The Great Depression Of 2008

[waiting_to_exile]

Which is not to say I don't think your suggestion would not be a good idea, if only it could be implemented. As it is, I fear we must rely on the four horsemen

I'm sure some asteroid-impact, super-volcano, mega-tsunami, bird-flu pandemic or even a good old nuclear exchange will be along at some point.

[Guest grumpy-old-man]

Don't tell the hyperinflationists that it'll spoil their sunday afternoon buffing up their coins.

also, I would rather be counting my coins physically, rather than logging into my online bank account to look at my virtual money, which one is safest in the current climate?

I would be sh1tting myself right now if I had an str fund or huge baby boomer savings in any of the banks.

Edited January 27, 2008 by grumpy-old-man

[grey shark]

We are months away from the start of a worldwide recession, which in the UK especially will develop into a great depression. It will not be the same as in 1929 in the US, but it will in fact be much worse for us, in fact the worst ever.

It all comes down to bad timing and the market being pushed beyond breaking point and propped up by record levels of debt.

Gordon will not allow this ........he will think of something , he always does ............DON'T PANIC , DON'T PANIC

[gravity always wins]

at least you have a sense of humour GAW.

so I take it that you are expecting a short period of high inflation, then death by deflation ?

edited - to the op, I would have changed the title to "The Great Depression of 2012" personally.

Thinking short inflation then death by deflation followed by decades of shortages

Kind of like a roller coaster but not sponsored by Pepsi.

Did u have a good buff?

[gravity always wins]

also, I would rather be counting my coins physically, rather than logging into my online bank account to look at my virtual money, which one is safest in the current climate?

Agreed

I would be sh1tting myself right now if I had an str fund or huge baby boomer savings in any of the banks.

Just spread around, keep cash am actually considering looking for land end of year.

[Optobear]

It won't work, too many of us believe that having unlimited numbers of kids is a fundamental human right. Remember Newsnight's Ethical Man who spent a year (I think) trying to live sustainably -- except for the small matter of the third child he and his partner had during that year, that undid all his good work and more.

Which is not to say I don't think your suggestion would not be a good idea, if only it could be implemented. As it is, I fear we must rely on the four horsemen

Couple of glasses of St Emillion with dinner, and I fear you are right. Apartheid was so odious that there was widespread support for boycotting South African fruit. We could, for example, boycott Kenyan beans being flown to the UK - on population grounds, but it would perhaps ignore that fact that they are only one place higher than Gaza (which has twice that of Israel) in the league table of birthrates - and which demonstrates that high birth rates are a political tool in many parts of the world.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=ke&v=25

Sadly that same political tool will destroy the planet eventually... still things aren't so bad, there is still St Emilion.

[twatmangle]

I've been wondering for a long time whether a movement (akin to the boycott on South-African produce) whereby concerned west consumers refuse to buy anything from countries that have birth-rates higher than 2.0 per female. It would give a serious economic impetus towards curbing the population growth. Better still would be to aim to boycott any country above 1.75 per female.

Thoughts?

I don't think it is neccessarily about too many people, it is about resources, and the use of.

Resource consumption per person is probably 5-10 times higher in the west than the rest of the world, so who are we to dictate the rules?

Let's boycott countries that use more than their fair share of the world's resources?!

[Optobear]

I don't think it is neccessarily about too many people, it is about resources, and the use of.

Resource consumption per person is probably 5-10 times higher in the west than the rest of the world, so who are we to dictate the rules?

Let's boycott countries that use more than their fair share of the world's resources?!

Why does it matter what you think? Go to India, see the astonishing number of people. Figure that they all aspire to have air-conditioning. Realise that means the world is doomed. Re-think your ridiculous holier than thou attitude.

[Qetesuesi]

Why does it matter what you think?

With arrogance of this order why should you expect anyone to read you?

Your over-population alarmism is 30 years out of date. You seem wholly unaware that population growth rates are now falling all over the world anyway. By 2100 the world population will actually be declining, on UN projections.

[R K]

The main problem with fuel oil is that it is burned once and gone.

Water is continually recycled and has passed through just about every living creature since the dawn of time (one presumes).

This argument about the price of oil irritates me slightly though for a number of reasons.

* One might imagine that if it the oil price doubles or quadruples, and people can't afford it (inherent in the argument that we will have a depression in the UK) then people in developing countries will be even less able to afford it and thus the price will be pegged, and the usage will not be exponential. In other words, price regulates demand.

* We waste it so comsumption can be cut - quite dramatically in fact. There are plenty of 4 people cars coming to market with 60mpg av. fuel consumption. If oil prices ramp up people will switch to smaller cheaper more efficent cars. So too will businesses. It is happening already. If it got really bad, govts. would legislate. Betcha.

* $100 oil when dollar index is at 76.00, is not the same as when it was at 120.00. So it isn't really $100. In fact, it dropped 15% in just a few weeks recently which suggests speculation is playing its part too.

* Alternatives - Electric/battery cars; increased car sharing (the occupancy rate of the av. car is very low in relation to its capacity); fewer trips by air (having fewer weekend breaks in Europe or long-haul flights is hardly a "depression" by any measure).

This is even before you start to see lower mortgages and lower indebtedness as house prices fall and newer entrants borrow less.

Outsourcing overseas and economic migrants will be less attractive and be the first jobs to disappear in a downturn I should imagine, so that provides some sort of "buffer".

1/3 of food is apparently thrown away so again there is plenty of slack to be taken up. Ditto frivolous discretionary spending on all sorts of sh*t that nobody needs.

I really struggle to share this "worst of all depressions" argument. Life may be different, but we're quite some way off poverty, starvation and civil war I think.

[waiting_to_exile]

Your over-population alarmism is 30 years out of date. You seem wholly unaware that population growth rates are now falling all over the world anyway. By 2100 the world population will actually be declining, on UN projections.

On one possible projection. The figures actually range between a peak at 8 billion or so before entering decline, a peak at around 9 billion, then stabilising and a higher prediction where population just keeps rising. If you take the high possibility then there is no doubt we have to do something. If you take either of the others then you still have to answer the question of whether 9 billion and stable, or even a curve through 8 billion is actually doable from a resource perspective.

I fail to see how population can ever be irrelevant.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Evidence of climate change?

Evidence of oil running out?

These are all opinions.

The truth is, nobody - even the 'experts' - know what is going to happen.

There is evidence for the end of cheap oil imminently that is both voluminous and overwhelming. I wouldn't even know where to start with someone who is as ignorant of the geological evidence that is now pouring in as you appear to be. Please don't take my comment above about your ignorance personally. I don't mean it in the colloquial sense. I mean it literally in the sense that you are not aware of the facts.

As a starter, please go and visit a very good introductory site that covers the implications of peak energy (its not just oil). It is called:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/

Steve

Edited January 27, 2008 by Steve Cook

[The Masked Tulip]

This is such a depressing thread that I fear some of you might be needing CBT - Cognitive Behaviour Therapy or, if you prefer, **** & Ball Training. Not sure if you can get the latter on the NHS though.

Seriously, misery loves company so just be careful about reading and posting endless negative things.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Unless you only have 7 years to live, you will not be using oil in 20 years time. Guaranteed. You will be powering your car with biodiesel and ethanol.

Actually, the prospects are even bleaker than that my friend. If we were to turn over the world's requirements for petrochemicals to bio fuels. We would need approximately 7 earths. and thats assuming we turned over all of the available land on these seven fictitious earth to the production of bio fuel. Notwithstanding the catastrophic effect that would have on the biosphere. Would you really want to live in such a hellhole?

Nope, the truth that dare not speak its name. The thing that has not yet been addressed on this thread fully. Population. Its too damn big. I am sure you are aware that 8/10ths of the calories that we humans consume is reconstituted carbon fossil fuel. So, when the oil gets too expensive to pump out of the ground (a long long time before it physically runs out of course), 80% of us will need to go into the night.......

We could have started population reduction about 40 years ago coupled with stringent measures to conserve energy. We could have.....we didn't.

Instead of population control of the kind mentioned above, we are going to get an altogether more ancient method forced upon us.

War, famine, pestilence and disease....otherwise known as the four horsemen of the apocolypse....

Steve

[Badger]

When the CEO of Shell says we are running out of oil, I tend not to ask for it in writing.

"Er, yes the er, oil is getting a bit low, so that's why we um, have to charge you all lots more money for it, no, honest, it's getting very dry in them wells.. shall we call it $150 a barrel? lubbly jubbly"

[wren]

I'm presently listening to an Amercan radio station via the internet. WNCX-FM, Cleveland, Ohio. They just had an ad for property auctions, if your surname begins A to O, call now blah, blah, surname P to Z call blah, blah et cetera. For knock down prices! I suppose though Cleveland is one of the worst places.

[R K]

We could have started population reduction about 40 years ago coupled with stringent measures to conserve energy. We could have.....we didn't.

Instead of population control of the kind mentioned above, we are going to get an altogether more ancient method forced upon us.

War, famine, pestilence and disease....otherwise known as the four horsemen of the apocolypse....

Steve

Who is "we" and which populations would you like to control?

People have tried similar things before and it turned out a bit unsavoury.

I'm fairly confident nature will resolve the issue for us. It seems quite good at doing that.

[Guest Steve Cook]

"Er, yes the er, oil is getting a bit low, so that's why we um, have to charge you all lots more money for it, no, honest, it's getting very dry in them wells.. shall we call it $150 a barrel? lubbly jubbly"

For goodness sake, wake up, do some research, it the evidence for peak oil is already in the public domain. It just hasn't been fully absorbed into the wider culture yet. However, I repeat, the scientific evidence is already in. consider the following:

I am assuming that you accept that oil is in fact a finite resource. Otherwise you would presumably not accept the basic laws of physics and so any further discussion would be pointless.

Assuming you accept the above, where we would presumably disagree is on how much is left. Yes?

Take a look at the BP statistical review.

Take a look at any number of independent studies that confirm a future oil supply that makes the BP statistical review look extremely positive by comparison.

Consider the fact that, notwithstanding the OPEC debacle of the late 70s, oil production has steadily increased according to hard geological laws related to pressure, ease of extraction etc. for about 70 years. consider that since 2005 we have been bobbing along at about 85mbpd and over the last 6 months supply has persistently been dropping form this all time high.

We are at peak oil now. Indeed, we are about to come of the peak. Oil supply is now set to decrease annually form now in in by about 5% per year......FOR EVER...

Wake up

Please visit this site for a basic introduction to the subject. It is excellently referenced to the scientific papers behind the sites content. lease go to the primary sources. Don't take my word for a damn thing. Don't take the word of the site. Read the primary sources for yourself

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/

Steve

Edited January 27, 2008 by Steve Cook

[29929BlackTuesday]

Thinking short inflation then death by deflation followed by decades of shortages

Kind of like a roller coaster but not sponsored by Pepsi.

I agree.

[wren]

IRS debt consultation ad now. This ain't my regular radio station, only the one I like don't feed right now. Must change stations.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I *very* much doubt that... i.e. the widespread exclusive use of biofuels.

There's shed-loads of oil in the Arctic - and, as the ice melts, it will become more accessible.

While there's not much sweet crude, there's plenty of sour... (Sour containing more sulphur - and hence more expensive to refine...)

If I do end up using non-fossil fuels, I am certain that it will be as a result of technological advances which manage to undercut traditional sources - not that the traditional sources of fuel expire.

I agree about the inviability of bio fuel. However.,....

Even IF there is as much oil as is being specualted about in the Artic. It would only amount to about 7 years supply at todays current usage. Yes thats right my friend. Check out the BP statistical review if you dont believe. There are no large Saudi sized field left.

Steve

Edited January 27, 2008 by Steve Cook

[Its time to buy]

Cheer up everyone.

There are opportunites out there.

I was talking to someone who knows of a person in the business of walk in tan shops - making a mint, even in times such as these.

Anyways - have a look at this opportunity in the FTSE 100 thats comming up soon.

Worth a punt ? YES/

Despite the biggest financial bubble in history - wiping billions out of company profits. Life will go on!

[Bearishbulldog]

According to a poster at my anti natal clinic in 50 years men will be infertile. I think (don;t quote going from a very distant memory), that due to the amount of man made goods i.e. plastics and waste we are infiltrating water supplies with lots of oestrogen the female hormone.

So mother nature has her own way of sorting out the population and hence resources

Edited January 27, 2008 by Bearishbulldog

[Guest Steve Cook]

Cheer up everyone.

There are opportunites out there.

I was talking to someone who knows of a person in the business of walk in tan shops - making a mint, even in times such as these.

Anyways - have a look at this opportunity in the FTSE 100 thats comming up soon.

Worth a punt ? YES/

Despite the biggest financial bubble in history - wiping billions out of company profits. Life will go on!

Obviously life will go on.....unfortunately the same might not be said of civilisation...

Steve

[Guest Steve Cook]

So mother nature has her own way of sorting out the population and hence resources

She most certainly does...Take a look at the history of Easter Island.....they resorted to eating each other by the end....

Steve