter what I think about China, since I have no audience. The purpose for now is to have fun, and exercise rhetorical skills. And also to refine arguments, and develop ideas.  I have succeeded in all those areas.

And, as an aside, it might be that the great silent majority (the people who never post, said to be 10X the number who do) are probably also getting a kick out of all this, and might even have been informed by it.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 07, 2015, 08:05:28 PM
RE i think china is well underway to being dominant in the 21st century
Well if THAT'S what you think then why don't you just set up your own fucking cornucopian blog?! You're not going to convince anyone around here of that rubbish.

 ;D
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 07, 2015, 08:35:15 PM
Another possibility is that AFTER a global financial collapse, the US comes to its senses, and withdraws from Asia, leaving China as domimant there, while the US continues dominatimg the Western Hemisphere. From then on, we'll see who does better: the US with 300 million vs. the Chinese with 1,300 million on roughly the same land area.

Another possibility is that after global financial collapse ALL these nation-states break up and there are NO Global Empires,  just regional or local power centers.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 02:46:47 AM
Another possibility is that AFTER a global financial collapse, the US comes to its senses, and withdraws from Asia, leaving China as domimant there, while the US continues dominatimg the Western Hemisphere. From then on, we'll see who does better: the US with 300 million vs. the Chinese with 1,300 million on roughly the same land area.

Another possibility is that after global financial collapse ALL these nation-states break up and there are NO Global Empires,  just regional or local power centers.

RE

Anything is possible RE but this would be unlikely. Trouble and mayhem are fertile breeding grounds for the the powers that are least effected to move in and seize more territory by promising to restore stability and social welfare policies.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 03:04:38 AM
My latest two cent speculation on where this might go.

USA is China's biggest customer, until that changes don't look for a financial or military confrontation. 

If USA financials byte the dust they take EU with them.  EU is Russia's largest customer and China's second largest.  The Bear-Dragon alliance is not about to shoot itself in the head, but it IS preparing to survive the inevitable.

About 2020 they (Bear-Dragon) may have a fully developed alternate financial system.  If they can indeed get Germany to join up then most of EU will follow.  Russia will be cranking out its new (better than Abrams) tanks by then.  If India joins, such an alliance could be unbeatable in a decade or so.  Nonetheless I don't see an empire emerging out of this any time soon. that requires a unified command structure. 

Alternatively. (And IMHO more likely)  the major multinational corporations gain control of the major governments enough to set up a world system that benefits corporations and lets governments atrophy.  IF that happens we could see a move to up China's influence for awhile, because the "China-way" has the lowest per worker cost.  Once the "China-way" is established, governments are allowed to  devolve into sectors ruled by a corporate world council with some high sounding name.

I like most of what you say Snowleopard, but differ on the total corporate control council

The politicians that rule or dictators are corrupt enough to be bought, bribed, whores for the various corporate pigs but will never in my opinion surrender control of the military button, or perks they enjoy by being in charge.

Corporations also have much different vested intersts depending of their busines while those in power are united in their lust for power and control and their ability to extract bribes for favors from the big pigs. Look no further than the Clintons as but one example of what I mean. Then of course there is Cheney, Bush and the Halliburton crew.

Taking bags of money and favors from the piggies is much too splendid a business for our leaders to ever give up. The corporation's enjoy the setup as well.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 08, 2015, 03:16:53 AM
Another possibility is that AFTER a global financial collapse, the US comes to its senses, and withdraws from Asia, leaving China as domimant there, while the US continues dominatimg the Western Hemisphere. From then on, we'll see who does better: the US with 300 million vs. the Chinese with 1,300 million on roughly the same land area.

Another possibility is that after global financial collapse ALL these nation-states break up and there are NO Global Empires,  just regional or local power centers.

RE

Anything is possible RE but this would be unlikely. Trouble and mayhem are fertile breeding grounds for the the powers that are least effected to move in and seize more territory by promising to restore stability and social welfare policies.

I'll bet you my Pile of Gold Dust against your Pile of Krugerrands, Amerikan Eagles and Maple Leafs, equal weights and give you 2:1 odds it ends up this way in 20 years.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Surly1 on June 08, 2015, 03:26:45 AM
Quote
You're not gonna make any headway here convincing Diners that China is the Empire of the Next Century.
Generally, that's not my purpose, R.E. I don't think it matters what DD'ers think about China. For that matter, at present it does not matter what I think about China, since I have no audience. The purpose for now is to have fun, and exercise rhetorical skills. And also to refine arguments, and develop ideas.  I have succeeded in all those areas.

And, as an aside, it might be that the great silent majority (the people who never post, said to be 10X the number who do) are probably also getting a kick out of all this, and might even have been informed by it.

Not so fast.
I have said repeatedly that RE is too quick on the "toast" meme regarding China. Interesting to speculate on what the impact of their population (on about the same area as the US) will be, and on the future world economy. China's population is four times our own.

Interesting fodder for thought:
http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/china.united-states (http://www.indexmundi.com/factbook/compare/china.united-states)

And RE won't ban you. If he hasn't banned MKing, he won't ban anybody.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 03:27:19 AM
Quote
I'll bet you my Pile of Gold Dust against your Pile of Krugerrands, Amerikan Eagles and Maple Leafs, equal weights and give you 2:1 odds it ends up this way in 20 years.

RE

NO WAY JOSE!

The only thing I want to hope for twenty years from now, MAKE THAT TEN, is that you and I are still around posting on the DD.     :exp-grin: :exp-grin: :laugh:

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 08, 2015, 06:53:38 AM
I have said repeatedly that RE is too quick on the "toast" meme regarding China.
That's good to hear. I did not know that. Maybe I need to start changing my view of DD's view. Maybe I give R.E. too much weight. I usually hear his words and take them as APPROXIMATELY representative of DD. Maybe wrongly.

Quote
Interesting to speculate on what the impact of their population (on about the same area as the US) will be, and on the future world economy. China's population is four times our own.
You're the 2nd on this page to make that point. But you are looking only at the borders of China, which is not the relevant thing. China is on the vast and largely unoccupied continent of EURASIA, spanning a dozen time zones. There's plenty of room to roam. There are other problems (water), but plenty of space.

Quote
RE won't ban you. If he hasn't banned MKing, he won't ban anybody.
S'ok if he does. Would save me a lot of time.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Surly1 on June 08, 2015, 08:23:25 AM
I have said repeatedly that RE is too quick on the "toast" meme regarding China.
That's good to hear. I did not know that. Maybe I need to start changing my view of DD's view. Maybe I give R.E. too much weight. I usually hear his words and take them as APPROXIMATELY representative of DD. Maybe wrongly.

Quote
Interesting to speculate on what the impact of their population (on about the same area as the US) will be, and on the future world economy. China's population is four times our own.
You're the 2nd on this page to make that point. But you are looking only at the borders of China, which is not the relevant thing. China is on the vast and largely unoccupied continent of EURASIA, spanning a dozen time zones. There's plenty of room to roam. There are other problems (water), but plenty of space.

Quote

I have an agreement from Pepe Escobar to cross post his stuff. He also thinks that China will own the 21st century. RE demurs. Won't be the first time we've butted heads. Nor the last.

The fact is that i don't know. China has an immense population and potential economic impact. What will that mean? The numbers are potentially so large that they boggle the mind. Mine, at least. Will resource constraints throttle Chinese growth and keep the rail line from being built, or will the commitment to renewables jumpstart the Chinese century?
I doubt that anyone knows.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 09:27:01 AM
Quote
I doubt that anyone knows.

Of course, fortune telling is hardly a science, much as we all like to think we have a handle on the variables and facts.

I think China is certainly moving into a century of ECONOMIC dominance but not sure about military. I feel the US is still the undisputed master of advance weaponry and it's nuclear arsenal is intimidating.

My problem with my own forecast being correct, that of China becoming Top Dog, is unlike most, I view the huge populations of China and the other Asian powerhouse that is never mentioned, India, as their Achilles Heel.

My mind instinctively tells me that those two populations cannot be sustained without walking into a brick wall of total resource depletion from everything to food, water, clean air, health, energy etc. Since my knowledge in the scientific area is very limited I dismiss my instincts on this area to plain ignorance of what technology is capable of.

 I also have a problem in this area of ashamedly having to admit I am still a peak oil adherent, even in the face of the current situation we are in. Having been convinced of this by folks like Nicole Foss, Kunstler, and of course a great many others; I think they were just early. 

My second problem is the rich poor problem that has developed in China. The poor in China, hundreds of millions alone I read, that are camping out around major cities waiting for jobs an witnessing how the lucky live is a ticking time bomb the way I see it. They are not on a food stamp program like the US, getting a welfare check every month, or living in section 8 housing.

Since I see a major negative financial event on the horizon, I lean heavily toward the big inflation outcome, although a deflationary bust would end in the same outcome for China and India; violence and mayhem beyond belief in my view and of course revolution.

The US with it's smaller populous, vast capacity for food growth,  abundance of natural resources compared to the Asians, and of course superior nuclear arsenal and weapons technology may be able to withstand the Asian challenge.

Not much of an analysis, but an honest layman's opinion of obstacles to China becoming Top Dog. If the current situation can continue and be sustained somewhat like it is and these resource and rich poor problems can be solved, as Alan believes, then yes, China becomes the Boss Man.   :icon_scratch: :dontknow:

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 08, 2015, 12:21:28 PM

Surly: "I doubt that anyone knows."

No, of course no one knows.


the US is still the undisputed master of advance weaponry and it's nuclear arsenal is intimidating.
True. But those nukes are a doomsday option, nothing more; i.e. they are not a real option.

Quote
My mind instinctively tells me that those two populations cannot be sustained without walking into a brick wall of total resource depletion from everything to food, water, clean air, health, energy etc.
We could discuss each one of those things. I have discussed them to some extent throughout adjacent threads, and in the old china potpourri thread going back a few years. Most of my posts presenting real options and solutions, and effective or semi-effective initiatives underway, are ignored, or are waved-away with vague generalities and statements of religious faith. Which is OK, since I enjoyed writing the posts anyway. But just to let you know. You can verify what I say if you want to dig far enough back.

Bottom line: humanity is capable of addressing all those things. The earth is finite, but human ingenuity and industry are not. Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE. At that time, we were limited to wood and coal and whale oil, and given those technologies, our current civilization really was impossible. But now it is possible. In the year 1980, the idea of using solar panels to power heavy industry seemed outright IMPOSSIBLE. Far too expensive, raw materials, fabrication costs, blah blah blah. And that assessment was true: it WAS impossible, given technologic development at that time. But now it is possible. And lots more things are becoming possible, every year. Material resources are finite, but our ability to use them in progressively smarter ways is not. There is no "brick wall".

Another way to say all this is: things change. Wonder of wonders, things change.

Humans can address all those problems. Whether they WILL or not, remains to be seen. Maybe we'll blow everything up before the problems get solved. I don't know.

Quote
I also have a problem in this area of ashamedly having to admit I am still a peak oil adherent, even in the face of the current situation we are in. Having been convinced of this by folks like Nicole Foss, Kunstler, and of course a great many others; I think they were just early. 
Early, and now blindsided by shale gas, which is just now starting to get geared-up in Eurasia and elsewhere. As I've said repeatedly, there's a crap-load of nat gas in Eurasia, easily enough to last a century even at much accelerated rates of use. There might be some oil-crunchy things coming down the pike over the next couple decades, but nothing at all like the peak oil doomers were saying 10 years ago. There's too much of the stuff.

Another problem ("problem") is that the crashing cost of renewables is about to open up new vistas of FF retrieval. There has been concerned discussion of this on realclimate.org's forum (some very smart people, a lot smarter than me) and elsewhere. Cheap, super-high-EROI renewable power makes it possible to retrieve  FFs that would otherwise be stranded because of low EROI. And of course those FFs will be burned, releasing CO2. The future is, hence, NOT all rosy with cheap, high-EROI renewables. We have to somehow keep the damned FFs in the ground where they belong.

Quote
My second problem is the rich poor problem that has developed in China. The poor in China, hundreds of millions alone I read that are camping out around major cities waiting for jobs an witnessing how the lucky live is a ticking time bomb the way I see it. They are not on a food stamp program like the US, getting a welfare check every month, or living in section 8 housing.
The difference is that money goes a lot farther in China than here. An annual income of $12,000 IS middle-class in China, because most things are relatively cheap. You are right that there are class-related pressures building in China. But I think maybe less than you imagine. Per capita GDP in China is a little under $8K I believe. They have a poverty rate a bit over 12%; people living on $1.25/day or less. That's a lot of people. Though consider in relation to 40 years ago: 90% poverty rate! Consider also that the large majority of people who are NOT impoverished have a stake in seeing the system continuing roughly as it is. The system is growing and giving everyone a somewhat better standard of living every year, so why not continue it?

Quote
If the current situation can continue and be sustained somewhat like it is and these resource and rich poor problems can be solved, as Alan believes, then yes, China becomes the Boss Man.   :icon_scratch: :dontknow:
Just to back up for a moment and take a MACRO view: it really is not "China" that becomes a boss man. It is intelligence, sound leadership, good planning, boldness, efficiency in execution, wisdom in resource use, and suchlike that becomes boss man. If China has more of that stuff than others, then...

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 08, 2015, 12:34:22 PM
Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE.
... and indeed it WAS (effectively) SAID to be impossible by Malthusians, notably by Rev Malthus himself. Malthus predicted that population overshoot would create impossible resource shortages resulting in mass dieoff (sound familiar?).  That's what he said over 200 years ago.  Well, hasn't quite worked out that way. Why not? You tell me. I think it has something to do with those big brains of ours. Homo the clever (though not necessarily wise).
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Snowleopard on June 08, 2015, 12:59:36 PM
My latest two cent speculation on where this might go.

USA is China's biggest customer, until that changes don't look for a financial or military confrontation. 

If USA financials byte the dust they take EU with them.  EU is Russia's largest customer and China's second largest.  The Bear-Dragon alliance is not about to shoot itself in the head, but it IS preparing to survive the inevitable.

About 2020 they (Bear-Dragon) may have a fully developed alternate financial system.  If they can indeed get Germany to join up then most of EU will follow.  Russia will be cranking out its new (better than Abrams) tanks by then.  If India joins, such an alliance could be unbeatable in a decade or so.  Nonetheless I don't see an empire emerging out of this any time soon. that requires a unified command structure. 

Alternatively. (And IMHO more likely)  the major multinational corporations gain control of the major governments enough to set up a world system that benefits corporations and lets governments atrophy.  IF that happens we could see a move to up China's influence for awhile, because the "China-way" has the lowest per worker cost.  Once the "China-way" is established, governments are allowed to  devolve into sectors ruled by a corporate world council with some high sounding name.

I like most of what you say Snowleopard, but differ on the total corporate control council

The politicians that rule or dictators are corrupt enough to be bought, bribed, whores for the various corporate pigs but will never in my opinion surrender control of the military button, or perks they enjoy by being in charge.

Corporations also have much different vested intersts depending of their busines while those in power are united in their lust for power and control and their ability to extract bribes for favors from the big pigs. Look no further than the Clintons as but one example of what I mean. Then of course there is Cheney, Bush and the Halliburton crew.

Taking bags of money and favors from the piggies is much too splendid a business for our leaders to ever give up. The corporation's enjoy the setup as well.

Our politicians at the national level, have to be OK'd by the corporations now, to have a chance to "win".

Have you kept track of the interlocking boards of directors controlled by the big banks?  This is the development that makes a Corp/Gov  ruling council possible.

No crystal ball here GO.  Lots of ways it can work out. 

I think RE's suggested outcome is plausible too, but not the timing.  The end of all major governments,  to include my corporate council possibility as a possible world government (if it goes that way) looks to me to be about a century away, short of a worldwide physical  (EMP, nuclear or biological war, mega volcano eruption, nearby supernova etc.) disaster.  Other than disaster conditions preventing it, at least one attempt to put Humptey Dumptey back together should last for awhile.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 02:58:54 PM

   
Quote
Our politicians at the national level, have to be OK'd by the corporations now, to have a chance to "win".

Have you kept track of the interlocking boards of directors controlled by the big banks?  This is the development that makes a Corp/Gov  ruling council possible.

No crystal ball here GO.  Lots of ways it can work out. 

Understood Snowleopard and agreed,

My point was we have it now, and they need each other to work. I thought you were referring to the corporations changing the laws, taxes, subsidies, declaring wars etc. with a council comprised of only them, and not the puppets they grease with cash to implement their wishes.

I cannot envision the American people taking orders from a council of corporations, but obliging a puppet they think they elected is what we now enjoy in our representative democracy. Any politician trying to break the stranglehold is immediately castigated by their controlled MSM mouthpieces as a looney or demented radical as well. It's a sad and seemingly hopeless situation. Something very depressing about voting for someone who cannot win.  :-\ :-\
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 08, 2015, 03:41:42 PM
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/-A6UdP5X3k3E/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/kHisSjxjKZI/s100-c-k-no/photo.jpg)

RE

Economic indicator flashes blue in signal of a recession
(http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/business/2015/05/28/437062/Economic-indicator.htm)
By Enru Lin, The China Post
May 28, 2015, 12:20 am TWN
      
      
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- The National Development Council's (NDC, 國發會) economic monitoring indicator fell six points to 16 last month on the back of weak exports, flashing blue to signal a recession.

April's overall score took the light to blue for the first time since September 2012, said Wu Ming-huei (吳明蕙), director of the NDC's Economic Development Department.

The NDC uses a five-color spectrum to signal national economic health. Red warns of overheating and yellow-red of slight overheating. Green, yellow-blue and blue signal steady growth, slowdown and recession, respectively.

Wu said the NDC's March indicator score had been adjusted from 21 to 22 following a revised estimate on the producer's shipment for manufacturing.

The score fell in April primarily due to less-than-expected first-quarter global economic growth, coupled with a weakened demand for mobile devices.

The downward pressure on export orders has pushed down economic health indicators like industrial production, producer's shipments for manufacturing and the sales of trade and food services, Wu said.

Market confidence surveys indicate that the manufacturing sector has been conservative for several months, she said.

Nine Components

The NDC bases its economic monitoring indicator on nine components. In April, the subindices for industrial production, nonagricultural employment and manufacturing each lost one point to turn from green to yellow-blue.

The subindices for sales of trade and food services also shed a point to switch from yellow-blue to blue, while the producer's shipment for manufacturing subindex lost two points to go from green to blue.

From March to April, light indicators for monetary aggregates M1B, TAIEX average closing price, customs-cleared exports and imports of machineries and electrical equipment remained unchanged.

Leading and Coincident Indicators

April's score of 16 is calculated based on the leading index - which forecasts economic climate three to six months ahead - and the coincident index, which reflects current conditions.

The NDC's index of coincident indicators fell by 0.55 percentage points from March to 99.29, according to the NDC report.

Of the seven leading subindices, only electric power consumption and nonagricultural employment showed positive cyclical movement from the previous month.

The NDC's leading index stood at 97.74 in April, down by 0.58 percentage points from the previous month.

Of the seven leading subindices, semiconductor book-to-bill ratio, the TAIEX and real monetary aggregates M1B put up positive cyclical movements. Export orders, building permits, manufacturing and net employment accession rate had negative showings.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 04:22:46 PM

Surly: "I doubt that anyone knows."

No, of course no one knows.


the US is still the undisputed master of advance weaponry and it's nuclear arsenal is intimidating.
True. But those nukes are a doomsday option, nothing more; i.e. they are not a real option.

Quote
My mind instinctively tells me that those two populations cannot be sustained without walking into a brick wall of total resource depletion from everything to food, water, clean air, health, energy etc.
We could discuss each one of those things. I have discussed them to some extent throughout adjacent threads, and in the old china potpourri thread going back a few years. Most of my posts presenting real options and solutions, and effective or semi-effective initiatives underway, are ignored, or are waved-away with vague generalities and statements of religious faith. Which is OK, since I enjoyed writing the posts anyway. But just to let you know. You can verify what I say if you want to dig far enough back.

Bottom line: humanity is capable of addressing all those things. The earth is finite, but human ingenuity and industry are not. Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE. At that time, we were limited to wood and coal and whale oil, and given those technologies, our current civilization really was impossible. But now it is possible. In the year 1980, the idea of using solar panels to power heavy industry seemed outright IMPOSSIBLE. Far too expensive, raw materials, fabrication costs, blah blah blah. And that assessment was true: it WAS impossible, given technologic development at that time. But now it is possible. And lots more things are becoming possible, every year. Material resources are finite, but our ability to use them in progressively smarter ways is not. There is no "brick wall".

Another way to say all this is: things change. Wonder of wonders, things change.

Humans can address all those problems. Whether they WILL or not, remains to be seen. Maybe we'll blow everything up before the problems get solved. I don't know.

Quote
I also have a problem in this area of ashamedly having to admit I am still a peak oil adherent, even in the face of the current situation we are in. Having been convinced of this by folks like Nicole Foss, Kunstler, and of course a great many others; I think they were just early. 
Early, and now blindsided by shale gas, which is just now starting to get geared-up in Eurasia and elsewhere. As I've said repeatedly, there's a crap-load of nat gas in Eurasia, easily enough to last a century even at much accelerated rates of use. There might be some oil-crunchy things coming down the pike over the next couple decades, but nothing at all like the peak oil doomers were saying 10 years ago. There's too much of the stuff.

Another problem ("problem") is that the crashing cost of renewables is about to open up new vistas of FF retrieval. There has been concerned discussion of this on realclimate.org's forum (some very smart people, a lot smarter than me) and elsewhere. Cheap, super-high-EROI renewable power makes it possible to retrieve  FFs that would otherwise be stranded because of low EROI. And of course those FFs will be burned, releasing CO2. The future is, hence, NOT all rosy with cheap, high-EROI renewables. We have to somehow keep the damned FFs in the ground where they belong.

Quote
My second problem is the rich poor problem that has developed in China. The poor in China, hundreds of millions alone I read that are camping out around major cities waiting for jobs an witnessing how the lucky live is a ticking time bomb the way I see it. They are not on a food stamp program like the US, getting a welfare check every month, or living in section 8 housing.
The difference is that money goes a lot farther in China than here. An annual income of $12,000 IS middle-class in China, because most things are relatively cheap. You are right that there are class-related pressures building in China. But I think maybe less than you imagine. Per capita GDP in China is a little under $8K I believe. They have a poverty rate a bit over 12%; people living on $1.25/day or less. That's a lot of people. Though consider in relation to 40 years ago: 90% poverty rate! Consider also that the large majority of people who are NOT impoverished have a stake in seeing the system continuing roughly as it is. The system is growing and giving everyone a somewhat better standard of living every year, so why not continue it?

Quote
If the current situation can continue and be sustained somewhat like it is and these resource and rich poor problems can be solved, as Alan believes, then yes, China becomes the Boss Man.   :icon_scratch: :dontknow:
Just to back up for a moment and take a MACRO view: it really is not "China" that becomes a boss man. It is intelligence, sound leadership, good planning, boldness, efficiency in execution, wisdom in resource use, and suchlike that becomes boss man. If China has more of that stuff than others, then...

Hi Alan

Fully agree with your nuclear war statement. Unfortunately many other do not, such as the Neocons.

May I remind you we have already dropped two of these things and JFK was prepared to drop a third. My felling also is that Truman and JFK were relatively sane men compared to the Neocons.


Quote
Bottom line: humanity is capable of addressing all those things. The earth is finite, but human ingenuity and industry are not. Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE. At that time, we were limited to wood and coal and whale oil, and given those technologies, our current civilization really was impossible. But now it is possible. In the year 1980, the idea of using solar panels to power heavy industry seemed outright IMPOSSIBLE. Far too expensive, raw materials, fabrication costs, blah blah blah. And that assessment was true: it WAS impossible, given technologic development at that time. But now it is possible. And lots more things are becoming possible, every year. Material resources are finite, but our ability to use them in progressively smarter ways is not. There is no "brick wall".
[/b]
I will entertain your idea that everything is possible eventually, but as stated, my feeling of an imminent financial calamity makes this a point not worth considering. we are dealing with a defined period of time and a unique stated country,China, over a stated period of time,  a century. Let's not get on the Starship Enterprise just yet and remain rooted on the ground.

My view is that your idea of this possible collapse of stock markets being nothing more than a nice healthy correction in the stock markets and that good and wonders will come out the other side of it are a pipe dream. I feel you are unaware of the fantasy and false dreams, as well as sheer foolishness that have been created by the current flight from reality of printing your dreams with fiat.




Quote
Early, and now blindsided by shale gas, which is just now starting to get geared-up in Eurasia and elsewhere. As I've said repeatedly, there's a crap-load of nat gas in Eurasia, easily enough to last a century even at much accelerated rates of use. There might be some oil-crunchy things coming down the pike over the next couple decades, but nothing at all like the peak oil doomers were saying 10 years ago. There's too much of the stuff

My feeling is after reading this and your comments on oil that you are not aware of the true EROI nor of the financial hurdles in attaining this dream. As, stated the technology aspect is not my line, and if true, would not negate the financial calamity that I see arriving, so it is a moot point for me.


I agree that renewables are the long term future, solar a sure in my view, and it always has been my view since a child.  We do not have time to accomplish this in my view,  as I see the financial situation getting out of hand soon. No longer than five years I would guess, and that's with my fingers crossed. 

Quote Golden Oxen

 
Quote
  My second problem is the rich poor problem that has developed in China. The poor in China, hundreds of millions alone I read that are camping out around major cities waiting for jobs an witnessing how the lucky live is a ticking time bomb the way I see it. They are not on a food stamp program like the US, getting a welfare check every month, or living in section 8 housing.
Reply Alan
The difference is that money goes a lot farther in China than here. An annual income of $12,000 IS middle-class in China, because most things are relatively cheap. You are right that there are class-related pressures building in China. But I think maybe less than you imagine. Per capita GDP in China is a little under $8K I believe. They have a poverty rate a bit over 12%; people living on $1.25/day or less. That's a lot of people. Though consider in relation to 40 years ago: 90% poverty rate! Consider also that the large majority of people who are NOT impoverished have a stake in seeing the system continuing roughly as it is. The system is growing and giving everyone a somewhat better standard of living every year, so why not continue it?

It appears to me you are evading my point by introducing minutiae and meaningless statistics from half a century ago in different currencies and societies that have no relevance to the point at hand.

Let me explain again, what do you do and what happens when you have two to three hundred million people camped outside of your major cities near starving and praying eagerly for work and proper housing. As they sit there suffering they watch the others enjoying the good life that they are told is their's soon if they wait their turn and suffer a bit longer? What happens when they watch the factories go dark??

Yes, Exactly, Total Mayhem. :'(


Quote
Just to back up for a moment and take a MACRO view: it really is not "China" that becomes a boss man. It is intelligence, sound leadership, good planning, boldness, efficiency in execution, wisdom in resource use, and suchlike that becomes boss man. If China has more of that stuff than others, then...

China is a repressive dictatorship that finally was forced to adopt some principles of the capitalist system in order to feed and clothe it's billion impoverished citizens, and bring itself into the modern world. Kindly peruse again my recently posted article on China and how far it has advanced politically over the past few decades before treating the Copy Cat nation with such superlatives Alan.

Their wise enlightened leadership filled their brand new highways with more gas guzzlers than America has, and has polluted the environment in a totally irresponsible needless manner, and now Copy Cat's us with a fiat induced stock market orgy that rivals the South Sea Bubble.



Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 08, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
I have said repeatedly that RE is too quick on the "toast" meme regarding China.
That's good to hear. I did not know that. Maybe I need to start changing my view of DD's view. Maybe I give R.E. too much weight. I usually hear his words and take them as APPROXIMATELY representative of DD. Maybe wrongly.

Quote
Interesting to speculate on what the impact of their population (on about the same area as the US) will be, and on the future world economy. China's population is four times our own.
You're the 2nd on this page to make that point. But you are looking only at the borders of China, which is not the relevant thing. China is on the vast and largely unoccupied continent of EURASIA, spanning a dozen time zones. There's plenty of room to roam. There are other problems (water), but plenty of space.

Quote

I have an agreement from Pepe Escobar to cross post his stuff. He also thinks that China will own the 21st century. RE demurs. Won't be the first time we've butted heads. Nor the last.

The fact is that i don't know. China has an immense population and potential economic impact. What will that mean? The numbers are potentially so large that they boggle the mind. Mine, at least. Will resource constraints throttle Chinese growth and keep the rail line from being built, or will the commitment to renewables jumpstart the Chinese century?
I doubt that anyone knows.

We also have an agreement from Tom Lewis to cross post.  Tom is on my side.  :icon_sunny:

See China, the Paper Tiger (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77580/topicseen.html#msg77580) in the China Toast thread.

Nice timing by Tom on this one.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: knarf on June 08, 2015, 05:02:00 PM
Abrupt Climate Change and The Failure of Democracy

(http://journal-neo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/us-intelligence-warns-climate-change-threat-300x201.jpg)

The deadly and destructive effects of abrupt climate change continue to be felt across the planet and still the response of national governments is to do nothing except issue press releases expressing sympathy for the victims and empty promises of local aid. In India, this week, hundreds have died in extreme heat, in the southern United States, biblical rains have ruined the lives of thousands, in California and Brazil drought threatens entire continental regions. Alaska is experiencing temperatures 20 degrees Celsius above normal while in southern Ontario, in Canada, many vineyards suffered the destruction of their entire grape crop as temperatures suddenly plummeted and rainfall there is half of normal. It snowed again in Newfoundland and in New Zealand they had their largest first snowfall in decades.

In the Arctic the high temperature anomalies are causing large flows of warm, river water into the deltas that flow into the ocean from Norway to Siberia to the Yukon, warming the water and thinning the ice, now at its lowest point on record. Methane releases normally at about 1800ppb are now exceeding 2800ppb and a methane cloud has spread across the northern hemisphere. The west Antarctic ice sheet is breaking up, and faster than anyone had predicted and it and Greenland are releasing 400 billion tons of water into the oceans every year raising sea levels higher and faster, while world wide, glaciers have shrunk by 1.2 trillion tons in the past eight years.

Forest and brush fires have caused destruction from Chile to British Columbia, from Siberia to California and Australia, and now everyone hopes that the strengthening El Nino arising in the Pacific will bring enough rain to break the drought and the danger. For each fire not only destroys what’s in its path it also releases huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and so the heating climate provides its own means of increasing its temperature further; just one of dozens of feedback loops interacting in ways we cannot hope to fully understand, except that the combined effect is a planetary catastrophe.

Just a few months ago, in another article here, I reported the press conference called by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at the meeting of world climate scientists and politicians in Peru to discuss the extent of climate change and solutions. None were offered and AMEG warned that if a blue ocean event happens in the Arctic then the warming in the Arctic would drive the earth’s weather and ecological systems into chaos. It could happen later this year. But even in five, the danger is upon us now. As AMEG also stated, we are in a planetary emergency-the first one ever declared. They posit that geo-engineering is feasible that could reduce global warming. Those who think it would not be effective, or even make things worse criticize their position. The debate continues. Others think, like Dr. Guy McPherson, and give compelling reasons to support their thinking, that it is far too late, and no matter what is tried, too many feedback loops are already in play, and that the certain collapse of the means of production of food, water and other resources will lead to the extinction of human kind. There will be no survivors.

Just this week documents came to light from Shell Oil stating that their scientists are sure the average global temperature will rise by not even the high 2 degrees governments now refer to as desirable, but by 4 to 6 degrees, each degree a deadly bullet into the heart of the ecosystems that allow us to exist. And where are the urgent meetings, of even enemy governments, to act, where is the urgent and patriotic hue and cry in the media that exists for the phony war on “terrorism”.

Governments are supposed to have, as their first duty, the obligation to ensure the well being of the citizens to whom they are responsible. Yet in India the poor who suffer the most have to complain to the press that nothing is done, that the suffering are on their own, and that men earning 3 dollars a day on a construction site feel compelled to keep working in 48 degrees Celsius heat, risking death because otherwise they will starve.

An article on the FirstPost website in India says the “the heat wave has reached disastrous proportions; but neither the central government nor the state governments have relief plans in place”.

“Despite its predictable, periodic incidence and high levels of mortality, governments have done precious little to mitigate its impact on people because obviously they don’t care – it’s still not considered a natural calamity,” it adds.

The website further argues that “it’s time to think about heat waves as a natural disaster and put in place both preventive and mitigatory steps”.

This is the state of the capitalist world and even the socialist world that is entrapped within its systems. No one really cares. If they did they would act to help their fellow man, to take care of us, but there is no response, none, except to say, “Stay cool.” There is no plan, nor even the sense that anyone has even begun to think of one. Governments are in the pocket of the financiers, bankers and industrialists.

They have no legitimacy under the various constitutions they are sworn to uphold because they manifestly do not undertake the duties nor shoulder the responsibilities they have to the people. In the West, the governments act in the interests of gangsters who are prepared to see people suffer so long as they can make more profit. They prefer to plant bombs, stir up wars, and frighten the people with the hobgoblins of “terrorism” in order to obscure reality from the people.

But in their pretence to be “of the people and for the people” even gangsters will try to earn some other respect than that drawn by fear, and will occasionally throw the peasants something.

It flatters their vanity and gives them something to talk about at their country clubs and intergovernmental, intercorporate meetings where no doubt lots of crocodile tears are shed. And so they sometimes take small actions to appear that they are responding. But the response is always piecemeal and always in reaction to a specific event, this flood, that storm, though occasionally, a high potentate, like President Obama, will even acknowledge that climate change “is a concern” for the “national security.” But most of the money is still thrown away on arms and wars generated by the same financiers, bankers and industrialists.

We are warned that, at the latest, the earth systems that support human kind will collapse in a century and, some, such as Guy McPherson, think as soon as 2030-40, only a few years from now. Either estimate is a flick of eyelid. It will affect everyone. There will be no survivors if they are right and it looks more and more compellingly that they are.

Civilization is at a crisis. George Monbiot recently, in the Guardian, drew attention to the fact that one factor in the Syrian war is the multi-year drought that has caused severe problems for the population and the nation and government. We are seeing similar effects in other regions from Mexico to China, and the oceans are casting their dead all along our coasts.

Yet, there is no mechanism by which the peoples of the world can force their governments to undertake their true obligations and responsibilities. And we have to face the fact that the peoples of the world have been successfully divided into nations and sub-nations, their common brotherhood buried under banners of nationalism and chauvinism, of “exceptionalism” and atomised into billions of particles all told to think of only themselves, not the other, and that vanity and ignorance are virtues, and that to have is better than to be.

Where in the West is the social contract that Jean Jacques Rousseau claimed united us all in common purpose and gave legitimacy to government? Where are the ideals of the great revolutions, the English, the French the great Russian and Chinese revolutions that succeeded, each one, in further emancipating the workers, the peasants, the artists, and intellectuals, so they had a fairer share of the wealth of their nations and more equality and justice before the law.

But even in the socialist world, though things are done to try to limit pollution and reduce carbon in the atmosphere, as we see with China’s tree planting program, and carbon sequestration initiatives, they are still locked into a predominantly capitalist, for profit world, there still seems no urgency, and the leaders talk in terms of decades instead of months.

This begs the question can democracy really exist in nations of tens of and hundreds of millions of people? What is this democracy? Here in Canada I am opposed to the new secret security laws just put in place by the right wing government. I have never voted for the party in power. Everyone I know opposes these laws. Yet the laws are in place, so that now a few can arrest the many for their own interests, and call it “legal”. Is this democracy? They tell me it is.

So, we are in a very bad situation, but I don’t see anything being done about it. Civilisation has reached a point at which its social, economic, and political systems no longer function, except in a generally destructive way. And still people are collapsing from the heat in India, or drowning in Texas, while we watch it, like a cheap TV entertainment, a macabre reality show. But, be warned. Soon it will be you and me.

http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/08/abrupt-climate-change-and-the-failure-of-democracy/ (http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/08/abrupt-climate-change-and-the-failure-of-democracy/)
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Surly1 on June 08, 2015, 05:04:54 PM
I have said repeatedly that RE is too quick on the "toast" meme regarding China.
That's good to hear. I did not know that. Maybe I need to start changing my view of DD's view. Maybe I give R.E. too much weight. I usually hear his words and take them as APPROXIMATELY representative of DD. Maybe wrongly.

Quote
Interesting to speculate on what the impact of their population (on about the same area as the US) will be, and on the future world economy. China's population is four times our own.
You're the 2nd on this page to make that point. But you are looking only at the borders of China, which is not the relevant thing. China is on the vast and largely unoccupied continent of EURASIA, spanning a dozen time zones. There's plenty of room to roam. There are other problems (water), but plenty of space.

Quote

I have an agreement from Pepe Escobar to cross post his stuff. He also thinks that China will own the 21st century. RE demurs. Won't be the first time we've butted heads. Nor the last.

The fact is that i don't know. China has an immense population and potential economic impact. What will that mean? The numbers are potentially so large that they boggle the mind. Mine, at least. Will resource constraints throttle Chinese growth and keep the rail line from being built, or will the commitment to renewables jumpstart the Chinese century?
I doubt that anyone knows.

We also have an agreement from Tom Lewis to cross post.  Tom is on my side.  :icon_sunny:

See China, the Paper Tiger (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,811.msg77580/topicseen.html#msg77580) in the China Toast thread.

Nice timing by Tom on this one.

RE

Good article. But based on a handful of selected instances. Here's a counter-argument:

Try this:
http://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/ (http://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/)

Quote
Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration’s rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America’s downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare.

But have no doubt: when Washington’s global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

Quote
Today, three main threats exist to America’s dominant position in the global economy:
  • loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade,
  • the decline of American technological innovation,
  • and the end of the dollar’s privileged status as the global reserve currency.

The article paints a grim picture. Our children and grandchildren can inhabit a Planet of Slums,with a billion people already packed into fetid favelas that will be “the ‘feral, failed cities’ of the Third World…

My point is simply that two can play that game.

I sincerely hope that saner heads prevail. But I share GO's distrust of the neocon jingoes who have hold of the tiller of state, and of the foreign policy if the USA. As I have said elsewhere, they will fight the next war down to your last child and/or grandchild.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 08, 2015, 05:11:47 PM

Good article. But based on a handful of selected instances.

That was a handful of selected instances from just the last WEEK.  Go back a month and you can find them by the truckload.

Granted, you'll also find plenty of China Bull stories also, and Ambrose will write both sides from one article to the next too!  LOL.

However, it's like with Climate Change, there also are plenty of articles denying that also.  You have to parse it and decide which argument makes more CFS.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 08, 2015, 05:19:40 PM
GO i just want to add to your point about 2.5 billion people in india and china,  add other neighboring countries like phillipines islands almost 100 million,  indonesian archipeligo 250 million.. malaysia... singapore.. vietnam burma. Laos ..canbodia. bangladesh.. they  Make over  half the people in the world All in asia. Many work in various wealthy countries as cheap slave labour and domestic helpers etc with food and board provided and send most of the money they make home to feed their family. I see those jobs drying up  as low oil prices hurt the oil exporting places and financial centres are not far behind. Add to this the problem of simultaneous flood and drought in so many places including usa,  qld,  and these asians.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Snowleopard on June 08, 2015, 05:41:38 PM

   
Quote
Our politicians at the national level, have to be OK'd by the corporations now, to have a chance to "win".

Have you kept track of the interlocking boards of directors controlled by the big banks?  This is the development that makes a Corp/Gov  ruling council possible.

No crystal ball here GO.  Lots of ways it can work out. 

Understood Snowleopard and agreed,

My point was we have it now, and they need each other to work. I thought you were referring to the corporations changing the laws, taxes, subsidies, declaring wars etc. with a council comprised of only them, and not the puppets they grease with cash to implement their wishes.

I cannot envision the American people taking orders from a council of corporations, but obliging a puppet they think they elected is what we now enjoy in our representative democracy. Any politician trying to break the stranglehold is immediately castigated by their controlled MSM mouthpieces as a looney or demented radical as well. It's a sad and seemingly hopeless situation. Something very depressing about voting for someone who cannot win.  :-\ :-\

Yes we have most of it now.  The CIA controls the media for TPTB and determines who is perceived as electable. The vote counters ensure that perception becomes reality.  They'd rather not have any more JFKs

To speculate further:

The change(s) amount(s) to reducing overhead while squeezing more from the serfs.

I doubt the coming financial crisis will be enough.  The puppets likely stay until a further major crisis can be used to eliminate them, or make them mostly ceremonial;  perhaps after a manufactured WWIII threat, as part of a world peace treaty??  Maybe subjugated to Corps as enforcers of a world climate treaty to control individual, company and government energy use, except for the enforcing major international corps?? 

Currently TPP seeks to give the major corps some immunity from the puppet show.  Likely more steps will follow.

 Yes USA citizens, notwithstanding decadence, dumbing down, and numb acceptance of police tactics after the Boston bombing approaching defacto marshall law, will probably resist to some extent.  Likely some shock and awe show is planned for that to ramp up acceptance of authority another notch or three. 
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 05:43:17 PM
GO i just want to add to your point about 2.5 billion people in india and china,  add other neighboring countries like phillipines islands almost 100 million,  indonesian archipeligo 250 million.. malaysia... singapore.. vietnam burma. Laos ..canbodia. bangladesh.. they  Make over  half the people in the world All in asia. Many work in various wealthy countries as cheap slave labour and domestic helpers etc with food and board provided and send most of the money they make home to feed their family. I see those jobs drying up  as low oil prices hurt the oil exporting places and financial centres are not far behind. Add to this the problem of simultaneous flood and drought in so many places including usa,  qld,  and these asians.

Thanks Unc and understood. Why India and it's billion citizens as well as the others you mention are always left out of these discussions is amazing to me, especially when the folks discussing the matter are concerned with scarce resources and environmental as well as economic problems.

Unc, I live in total fear and constant dread of this financial bubble bursting because of the economic interdependence that has come about in the last two decades. Thanks for pointing out how truly dependent we all are on each other in today's world, few it seems understand it, and the horrors that will come to so many people. I like Alan and he brings a positive spin to the table, but his ideas of a back up here being healthy and the pause that refreshes are way off base in my view. It will be misery on steroids for billions of folks, and will not be at all pleasant, as it happens, or the aftermath, as I surmise it.  :'(
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: g on June 08, 2015, 06:13:47 PM
Quote
Yes USA citizens, notwithstanding decadence, dumbing down, and numb acceptance of police tactics after the Boston bombing approaching defacto marshall law,

Yes Snow, I lived it. Let me assure you it was Martial Law. My wife couldn't even leave work and come home until getting permission.

Sad to relate to you that the people enjoyed the martial law. They felt important, part of something big, wanted to be good and obedient.

Remarked to a neighbor of mine that it appeared like overkill to me to lock down a major city to go after two people." Whadda You Mean"he said to me, "Their Terrorists". I shut my yap right up and went back into the house scared the silly twit would turn me in or something.

Then the Feds with all the the damned letters for names showed up and infested the area swaggering around with guns and uniforms, what a sight. The serfs were giving them the thumbs up and smiling at them like they were troops freeing them from a concentration camp. They don't need any more false flags now Snow, they will give up their freedom in a second and feel all good and smart about it.

Still don't know who frightened me most Snow, the Feds or the Citizens.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 08, 2015, 10:46:17 PM
Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE.
... and indeed it WAS (effectively) SAID to be impossible by Malthusians, notably by Rev Malthus himself. Malthus predicted that population overshoot would create impossible resource shortages resulting in mass dieoff (sound familiar?).  That's what he said over 200 years ago.
You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.
Title: Malthus was RIGHT! (timeline was off though)
Post by: RE on June 08, 2015, 11:17:04 PM
Our present civilization could be said in the year 1850 to be outright IMPOSSIBLE.
... and indeed it WAS (effectively) SAID to be impossible by Malthusians, notably by Rev Malthus himself. Malthus predicted that population overshoot would create impossible resource shortages resulting in mass dieoff (sound familiar?).  That's what he said over 200 years ago.
You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.

He wasn't wrong, his timeline was just off.

Malthus did not anticipate the extraction of millions of years of Fossil Fuel energy collection from EZ to get at reservoirs.

This extended out the timeline and vastly increased the total carrying capacity for Homo Sap while said EZ to access energy was available.

Take away that energy, you just can't support so many people.  Even best estimates for Solar and other Renewables will not bring in near the energy per capita that fossil fuels currently do.

This doesn't even take into account the climate issues, soil depletion, mineral depletion for stuff like Phosphorus etc.

Got a Perfect Storm brewing here now.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Palloy on June 08, 2015, 11:25:34 PM
Malthus used extremely sloppy arguments in his thinking - "it is more than anyone could imagine that we could double the amount of land farmed" and so on.  Well things did happen that were more than anyone could imagine, but we then found ourselves facing exactly the same predicament.  We went from wood to coal, and coal to oil and gas, and if we were to find a new energy source with a better ERoEI, then we would switch to it quickly and do things we cannot imagine now.  But there is no such energy source. That's why we're fucked.

Allan thinks renewables have very high ERoEI, but he is wrong - fooled by the people who are trying to profit from renewables.  The ERoEI when calculated properly, taking EVERY energy expediture into account, including the fences and security systems you have to put around your solar farm to stop criminals from stealing the panels, and the energy cost of mowing the grass between the panels,  leads to an ERoEI between 2.5 and 3 (Prieto and Hall).  Wind in windy locations is much better, although there are not many places like that.  But governments haven't even begun to look at things through the energy prism yet.  "Solar panels are clean and green" is as far as they've got.  And in Brazil they are cutting down swathes of rainforest to make charcoal to smelt iron ore, FCS.  And in Indonesia they are not even doing that with the rainforests they are cutting down for oil palm, which is then exported to Europe to be burnt in cars going to the shops.

Aaaaagh, stop me !!

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 09, 2015, 12:11:19 AM
Aaaaagh, stop me !!

Why? You're on a roll here.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Surly1 on June 09, 2015, 02:02:15 AM
GO i just want to add to your point about 2.5 billion people in india and china,  add other neighboring countries like phillipines islands almost 100 million,  indonesian archipeligo 250 million.. malaysia... singapore.. vietnam burma. Laos ..canbodia. bangladesh.. they  Make over  half the people in the world All in asia. Many work in various wealthy countries as cheap slave labour and domestic helpers etc with food and board provided and send most of the money they make home to feed their family. I see those jobs drying up  as low oil prices hurt the oil exporting places and financial centres are not far behind. Add to this the problem of simultaneous flood and drought in so many places including usa,  qld,  and these asians.

Thanks Unc and understood. Why India and it's billion citizens as well as the others you mention are always left out of these discussions is amazing to me, especially when the folks discussing the matter are concerned with scarce resources and environmental as well as economic problems.

Unc, I live in total fear and constant dread of this financial bubble bursting because of the economic interdependence that has come about in the last two decades. Thanks for pointing out how truly dependent we all are on each other in today's world, few it seems understand it, and the horrors that will come to so many people. I like Alan and he brings a positive spin to the table, but his ideas of a back up here being healthy and the pause that refreshes are way off base in my view. It will be misery on steroids for billions of folks, and will not be at all pleasant, as it happens, or the aftermath, as I surmise it.  :'(

You have company. Another handful of billionaires agrees with Nick Hanauer. None of them mention the poor of India, Indonesia or the Pacific Rim. But the point remains: the center cannot hold.

Quote
Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."

What Keeps A Billionaire Awake At Night: "Envy, Hatred, Social Warfare" And The "Destruction Of The Middle Class" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-08/what-keeps-billionaire-awake-night-envy-hatred-social-warfare-and-destruction-middle)

There is something morbidly ironic when one of the world's richest men, in this case South African Johann Rupert, who has made billions (his net worth is roughly $7.5 billion) peddling Cartier jewelry and Chloe fashion as founder and chairman of luxury conglomerate Richemont, whose 20 brands also include Vacheron Constantin and Montblanc, said tension between the rich and poor is set to escalate, that the "envy, hatred and the social warfare" may crush society, and that "we are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us."

According to Bloomberg, Rupert said that “we cannot have 0.1 percent of 0.1 percent taking all the spoils,” adding that “it’s unfair and it is not sustainable." Being among the 0.1% of said "0.1% of 0.1%" he should know.

“How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?” he said. “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. It’s unfair. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.”

One other person who has been quite a fan of such as "fairness doctrine", at least as far as it does not directly affect his personal wealth, is none other than crony capitalist and railroad enthusiast #1, Obama's personal tax advisor and the world's third richest man: Warren Buffett, who for all his sage advice on income tax has had surprisingly little to say about taxation on financial assets/capital, esatate of carried interest tax. Or has, in any other way, provided any of his wealth for "fair" use among the destitute.

Which is why we skeptical of Rupert's preaching and motives, especially since he himself, unlike millions of other people, actually can do something about "unfair" social inequality if he really feels the deep urge.

Furthermore, it is now much too late to do anything about the social issues which Rupert accurately lays out as the biggest problems facing the world. There was some hope in 2008 when resetting the "unfair" system was a distinct possibility, however it was if not Rupert, than his billionaire banker peers who hijacked the system once more, transferred some $50 trillion in wealth away from the global middle class to the "0.1% of 0.1%", and have virtually assured a revolution or war.

Which incidentally is precisely what another billionaire, Paul Tudor Jones, warned is coming.  Recall from his mid-March TED talk:

Quote
"This gap between the 1 percent and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist...  Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."
Still, we must admit we have a sweet spot for Rupert. As Bloomberg describes the university dropout whose father made a fortune setting up Rembrandt Tobacco Corp. and selling it off, has in the past made other social critiques. Nicknamed ‘Rupert the Bear’ for his pessimistic views on the economy, the 65-year-old refers to himself as a “reformed prostitute,” having spent a decade as an investment banker. He said in 2008 that the collateral damage from the financial crisis was yet to come.

“We’re in for a huge change in society,” he said Monday. “Get used to it. And be prepared.”

Yet what is surprising is that instead of laying the blame squarely where it belongs, at the feet of the Mandarins inhabiting the Marriner Eccles building, and their equally clueless central banker peers around the globe, Rupert mostly accuses technology and... robots?!

Quote
[T]ension between the rich and poor is set to escalate as robots and artificial intelligence fuel mass unemployment.
 
The founder and chairman of Richemont... said he expects advances in technology to lead to job losses after having read books on the subject recently. Conflicts between social classes will make selling luxury goods more tricky as the rich will want to conceal their wealth, Rupert said in a speech Monday at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco.

Don't worry Johann: by the time there is a robot for every job, the entire market will have taken itself private thanks to the unseen "cost-savings" as the companies of the S&P500 fire everyone except the executive suite. And for that is just one automaton you have to thank: whichever banker puppet is currently in charge of the Federal Reserve, the ECB, the BOJ, the PBOC or the SNB.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 09, 2015, 03:43:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.
I'm sorry, I was being lazy, I didn't copy and paste the relevant passages from the link.  It's obvious from the replies that people didn't bother to look at the page.
Quote
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.[40] In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.[41] Regarding possibilities for freeing man from these limits, Malthus argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages.

In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes."[42]

His prediction was conditional: UNLESS we restrained our population growth voluntarily, it would always grow to use up any surplus food that was produced.  And, UNTIL the development of the birth control pill, that is EXACTLY what happened.

Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.  Technological solutions on the supply side don't matter, they never did, they just put off the inevitable.  Technological solutions on the demand side, on the other hand, have a meaningful effect.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Palloy on June 09, 2015, 06:10:26 AM
Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

As for food supply growth, this is how he actually argued the case:

Quote
From “Essay on the Principle of Population”, First Edition, 1798
Published anonymously by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land and by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Island [Britain] may be doubled in the first 25 years, I think it will be allowing as much as any person can well demand.

In the next 25 years, it is impossible to suppose that the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive is that the increase in the second 25 years might equal the present produce.

Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly far beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole produce of the island might be increased every 25 years by a quantity of subsistence equal to what it presently produces.  The most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this.

In a few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a garden. Yet this ration of increase is evidently arithmetical. It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase in an arithmetic ratio.

Which is an argument so full of holes, Malthus should be quietly forgotten.  When a population runs out of food, it dies, and does not grow exponentially any more. Massive inequality has existed in India for millenia, and shows no sign of going away yet.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Eddie on June 09, 2015, 07:24:21 AM
No, Malthus should be only be remembered for being the first scientist who figured out that there are, or could be, limits to growth. In that respect he was way ahead of the curve, in spite of being spectacularly wrong.

You can get led into these arguments now....by people whose intent is to obfuscate the truth...that population overshoot is NO PROBLEM. It'll take care of itself.

Tell that to the thousands of refugees trying to get a boat to someplace where they can find enough to eat. The way population overshoot is going to take care of itself is through starvation. It's already in progress. It just doesn't affect the heart of the empire.

Is it Malthusian? Not really. At this point, it's mostly climate change. Climate change coupled with declining per capita fossil fuel. Since Malthus knew nothing about either of those phenomena, or even speculated about them, it is disingenuous to call someone "Malthusian" because they happen to believe that population overshoot and starvation are linked. It's simply a smear tactic.

Trollery, in other words.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Eddie on June 09, 2015, 08:21:47 AM
Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars."

Higher taxes are coming, probably onerously high income taxes for those left with decent incomes, and onerously high sales taxes for everyone. Wars, little ones until one turns into a big one.

Revolution? Nah, by the time that comes, there won't be anything left to fight over.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 09, 2015, 08:30:46 AM
Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

As for food supply growth, this is how he actually argued the case:

Quote
From “Essay on the Principle of Population”, First Edition, 1798
Published anonymously by the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus

If I allow that by the best possible policy, by breaking up more land and by great encouragements to agriculture, the produce of this Island [Britain] may be doubled in the first 25 years, I think it will be allowing as much as any person can well demand.

In the next 25 years, it is impossible to suppose that the produce could be quadrupled. It would be contrary to all our knowledge of the qualities of land. The very utmost that we can conceive is that the increase in the second 25 years might equal the present produce.

Let us then take this for our rule, though certainly far beyond the truth, and allow that, by great exertion, the whole produce of the island might be increased every 25 years by a quantity of subsistence equal to what it presently produces.  The most enthusiastic speculator cannot suppose a greater increase than this.

In a few centuries it would make every acre of land in the Island like a garden. Yet this ration of increase is evidently arithmetical. It may be fairly said, therefore, that the means of subsistence increase in an arithmetic ratio.

Which is an argument so full of holes, Malthus should be quietly forgotten.  When a population runs out of food, it dies, and does not grow exponentially any more. Massive inequality has existed in India for millenia, and shows no sign of going away yet.
(https://realitybloger.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/strawman-full.jpg)
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: jdwheeler42 on June 09, 2015, 09:15:47 AM
Actually, I take that back....

Population only grows exponentially if people decide, and are able to, breed at the same %age rate, and die at the same %age rate as the previous generation.  Obviously this never really happens. 

You just did a really good job of restating Malthus's argument in a different form.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Petty Tyrant on June 09, 2015, 02:42:43 PM
I still havnt seen where malthus said there would be any huge reduction in population due to starvation by today. I did look at the link and it seems that those who argue for a levelling off or declining birth rate due to rising standard of living are arguing malthus idea and are also malthusian. Those claiming we can have double the present population if we do such things as eat bugs instead of beef are not in a position to say malthus was wrong (if he even did make a prediction off a large human die off) because their own prediction has not happened either.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? Bull Mkt. OVER !
Post by: azozeo on June 11, 2015, 03:17:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/oX_K5GSvjgA&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 17, 2015, 10:44:35 AM
Malthus used extremely sloppy arguments in his thinking - "it is more than anyone could imagine that we could double the amount of land farmed" and so on.  Well things did happen that were more than anyone could imagine, but we then found ourselves facing exactly the same predicament.  We went from wood to coal, and coal to oil and gas, and if we were to find a new energy source with a better ERoEI, then we would switch to it quickly and do things we cannot imagine now.  But there is no such energy source. That's why we're fucked.

Allan thinks renewables have very high ERoEI, but he is wrong - fooled by the people who are trying to profit from renewables.  The ERoEI when calculated properly, taking EVERY energy expediture into account, including the fences and security systems you have to put around your solar farm to stop criminals from stealing the panels, and the energy cost of mowing the grass between the panels,  leads to an ERoEI between 2.5 and 3 (Prieto and Hall).  Wind in windy locations is much better, although there are not many places like that.  But governments haven't even begun to look at things through the energy prism yet.

You're wrong, regarding solar. You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI -- Bhandari et al's meta-analysis published last year.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Defne_Apul/publication/273818473_Energy_payback_time_%28EPBT%29_and_energy_return_on_energy_invested_%28EROI%29_of_solar_photovoltaic_systems_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/55143adb0cf23203199d12be.pdf (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Defne_Apul/publication/273818473_Energy_payback_time_%28EPBT%29_and_energy_return_on_energy_invested_%28EROI%29_of_solar_photovoltaic_systems_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/55143adb0cf23203199d12be.pdf)
Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Khagendra P. Bhandari b, Jennifer M. Collier a, Randy J. Ellingson b, Defne S. Apul

... see figure 7: EROI between 9 and 34, depending on type.

Also, see prior figures on energy payback times: 1-4 years (all embodied energy paid back in 1-4 years of operation; free energy afterward).

Also, important critique of Wesibach and Hall:
http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.co.at/2015/05/six-errors-in-eroei-calculations.html (http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.co.at/2015/05/six-errors-in-eroei-calculations.html)
Monday, May 11, 2015
Six Errors in ERoEI calculations

see also here, includes description of Bhandari and other details:
http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/ (http://rameznaam.com/2015/06/04/whats-the-eroi-of-solar/)
What’s the EROI of Solar?
Posted on June 4, 2015 by Ramez Naam   

Low EROI figures for solar pv invariably result from foolish assumptions which never should have been made. See linked articles for details.

Another point of note is that EROI for solar and other renewables RISES over time, whereas that of FFs falls.  This is part of the new economic reality that is just now beginning to dawn in everyone's brain. The implications are truly revolutionary. Within just a few years, it will be uneconomic to build any more FF energy plants (or nuclear plants for that matter).  It simply will not make any sense, because renewables will offer such a better deal.  That is APART from any consideration of climate, CO2, pollution, or anything else. Just economics.

This new world is coming into view, as we speak.  Everyone is reeling - not just you.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 17, 2015, 11:26:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus)

Malthus wasn't wrong, he was misunderstood.
I'm sorry, I was being lazy, I didn't copy and paste the relevant passages from the link.  It's obvious from the replies that people didn't bother to look at the page.
Quote
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy.[40] In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.[41] Regarding possibilities for freeing man from these limits, Malthus argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages.

In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes."[42]

His prediction was conditional: UNLESS we restrained our population growth voluntarily, it would always grow to use up any surplus food that was produced.  And, UNTIL the development of the birth control pill, that is EXACTLY what happened.
He did not believe that population would be restrained voluntarily, at least not sufficiently to prevent ultimate dieoff. In his famous Essay on Population, he states that the world would run out of food completely before 1890 (!). Throughout his work it is clear that he believes plagues and mass starvation and dieoff to be inevitable. See passage below.

Quote
Population grows exponentially, increases in the food supply are arithmetical.
Regarding population, that is false. And unarguably so. The world's population is not growing exponentially. Population growth has been slowing every year for the past 30 years.

Quote
Technological solutions on the supply side don't matter, they never did, they just put off the inevitable.  Technological solutions on the demand side, on the other hand, have a meaningful effect.
To what do you attribute the demographic transition? Why did fertility collapse across most of the world over the last 60 years?

..................................

"Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." -- Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 17, 2015, 11:44:06 AM
I still havnt seen where malthus said there would be any huge reduction in population due to starvation by today.
In his famous Essay he stated that famines would commence around mid-century (1800s), and that the world would run out of food by 1890.

Quote
Those claiming we can have double the present population if we do such things as eat bugs instead of beef are not in a position to say malthus was wrong (if he even did make a prediction off a large human die off) because their own prediction has not happened either.
Yes, "our" predictions have happened. Not regarding bugs vs. beef, of course, but regarding the ability of the world to produce enough food. Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 17, 2015, 11:52:09 AM
Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.

So how come you didn't show up for the China Vidcast?  A Great Opportunity to Spin the Cornucopian Case if you are correct.

You passed up an opportunity to destroy not just me, but two other Doomer Bloggers, Ugo Bardi and Tom Lewis.

(https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/white_feather_widescreen.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 17, 2015, 12:49:50 PM
Malthus was wrong; we were right. Sorry about that.

So how come you didn't show up for the China Vidcast?
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

Quote
A Great Opportunity to Spin the Cornucopian Case if you are correct.
Not really "spinning a case". Just posting some facts and opinions; sparring; having fun.

Quote
You passed up an opportunity to destroy not just me, but two other Doomer Bloggers, Ugo Bardi and Tom Lewis.
I don't see Ugo as a "doomer". Seems pretty level-headed and fact-based to me.

As I wrote elsewhere, he is slowly becoming aware of the new realities about renewables -- just as we all are. It is hard to put your arms around, after all the years of thinking that renewables are "good for the environment, but expensive". Well, they're not expensive any more! Ugo is coming around on this, just as everyone is.

I like Ugo. He deals with specifics, head-on, rather than deflecting with long lists of doomer talking points.

For example:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/11/renewable-energy-does-it-need.html (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/11/renewable-energy-does-it-need.html)
"the problem of mineral availability for renewable energy technologies is not critical if we choose the right technologies and we are careful to recycle the materials used as much as possible."

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on June 17, 2015, 12:51:38 PM
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

I have it recorded on the server.  The invitation was made over a week ago, and your IP addy shows up 3 times after that.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 17, 2015, 01:04:40 PM
By the way: EDDIE, if you are listening: I promised that I would answer your question, far far up in the China toast thread, about solar pv. You were concerned about EROI, silver, and one other thing which slips my mind. Most of what I wanted to say about EROI of solar pv is here (just a few posts up from this):
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4680.msg78359.html#msg78359 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,4680.msg78359.html#msg78359)

There's a few other things I could post, but that's pretty good. EROI is not an issue for solar pv, if it ever was. There is actually concern, as I think I mentioned on the china thread, about solar's EROI and payback times being TOO GOOD. The issue is that with cheap, high-EROI solar power, we can bring forth a shit-ton MORE FFs than would have been retrievable otherwise -- with the CO2/AGW implications of that. We NEED to run out of the damned FFs before we ruin the freaking planet! In this sense it is too bad that peak oil has turned out to be such a bust, at least so far. Declining FF production would be very good news on several fronts -- climate, but also it would speed the transition to renewables, as we desperately need to do.

Anyway, moving along: silver.  Silver is not a problem. Silver for solar PV currently eats about 5% of annual silver production. Eventually, at much higher levels of PV manufacture, silver might become an issue. But by then, the silver price would have risen to multiples of its current (very low) level, and that acts as incentive to find substitutes. There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Hope that answers your concerns.

PS re silver: a further thought: remember that pv panels, once installed, are likely to have a service life in excess of a half-century; i.e. do not have to be replaced any time soon, and even when they are replaced, materials such as silver can be recycled. In other words, silver requirement for pvs, even assuming that NOTHING could replace silver (which is false), is more or less a one-off thing: once we produce all the panels we need, then only a small trickle of new production will be needed after that (and hence only a small trickle of silver needed).

Exploration:  amount of silver needed to produce enough pvs to produce all 15 terawatts of global electricity demand:
about 2,500 ounces of Ag needed per solar pv megawatt (several sources)
= about 2.5 million ounces of Ag per gigawatt
= about 2.5 billion ounces of Ag per terawatt
annual silver production: a little under a billion ounces
hence, 2.5 years of total production per terawatt, or 37 years for all 15 terawatts
(that's using ALL available silver!)
Hmmm.  I think we need those substitutes!
More realistically: a 50-year transition, with solar pv eventually producing, say, 25-30% of total electricity, is reasonable and possible even without silver substitution. But there WILL be substitution, so not to worry.

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Palloy on June 18, 2015, 12:24:32 AM
Quote
Alan: You're wrong, regarding solar. You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI -- Bhandari et al's meta-analysis published last year.

An analysis is only as good as its chosen system boundaries, and it at least says what those boundaries are:
Quote
A PV system consists of the PV module and the balance of system (BOS) components. The module encompasses the surface that harnesses the solar energy. The BOS components encompass all other supporting infrastructure and can include the wiring, switches (for connecting to the existing electric grid), support racks, and inverter (to convert direct current to alternating current). The life cycle stages of a PV system include raw material acquisition and processing, manufacturing of the module, operation, and end of life management.

But in the real world it consists of a lot more than that.  You need a carefully air-conditioned factory for one thing, and bulldozers to dig up the raw materials, and trucks and ships to transport them, and that traffic's share of the energy cost of the roads/ports.  Then the finished product has to be packaged, and warehoused, and transported, and warehoused, and wholesaled, and retailed, and delivered to the site, and installed by qualified electricians, working on roof-tops in safety gear, and all the sales staff and advertising and accountants and computers. 

If it is a solar farm, you need a much more complicated and heavier wiring system, with many more junction boxes, and sophisticated inverters, the mountings have to be embedded in the ground in concrete, and the whole thing has to be fenced and monitored against theft, and careful metering of the exported power onto the grid, and invoicing to the electricity marketers.  The workers have to have transport to get to work, food needs to be available one way or another, there needs to be overalls provided, and workers' wages and health insurance and pension funds to be paid, and people to do that and their computers and transport.

So while the report is honest about what is included within the system boundaries, and is thus not "wrong", it is not valid in the real world.  Moreover, it isn't possible to give sensible figures on the energy cost of raw materials and fuels spanning the purported lifetime of a panel - 30 years, because the embedded energy costs are going up all the time as resources become scarer.

So don't give me that crap about "You apparently have not read the best and most-recent piece on EROEI ..." when you obviously can't spot an accounting scam when it is staring you in the face.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 18, 2015, 04:58:05 AM
Hi, Palloy.

1. The same things apply to all energy sources; i.e. you can come up with a long (even endless) list of inputs. Past a point, it becomes ridiculous. But the people who do these analyses are generally intelligent enough not to push it to the point of ridiculousness.

2. Most of the things you mention were accounted for. I think you should read carefully the very passage that you quoted; to wit:

Quote
A PV system consists of the PV module and the balance of system (BOS) components. The module encompasses the surface that harnesses the solar energy. The BOS components encompass all other supporting infrastructure and can include the wiring, switches (for connecting to the existing electric grid), support racks, and inverter (to convert direct current to alternating current). The life cycle stages of a PV system include raw material acquisition and processing, manufacturing of the module, operation, and end of life management.

... i.e. most of the things you mention -- within reason -- have been accounted for.

It is always possible to extend the list of inputs, but the energetic cost of them becomes trivial against the energetic return over a ~50-year service life of solar pv. Most of them become trivial even amortized over 5 years, let alone 50. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to build a pv factory. But then the pv factory makes  millions of pvs which then generate many thousands of times more energy than was initially required. Same thing with, say, an oil platform: huge initial investment, but pays off for many decades, the payoff being far more than the initial investment.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 18, 2015, 05:23:11 AM
How would I have known about it? I haven't been to DD in a week.

I have it recorded on the server.  The invitation was made over a week ago, and your IP addy shows up 3 times after that.

RE

There's something wrong with your server's recording mechanism. I've had a couple of DD tabs open in my browser over the last month (amongst 90 other tabs), and I've rebooted my machine  (and re-opened my browser session) once or twice a day for the entire time -- each time would be a call to your server, I believe. So my IP should've shown up maybe 50 times, not just 3.

In any case, I did not pay any attention to DD for a week or so. I was busy with other things.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: Eddie on June 18, 2015, 06:26:57 AM
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver, and a great many other things, and I have no more interest in feeding your trolling habit, but since you've addressed me directly, I'll respond this once, and no more.

Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit. Gold is a great substitute though. Since it's a barbarous relic, maybe the price will drop to 10 bucks an oz and then....NO PROBLEM.

Peak copper is almost here too, btw. And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.

But all those pesky facts aside, I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.



Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on June 18, 2015, 07:11:03 AM
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver, and a great many other things, and I have no more interest in feeding your trolling habit, but since you've addressed me directly, I'll respond this once, and no more.

Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit. Gold is a great substitute though. Since it's a barbarous relic, maybe the price will drop to 10 bucks an oz and then....NO PROBLEM.

Peak copper is almost here too, btw. And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.

But all those pesky facts aside, I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.


Something else to think about Al.....
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
Aluminum could be used in place of copper wire, but at a cost
of fire damage to the units it's used in !
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 18, 2015, 08:24:27 AM
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver
You're welcome to mention specifically what I am wrong about.

Quote
Copper is not a substitute for silver, just a way to stretch it a bit.
No, it actually does substitute:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/print/volume-15/issue-3/solar-tech/pv-technology-swapping-silver-for-copper.html (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/print/volume-15/issue-3/solar-tech/pv-technology-swapping-silver-for-copper.html)
 -- though there are technical difficulties that need to be ironed out (proper insulation and other stuff). Again, the incentive to work out the difficulties is just not there yet. It will be, in a few years.

Quote
Peak copper is almost here too, btw.
Regardless, the amounts used for pvs would be so small, in the big scheme (gigatons of copper produced per year), that it would be essentially limitless.

Quote
And copper is a huge requirement for ANY electrical power generation infrastructure. And there is NO substitute for copper. None.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peak_copper (https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peak_copper) -- "Unlike fossil fuels, however, copper is scrapped and reused and it has been estimated that at least 80% of all copper ever mined is still available (having been repeatedly recycled)."

Quote
But all those pesky facts aside
Not pesky at all. Easily dealt with.

Quote
I just have a profoundly different view of how PV and other forms of alternative power can and should be used on the planet. I think that rather than  building massive solar installations to perpetuate BAU and perhaps give our profoundly flawed BAU model to China, the real value of alternative energy is to allow us to return to a more local, less energy intensive lifestyle that actually reduces our rapacious strip-mining of the planet, instead of accelerating it. You don't seem to realize the necessity for this, which is another reason you strike me as some kind of shill for TPTB.
I don't?! Why do you say that?  We've never discussed energy conservation and the general issue of overconsumption -- which I think is far more important than overpopulation. I think less energy-intensive lifestyle is a great idea. I live one myself.  I spent many, many hours arguing against overconsumption (as the KEY to our environmental problems) over on the hubbertsarms forum, years ago. Reducing consumption, and conserving, are much more potent and essential to resolve our problems than any new energy tech. Conservation a la Lovins, and Factor 5.

If you want to know my opinion about something, just ask. You might be surprised.

As I pointed out, one of the cited problems with cheap renewables is that they will allow accelerated retrieval of otherwise unavailable FFs -- and I AGREE that this is a problem. I don't like it. I don't advocate it. But there it is, and it is not sufficient reason to refrain from building out renewables.

PS: there's also overlap between conservation and renewables. As you probably know, electrification of transport will drastically reduce the energy requirement of said transport, since ~65% of FF energy is released as waste heat with ICEs. So the renewables build-out will save huge amounts of energy in that sector, which is great.

I for one would love it if society would abandon the automobile completely, which I've always thought was a shitty technology. Doing that would save 100% of the energy now being pissed-away in that sector, in addition to having numerous social and environmental benefits. But society has other ideas, and is not listening to me.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: alan2102 on June 18, 2015, 08:56:50 AM
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
No, but we can conserve and recycle our way out.

Also, cheap renewables will allow lower-grade ores to serve as sources, i.e. effectively increase supply of most stuff.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? Rothschild being hunted
Post by: azozeo on July 03, 2015, 05:42:24 PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/ (http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/)

Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH? Rothschild being hunted
Post by: RE on July 03, 2015, 06:01:34 PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/ (http://www.mintpressnews.com/famous-rothschild-banking-dynasty-facing-fraud-charges-in-france/207233/)

FRANCE....ROTHSCHILD BANKSTERS....COLLAPSE....

What does this remind me of...  :icon_scratch:

http://www.youtube.com/v/lo5BBHtn4tM

THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on July 03, 2015, 08:27:57 PM
How apropos.....
Nice job RE  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: RE on July 03, 2015, 11:49:48 PM
How apropos.....
Nice job RE  :icon_sunny:

One of my favorite vids. I have used it MANY Times.  ;D

RE
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on July 04, 2015, 05:11:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/h3z0rDeltoQ&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: MKing on July 04, 2015, 08:11:18 PM
There already exist substitutes, but there is no incentive to use them (big expensive and risky process change) while silver is so cheap. Copper is likely a viable substitute. Nano-silver can be used, reducing silver requirement by 90%. And so on. But again, these things will not come online until silver is priced higher. Until then, there's no reason to switch.

Alan, I expect you're wrong about silver
You're welcome to mention specifically what I am wrong about.

That isn't the way these locals play the game Alan. And your implication of even attempting to bring basic economic concepts into the argument will be met only with resistance because, obviously, that is exactly the heart of the question. And if you aren't claiming scarcity here, now, everywhere, you just can't be right, even if you are. Just the way the game is played here, is all.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on July 05, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
We can't mine our way out of collapse.
No, but we can conserve and recycle our way out.

Also, cheap renewables will allow lower-grade ores to serve as sources, i.e. effectively increase supply of most stuff.


Al,
Either way "It's a FLUSTER-CuCK" anyway you slice it.
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on July 08, 2015, 04:12:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/p7GXFWnxacA&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on August 04, 2015, 12:04:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/MN4drI2CLEQ&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on August 22, 2015, 03:14:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/80M4daI8tFY&fs=1
Title: Re: Do Central Bankers Recognize there is NO GROWTH?
Post by: azozeo on September 19, 2015, 03:39:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/KBFuUC3iZXE&fs=1