Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Roman Roady

Twelve Unsustainable Things That Will Soon Come To A Disastrous End

Recommended Posts

link

It all seems so simple when written down!

...There's little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It's a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

When it comes to money, banking and debt, Ron Paul has always been right, after all.

...When children are raised to be good little Americans (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.), they're taught to consume more stuff. In America, it was even called "patriotic" by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you're supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don't need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That's what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

It all seems so simple when written down!

...There's little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It's a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

When it comes to money, banking and debt, Ron Paul has always been right, after all.

...When children are raised to be good little Americans (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.), they're taught to consume more stuff. In America, it was even called "patriotic" by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you're supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don't need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That's what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

nothing wrong with fractional reserve....as long as the limits are enforced.

In the case of UK and US banking, we dont have a fractional reserve system...similar but different.

the problem came when the regulators were left "blub blubing" their mouths by clever quant speak and outright confidence trickstering by the oh so clever bankers.

Not wanting to appear dumb, the question of "should off balance sheet vehicles have been allowed to remain unaccounted for in a banks liabilities", was never asked, as the questioner would have felt foolish.

And as it wasnt asked, let alone regulated for, we have leverage on a fraction on a fraction on a fraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

link

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That's what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

It isn't consumption that generates wealth, it is increases in production efficiency. Consumption will of course inevitably rise as production efficiency rises and so in some sense consumption is a gauge of economic prosperity assuming that the consumption is driven by earnings or investments and not by personal borrowing (and therein lies the problem).

So the article is an ill-thought out rant at a cheap target. The problem is not that people aspire to own "tat", properly harnessed all desire to consume is actually a good thing -the problem is that people are encouraged to borrow in order to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to not "consume more stuff" Mr Roady, and my old car has just cost me £1200 in garage bills! :blink:

Still, it's good for another year now, and it cost some person I never met, over £45k new! :huh:

And indeed I am supporting a local garage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all rather depressing. The 'let's get back to nature' agenda in that link might seem quaint but it would require the death of the majority of the population of the planet - not quite so touchy-feely now is it?

We're smart creatures; we've got opposable thumbs and everything! Supposedly, we should be able to work away out of this mess that doesn't require foraging in the forests and killing off people in their billions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Mike Adams , have been reading his articles for years.

His little pad out in Ecuador is pretty amazing , he leads an idyllic life if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all rather depressing. The 'let's get back to nature' agenda in that link might seem quaint but it would require the death of the majority of the population of the planet - not quite so touchy-feely now is it?

I'm no back to nature type. However, without cheap, superabundant oil, the carrying capacity of the earth is very different to what it (appears) to be now.

We're smart creatures

But are we clever?

Supposedly, we should be able to work away out of this mess that doesn't require foraging in the forests and killing off people in their trillions.

Amended.

If we addressed the problem with the urgency of a Manhattan Project or the Apolllo moon landings, who knows. I just don't see that kind of urgency at work right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all rather depressing. The 'let's get back to nature' agenda in that link might seem quaint but it would require the death of the majority of the population of the planet - not quite so touchy-feely now is it?

More "end of the Earth woe" from somebody that hopes he is too rich to mind, I think! :huh:

Maybe he will just get a lot poorer, like everyone else!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you meant more like:

1) Charlie Sheen

2) current series of Dr Who

3) Free bus passes for the over 60s

4) positive UK economic growth figures

5) car ownership being affordable

6) celebrity super injunctions

7) Ed Milliband

8) Cheryl Cole

9) The LibDems

10) teen musicals

11) UK's credit rating

12) Katie Price

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no back to nature type. However, without cheap, superabundant oil, the carrying capacity of the earth is very different to what it (appears) to be now.

But are we clever?

Amended.

If we addressed the problem with the urgency of a Manhattan Project or the Apolllo moon landings, who knows. I just don't see that kind of urgency at work right now.

why do today that you can put off till tommorow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why do today that you can put off till tommorow?

That could almost be my personal epitaph, I'm a terrible procrastinator.

Of "course"why do today that you can put off till tomorrow" could be interpreted as "why spend a lot of taxpayer money today on something that may not pay off for several administrations, if ever. Let the next President/PM take the risk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't consumption that generates wealth, it is increases in production efficiency. Consumption will of course inevitably rise as production efficiency rises and so in some sense consumption is a gauge of economic prosperity assuming that the consumption is driven by earnings or investments and not by personal borrowing (and therein lies the problem).

So the article is an ill-thought out rant at a cheap target. The problem is not that people aspire to own "tat", properly harnessed all desire to consume is actually a good thing -the problem is that people are encouraged to borrow in order to buy it.

Quite.

If the guy who makes the cars gets fired, because no-one buys them, then he can't feed himself. So he goes back to growing his own food etc. If people stop consuming everything except stuff that is absolutely necessary then within a few years we'll all go back to farming the land.

May sound good to the average beardo, but not so good when it's your kid who's dying because there are no modern drugs/medical treatment around to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we addressed the problem with the urgency of a Manhattan Project or the Apolllo moon landings, who knows. I just don't see that kind of urgency at work right now.

You're looking in the wrong place. On Wall street, even as we type these words, some of the smartest people we have are busily constructing the next capital eating bubble.

Perhaps there is method to their madness- when all the capital has been consumed in mass orgy of ponzi implosions the rape of the planet will be forced to stop. :D

Have we misjudged the motives of our banking freinds? are they, in reality, a secret society of tree huggers seeking to bring about change from within? :o:o:o

Nah- the're just greedy bar stewards with all the long term stategic awareness of a goldfish on it's thousandth lap of the bowl. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no back to nature type. However, without cheap, superabundant oil, the carrying capacity of the earth is very different to what it (appears) to be now.

If we find a better energy supply than oil, the carrying capacity of earth becomes very different too, but to the positive side.

There appears to be a number of technologies about to break through, which could be the beginning of the end of our reliance of oil. The more expensive oil gets, the more R&D will go into the alternatives too.

EDIT: Also, the population isn't growing nearly as quickly as they fear. The global population growth rate is actually falling (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+population+growth). Although I hate to extrapolate, if it continues on this path, population growth will flat line in about 2060. Granted, growth is still growth, but it's hardly 'runaway growth' as the article suggests.

TBH, I don't trust the rest of the article with such glaring exaggerations listed.

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite.

If the guy who makes the cars gets fired, because no-one buys them, then he can't feed himself. So he goes back to growing his own food etc. If people stop consuming everything except stuff that is absolutely necessary then within a few years we'll all go back to farming the land.

May sound good to the average beardo, but not so good when it's your kid who's dying because there are no modern drugs/medical treatment around to help.

I think you missed the point of the article - it's nothing to do with these scenarios being 'good' - they're unsustainable, meaning they will happen anyway whether we like it or not - we can chose to consume less, or we can be forced by circumstance to consume less later and in a much more painful fashion.

I certainly didn't read anything that was in any way radical - most of these concerns are well-established.

Edited by shipbuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me any articles pointing out a few home truths about consumerism are welcome. I always have a chuckle at the endless posts on here about pointless public sector jobs and how the government are spending our children's future - not that those posts are wrong, but just that they apply equally to ourselves and the private sector. How many resources have been wasted producing useless tat that could have secured the basics for our children? How many are employed producing that useless tat? Instead of things looking increasingly better for future generations, we have peak oil, peak soil, peak credit, peak everything else and the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I posted this, apart from the banker bashing part of course ;) was that item 3 highlights a paradox that I always find strange at election time.

The fact that all parties try and pander to the ecological issues...sustainable this and that, Cameron on his bike etc...and then bang on about more growth. These are opposites are they not? You cannot have growth without consumption of more and more of the planets assets. Indeed it seems as if we are meant to throw away (in built obsolescence) rather than make and mend. We all know deep down that it cannot go on.

Fractional reserve banking....the ability to buy good and/or services based on what? The work done by generations yet to be born. This will work if there is no default. Well what about the situation with the PIIGS? If they edefault surely fractional reserve banking is effectively over? What then??

PS: I am not particularly Socialist or Green in my politics, just concerned and confused at the idiocy of the way we seem to be governed by the bankers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me any articles pointing out a few home truths about consumerism are welcome. I always have a chuckle at the endless posts on here about pointless public sector jobs and how the government are spending our children's future - not that those posts are wrong, but just that they apply equally to ourselves and the private sector. How many resources have been wasted producing useless tat that could have secured the basics for our children? How many are employed producing that useless tat? Instead of things looking increasingly better for future generations, we have peak oil, peak soil, peak credit, peak everything else and the rest.

you eat, food, new food grows.

You drink water, the lake refills.

you spend money, its gone forever.

you borrow money, it is spent, but you are subject to paying someone else back.

that someone else can lend and lend and lend if he has enough borrower and a lifeboat to bail him if he comes up a bit short....none of it is sustainable if the lending goes on tat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you eat, food, new food grows.

You drink water, the lake refills.

you spend money, its gone forever.

you borrow money, it is spent, but you are subject to paying someone else back.

that someone else can lend and lend and lend if he has enough borrower and a lifeboat to bail him if he comes up a bit short....none of it is sustainable if the lending goes on tat.

True, the borrowing to consume accelerates the whole process - we get more tat now, less resources for future generations to provide their basics. And we need to be honest with ourselves that the faith that technology will provide, is just that, faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The faster we consume it the quicker it will be gone......there must be is another way. ;)

In both the Obama & Cameron election campaigns we were bombarded with brainwashing, sound-bite words like "Change"

Take the NWO Global 'mark' 'CE' they stamp all our goods with

- you're left with "hang"

Mod.L. pendulum (1643), properly neut. of L. adj. pendulus "hanging down," from pendere "to hang"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In both the Obama & Cameron election campaigns we were bombarded with brainwashing, sound-bite words like "Change"

Take the NWO Global 'mark' 'CE' they stamp all our goods with

- you're left with "hang"

Mod.L. pendulum (1643), properly neut. of L. adj. pendulus "hanging down," from pendere "to hang"

bankers should be eChanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what you mean by soon.

Back in the 1970s all this doom, armageddon stuff was in vogue (logans run, soylent green etc) what with runaway crime levels in the US and the Oil embargos.

Go further back and it was eugenics and malthus in the 1920s/30s

Even my hero Karl Denninger seems surprised at how they keep the system going.

I dont think runaway human population growth will stop anytime soon. There's less land in cultivation in the US than 200 years ago for example, and certainly no food shortages there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Gun is on Film4 at 9pm. Watch that and everything else will seem rather futile. If rather gay.

Top-Gun-volleyball-Maverick.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me any articles pointing out a few home truths about consumerism are welcome. I always have a chuckle at the endless posts on here about pointless public sector jobs and how the government are spending our children's future - not that those posts are wrong, but just that they apply equally to ourselves and the private sector. How many resources have been wasted producing useless tat that could have secured the basics for our children? How many are employed producing that useless tat? Instead of things looking increasingly better for future generations, we have peak oil, peak soil, peak credit, peak everything else and the rest.

Why does it matter if people want tat ? By definition tat is unimportant. So if people can't get it it doesn't matter. If the tat uses material that could be used for something else then it will be recycled. Ultimately you could argue just about everything is "tat" in the respect it isn't necessary to have it in order to survive. Food, shelter, clothes and heat. Where do you draw the line at "tat", are medicines tat ? the internet ? dodgy christmas tree decorations ?

Should we not go about inventing stuff or making stuff because it may be tat ? Most things that are useful are used in wasteful and trivial ways. Take the internet for example. Very useful in increasing productivity, should we not have invented it because of twitter ?

Deciding whether things will be better for future generations is whether you take the view that the glass is half full or half empty. Discoveries in the human genome are likely to give us better drugs and more pain free lives. Production technologies are reducing the price of computers and labour saving consumer goods. Nano engineering promises stonger more high performance materials. We have not yet solved the energy problem, but advances in nano engineering (solar), magnetic technology and fusion could lead to this. Developments in fuel technology are improving air quality and reducing pollution. London is a much more smog free place than in the 1950s.

People look back on the past with some sort of rose tinted spectacles. Ah, the 70s, they were great weren't they ? No, they weren't. They were shit. Shit cars. Shit houses. Shit clothes. Shit everything. *. Modern life is better, not rubbish.

The only evil is consuming stuff that we don't pay for now. Because that sentences our kids to a life of paying off our debts.

*Edit I forgot shit food. Boy was food bad in the 70s.

Edited by SteveAustin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.