[socrates1fan]

I don't think there is going to be some catastrophic moment when it happens. The truth is far FAR less exciting. What we are in, is a very long decline, a decline that will probably outlast any of us. Even the collapse of the Roman Empire was not overnight, it was a very long process, taking centuries. I've been told this process began a long time ago. In my own community, people used to have a lot of kids, a good bit of money put away, and fairly low crime rates. Now, people barely have enough kids to replace themselves (even the immigrants here are losing fertility) and little by little, houses pop up empty, then they get destroyed or neglected, then demolished and nothing replaces them. Food prices slowly get higher, so people grow more foods in their once well manicured backyards. People use less power and fuel (not because of being smart with resources, but because utilities are too high). A good example is Detroit, which for many of us, is what we can eventually expect. Yet, the people are adapting. Abandoned neighborhoods are being razed and replaced with woods. Urban homesteaders and farmers, trying to make a living, are moving into abandoned houses and tilling the abandoned land (often illegally). People raising urban chickens, bees, etc is growing. Clothes lines keep popping up. Right now people think it is temporary, that things will improve, but what they don't realize is that they are making permanent changes to their lives. We are in a long decline, peak oil, peak food, peak uranium (sorry Nuclear industry), and even peak population (Japan, anyone?)! I don't think I'd want a short collapse either, as it would kill all of us (Nuclear meltdowns, eh?). A long term collapse is actually better for us, it gives us a chance at survival. My plan doesn't really involve a major SHTF scenario, but rather a long steady decline. My goal is to find people who share my concerns and values, and to start a community that would do intensive agriculture of both our own needs and cash crops, trees (Fruits, mushrooms, nuts, organic vegetables, organic meat, and expensive hardwoods, a very long term investment). Slowly, buy up more land, farm it, and increase our numbers (either through increased membership or natural reproduction) and export more goods (or even electricity and biodiesel) to the surrounding areas. Eventually I'd like to start other communities like it in the region. Not only would this improve the environment (our community would restore the soil, use clean energy, use less energy, plant woods, and reuse old materials) but would also provide a more stable food source for ourselves and the surrounding region. I'm still debating, whether it would be better to start such a community on the outskirts of a city, or in the countryside far from any city.

[ralfy]

If you lack the intellect or will to read what I said how I said it and prefer to put your own spin on it, that is projection.

I read your post carefully and put no "spin on it." Here's what you wrote:

Complexity is still increasing, so, no we aren't there yet.

Works BOTH ways.

The 'lost decade' theory is bunkum, based on the other theory that the banking crisis had nothing to do with peak oil, which it very clearly did and still does.

Which means there's no recovery after a decade but a permanent recession due to oil production dropping within the same.

The permanent global recession theory is also bunkum, as economics are, as far as concerns the individual, local. Looked at from statistical perspective, ok, but people don't live in 'The World' they live in towns, cities, regions and countries; each of which has it's own perils and pitfalls, blessings and chances.

So, there's no permanent global recession because some countries are experiencing a "mega boom," but this contradicts your first claim that the banking crisis (which is linked to this "mega boom") is affected by peak oil, which means the "mega boom" won't last. In which case, a permanent recession caused by peak oil isn't "bunkum" at all, unless your first point about a "lost decade" is wrong.

Which differs from pre peak oil first world? How exactly?

I'm not saying it differs but it's the same! But you're claiming that both countries are experiencing a mega-boom which makes any argument about going downhill "bunkum". Again here's what you wrote:

So far, the first few years of 'permanent global recession' under peak oil, (actually more a bumpy plateau also, so far) has been a mega boom in China, India, and not too bad at all for Brazil and several other southern countries.

But will it last? If, following your argument that this "mega boom" is similar to that of First World countries, then we face either a "lost decade" (i.e., there will be some recovery, but it will be weak) or a permanent global recession. And yet you argue that both points are "bunkum," which means the "mega boom" will be continuous and so significant that even peak oil will be thwarted.

Looks to me like you think the USA and Europe and a few of their tagalongs qualify as 'The Global Economy'.

Only if those "tag-alongs" include BRIC and emerging markets that are dependent on export markets and trade, if not over $30 trillion pumped into the global economy to keep it afloat.

Which in many places, most likely for a majority of humanity in terms of numbers, have improved over the last ten years.

So, why not show that global GDP growth has been going up, that food and oil prices aren't affecting most people worldwide, or that the ILO is wrong about their news concerning global unemployment?

Talk about building a strawman.

The issue isn't whether or not I am looking at your views in a superficial manner but whether or not you'll be able to deal with the contradictions in your views. To recap:

There will be no global recession for at least a decade because peak oil will lead to a recession for a longer period.

There will be no permanent global recession because other countries are experiencing a "mega boom," which means peak oil won't affect most countries and that the "mega boom" will be long-lasting.

But if the "mega boom" is similar to that experienced by First World countries, then there will eventually be either a "lost decade" or a permanent global recession, which contradicts your first two points.

[SeaGypsy]

Ok just so you have it nice and square from me.

In global terms:

Peak oil will not just result in any of the silly temporary things we are arguing about.

Peak oil has triggered the beginning of the end of the gluttonous edifice we call 'modernity'.

The ship is going down, down, all the way down.
(not 'sinking a bit')

Meanwhile, there is a lot, a very large amount of play in the system.

The play in the system is greatest where wages are lowest and where resource to population ratios are supportive of income mediums.

The play in the system is evaporating for high wage, high expectation countries with low resource ratios.

This second group has dominated the global economy through market manipulation and financial wizardry. Over time, without writing an essay on the subject, this amounts to fiat value ultimately reverts to zero. We are now seeing that slippery slide in the money printing, infinite exponential debt explosion underway throughout this group.

At the same time, the first group has to assist the second group to maintain consumption to prop up export markets.

Simultaneously, the goal of the first group must be to parallel the second, at least in terms of developing internal markets. They must do this very cautiously to avoid quickly becoming members of the second group. However, they are ultimately headed in the same direction.

Not recession. Collapse.

What remains to be seen is how far down the warren the wizards can go and how far they will go towards utter destruction of the planet/ biosphere before the inevitable demise of the global civilization as the meeting point is reached.

The meeting point will be a desperate police state willing ready and able to kill anyone, annihilate any collective which forms with intent to usurp TPTB; who will live behind high walls with gilded neuter guards.

The plebs, you me and almost everyone else, will line up to be selected for neutering and food for ourselves and what remains of our families.

It's pretty grim and I don't know when the meeting point will come, but it is coming and there is very little if any likelyhood of stopping it.

So "Lost decade" is a stupid idea, a wilful ignorance. So is "Permanent recession".

If I have not made myself clear by now I do not know English and I am sorry, OK?

[ralfy]

My point is found in four paragraphs after your message, starting with, "What remains." That's because with a collapse, there is no need to see "how far the warren the wizards can go," there will be no "police state," no plebs lining up "for neutering and food." If any, you will have those with a "lost decade" or a "permanent recession." In fact, you might even see something of that sort in countries like China.

[SeaGypsy]

A recession is an economic dip. The permanency of such makes the statement an oxymoron. The lost decade theorem is based on the idea that recovery is inevitable, a cornucopian prospect. Then you revert back from global perspective to specific. Too much MSM, not enough independent thought.

(BTW I just did a revision of Ralphy's nuisance posts way back when LATOC folded. You haven't grown up at all have you Ralphy? A serial internet pain who should perhaps think about getting a real job.)

[glaucus]

socrates1fan wrote:

I don't think there is going to be some catastrophic moment when it happens. The truth is far FAR less exciting. What we are in, is a very long decline, a decline that will probably outlast any of us. Even the collapse of the Roman Empire was not overnight, it was a very long process, taking centuries. I've been told this process began a long time ago. In my own community, people used to have a lot of kids, a good bit of money put away, and fairly low crime rates. Now, people barely have enough kids to replace themselves (even the immigrants here are losing fertility) and little by little, houses pop up empty, then they get destroyed or neglected, then demolished and nothing replaces them. Food prices slowly get higher, so people grow more foods in their once well manicured backyards. People use less power and fuel (not because of being smart with resources, but because utilities are too high). A good example is Detroit, which for many of us, is what we can eventually expect. Yet, the people are adapting. Abandoned neighborhoods are being razed and replaced with woods. Urban homesteaders and farmers, trying to make a living, are moving into abandoned houses and tilling the abandoned land (often illegally). People raising urban chickens, bees, etc is growing. Clothes lines keep popping up. Right now people think it is temporary, that things will improve, but what they don't realize is that they are making permanent changes to their lives. We are in a long decline, peak oil, peak food, peak uranium (sorry Nuclear industry), and even peak population (Japan, anyone?)! I don't think I'd want a short collapse either, as it would kill all of us (Nuclear meltdowns, eh?). A long term collapse is actually better for us, it gives us a chance at survival. My plan doesn't really involve a major SHTF scenario, but rather a long steady decline. My goal is to find people who share my concerns and values, and to start a community that would do intensive agriculture of both our own needs and cash crops, trees (Fruits, mushrooms, nuts, organic vegetables, organic meat, and expensive hardwoods, a very long term investment). Slowly, buy up more land, farm it, and increase our numbers (either through increased membership or natural reproduction) and export more goods (or even electricity and biodiesel) to the surrounding areas. Eventually I'd like to start other communities like it in the region. Not only would this improve the environment (our community would restore the soil, use clean energy, use less energy, plant woods, and reuse old materials) but would also provide a more stable food source for ourselves and the surrounding region. I'm still debating, whether it would be better to start such a community on the outskirts of a city, or in the countryside far from any city.

Great post. IMHO, this is exactly what's occurring.

[SeaGypsy]

socrates1fan wrote:

I don't think there is going to be some catastrophic moment when it happens.

The truth is far FAR less exciting. What we are in, is a very long decline, a decline that will probably outlast any of us. Even the collapse of the Roman Empire was not overnight, it was a very long process, taking centuries.

I've been told this process began a long time ago.

In my own community, people used to have a lot of kids, a good bit of money put away, and fairly low crime rates.

Now, people barely have enough kids to replace themselves (even the immigrants here are losing fertility) and little by little, houses pop up empty, then they get destroyed or neglected, then demolished and nothing replaces them.

Food prices slowly get higher, so people grow more foods in their once well manicured backyards. People use less power and fuel (not because of being smart with resources, but because utilities are too high).

A good example is Detroit, which for many of us, is what we can eventually expect. Yet, the people are adapting. Abandoned neighborhoods are being razed and replaced with woods. Urban homesteaders and farmers, trying to make a living, are moving into abandoned houses and tilling the abandoned land (often illegally). People raising urban chickens, bees, etc is growing. Clothes lines keep popping up.

Right now people think it is temporary, that things will improve, but what they don't realize is that they are making permanent changes to their lives.

We are in a long decline, peak oil, peak food, peak uranium (sorry Nuclear industry), and even peak population (Japan, anyone?)!

I don't think I'd want a short collapse either, as it would kill all of us (Nuclear meltdowns, eh?). A long term collapse is actually better for us, it gives us a chance at survival.

My plan doesn't really involve a major SHTF scenario, but rather a long steady decline. My goal is to find people who share my concerns and values, and to start a community that would do intensive agriculture of both our own needs and cash crops, trees (Fruits, mushrooms, nuts, organic vegetables, organic meat, and expensive hardwoods, a very long term investment). Slowly, buy up more land, farm it, and increase our numbers (either through increased membership or natural reproduction) and export more goods (or even electricity and biodiesel) to the surrounding areas.

Eventually I'd like to start other communities like it in the region. Not only would this improve the environment (our community would restore the soil, use clean energy, use less energy, plant woods, and reuse old materials) but would also provide a more stable food source for ourselves and the surrounding region. I'm still debating, whether it would be better to start such a community on the outskirts of a city, or in the countryside far from any city.

Great post. IMHO, this is exactly what's occurring.

Made it readable/ no detail changed. Yes Socrates Fan, it's a goody.

[ralfy]

A recession is an economic dip. The permanency of such makes the statement an oxymoron. The lost decade theorem is based on the idea that recovery is inevitable, a cornucopian prospect. Then you revert back from global perspective to specific. Too much MSM, not enough independent thought.

Don't take the idea of permanency literally. That is the premise raised in articles like this:

"Our Oil-Constrained Future"

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... ned-future

In short, there will be no more economic growth, but at best slow growth. And when oil production starts dropping....

FWIW, a "lost decade" does not necessarily lead to recovery but to collapse. In short, it's a slow crash. Finally, I raised this only because I wanted to share with the OP what MSM has been saying about the issue. Unfortunately, I could not find the article.

(BTW I just did a revision of Ralphy's nuisance posts way back when LATOC folded. You haven't grown up at all have you Ralphy? A serial internet pain who should perhaps think about getting a real job.)

Why are you now resorting to personal insults? I don't see how this is in any way related to the issue.

Now, here's the problem. You first wrote:

Complexity is still increasing, so, no we aren't there yet.

In short, we are not going downhill yet? If so, then why is global GDP still low?

The 'lost decade' theory is bunkum, based on the other theory that the banking crisis had nothing to do with peak oil, which it very clearly did and still does.

Actually, it's not if we follow the point that constrained production coupled with financial speculation is leading to the current recession. Of course, that assumes that there is a recession, something that is contradicted by your first paragraph.

The permanent global recession theory is also bunkum, as economics are, as far as concerns the individual, local. Looked at from statistical perspective, ok, but people don't live in 'The World' they live in towns, cities, regions and countries; each of which has it's own perils and pitfalls, blessings and chances.

Apparently, there's no recession as long as one sees things in light of his local situation. Hence,

So far, the first few years of 'permanent global recession' under peak oil, (actually more a bumpy plateau also, so far) has been a mega boom in China, India, and not too bad at all for Brazil and several other southern countries.

Thus, we have admission of something that's also "bunkum": since some countries are experiencing "mega booms," then there's no recession except for a few, never mind what the nature of those "mega booms" are.

And yet,

Not recession. Collapse.

which is the real explanation why the two points raised earlier are "bunkum." And yet "collapse" is described as,

What remains to be seen is how far down the warren the wizards can go and how far they will go towards utter destruction of the planet/ biosphere before the inevitable demise of the global civilization as the meeting point is reached.

The meeting point will be a desperate police state willing ready and able to kill anyone, annihilate any collective which forms with intent to usurp TPTB; who will live behind high walls with gilded neuter guards.

The plebs, you me and almost everyone else, will line up to be selected for neutering and food for ourselves and what remains of our families.

And yet the same "meeting point" is eerily similar to what is taking place in countries like China, the same country that is doing "not bad at all" and experiencing a "mega boom"!

Not surprisingly, the last paragraph very much describes the current situation, where over 60 pct of human beings earn only around two dollars daily and where around three-quarters of various resources are controlled only by a quarter of global population.

In short, given "complexity" we are "not there yet," but given your idea of "collapse," we already are! Which is which?

Finally, I don't see my points regarding LATOC as "nuisance" posts but to argue that its members are not supposed to be seen as cranks who, ironically, gave the SAME arguments as you do right now: that TPTB is resorting to desperate attempts to keep what is essentially a "house of cards" afloat until collapse leads to police states, if not total anarchy. FWIW, some members argue that a "slow crash" will take place.

Given that, why are you asking me to "grow up"? Shouldn't we look at different perspectives of this issue? And given your claim that we face "collapse," why are you asking me to get "a real job"? Is it because there probably won't be a collapse?

[SeaGypsy]

Sorry, your presumptions just reminded me of our first confrontation when you came here from LATOC getting all uppity about the use of the word "entertainment".

If you choose to be a full time activist on the net, I won't judge you for that or hold you back; just do it really well, to the utmost of your ability. Part of this means reading back a long way on long term posters BEFORE trying to dismantle whatever they say based on a gut reaction to a single post. If you do this, and put more deep thought into your work, you will get much better at it.

I already did 20 something years of activism. This site is my ONLY outlet for this kind of writing/ activity these days, so I am a little sensitive to your style of approach as someone who has spread themselves far and wide, often attracting derision for the same kind of issue we have had over the years.

As for the current stage of unfolding disaster. I am having an absolute blast of a time; enjoying the hell out of it. Starting a new career on the cursed "Blue Sky Mine" to get a look at the other side of all of this. My fourth major career move since peak in 2006/7. I have never been happier or more content in this miserable world. If that irks you, so be it. I have done my time, suffered my pain and am now in another frame of mind; keeping myself and my wife and our young children in the best possible position as the shit goes down.

[vision-master]

How can you spend so much time here?

New Career
Wifey
Kids...........

[SeaGypsy]

Multi tasking
I get up at 4.30 0r 5am, make my coffee and log on; check emails and read what's been going on here. That gives me an hour or so. I sometimes was online for my 2 hour commute each way, this I have knocked off as I write a novel about a bunch of criminals in jail. I either work or study all day, we just had semester break which I spent doing a heavy transport certification, which has likely already got me the job out on the mines.
I get home about 6pm log on, help cook dinner, muck around with my 2 bubs, they go to bed with mum about 9.30, which leaves me another hour or 2 to write emails and a couple of posts here/ if so inclined.

[vision-master]

Fun.......... Type A, eh?

Better watch taht blood PSI.........

[SeaGypsy]

95% vego, no red meat or dairy, no medicines, no dependencies, 55 rest pulse, 38 second 100m wet, 13.2 dry. Not bad for 45. BP is fine.

[ralfy]

Sorry if I sounded rough. I got angry because forum members were characterizing those in LATOC as doomsayers, even though many of the premises, arguments, and even views of the future (including those in this thread) mirror the same. In fact, I see almost no difference between LATOC and this forum, which is why I don't understand the hostility towards the former.

I can't see myself as an activist in this forum, as the number of messages that I've posted, for example, is only a fraction of what others have achieved. But your advice is very helpful about knowing about others' backgrounds even though I think knowledge about the issue is more important. For example, the claim that China is experiencing a "mega boom" is highly questionable; a few reasons are given below. More are seen in other forums.

I hope you don't mind if I don't share anything about myself, as that's inconsequential to this topic and cannot be proven, anyway. What I can say, though, is that I'd like to think that my views are the same as yours, i.e., I "spread" myself "far and wide." In fact, that's the reason for my first post, which is to point out what various economists wrote; I want the OP and forum members to see different views of the issue. That is, the "downhill" move might be sudden or slow and painful.

The same goes for views of collapse. For some, collapse is a "police state" with a neutered society, but there are many societies worldwide that are in such a situation, including, ironically, China, which is supposed to be doing "well" amid a global recession. For those who live or work in poor countries, collapse is even worse.

With that, what can we say about this notion of going "downhill"? The clearest indicators are high oil and food prices coupled with unemployment issues. Part of the cause of such is financial speculation, but conventional oil production hardly catching up with demand coupled with the effects of global warming might be more dominant reasons. Thus, we have a financial crisis masking a more serious one. Kevin Drum, Gail the Actuary, and others have already explained that.

Is there a recession? Yes, and that can obviously be seen given high prices, unemployment problems, and low growth. What about the "mega booms"? These are likely being driven by around $30 trillion dollars pumped into the global economy in order to ward off a credit crunch caused by...too much money. Thus, they are being driven by more spending. With that, there are likely no "mega booms" but "mega hoarding" and "mega asset bubbles."

Will there be a global collapse? Definitely, but we are not certain how and when. Organizations like the U.S. military believe that it will be caused by a drop in conventional oil production sometime between now and 2015, leading to "massive dislocations" for various economies or combinations of societal collapse for some and slow or no growth for others.

Some forum members, on the other hand, argue that the drop in conventional oil production will drop sharply and quickly, leading to a global dislocation. I don't see a lot in this forum, unless I consider the posts here concerning collapse. On the other hand, they don't look like they describe collapse to me, but a move to totalitarianism, which is present in various societies, including ironically some who are said to be doing well economically.

Still, others argue that non-conventional production may make up for a lack of conventional production temporarily, probably only for around a decade, after which the drop in conventional oil production may be slow and permanent.

There are even other forum members who believe that the effects of a financial crisis will precede that of peak oil, with the same crisis leading to war, and both leading to oil shortages (and resource shortages in general) even before conventional oil production drops. Sometimes, parallels are drawn between what happened before WW2 and the present.

There are more who believe that the effects of drought and floods coupled with financial crisis will also destabilize various economies, leading to war or one economy after another weakening even before conventional oil production drops. I can't remember, but I think in other forums, books about environmental disaster were often mentioned.

Thus, a lost decade or a permanent global recession or a quick, horrific collapse are all possible. One or the other is "bunkum" only if one does not want to consider all of these factors and simply focus on, say, one or another country "not [doing] bad at all." If one cannot determine what will actually happen but wants to prepare, the look for combinations of strategies given what one can afford to do, e.g., diversify assets, work on emergency provisions in the short term and learning skills in the medium term, etc., and then add more funds and time to learn as these become available.

Finally, since I am not an activist and because of limitations of this medium, then I cannot give more details concerning my points. But there are many sites that one can visit to investigate such matters, and several have been mentioned in this forum and in others. For peak oil, one may also try this list of reports in my web log:

http://ralfyman.blogspot.com

There are more (reports, sites, and forums that share both) about the global recession, global warming (such as the NAS final report), and more, including those that look at combinations of factors (such as the one from Feasta).

[SeaGypsy]

Cool. The only thing I would take issue with there; is that a site like this very much becomes about the personalities, rather than the fundamentals. There are as you say, many places to find the core information, including here. Thing is though, this part of the site is the forum, where we discuss ideas and build on them; often over many years. Relationships evolve and dissolve, emerge and vanish. It's a new kind of human communication; in it's infancy, which is both confronting and disturbing to those not sure of the context. Those of us who have been around a few years and a few thousand posts, know each other's personalities in some ways better than we might be known by our own families; but in other ways not at all. Most of us could walk by each other in the street and have no clue at all that we know each other. It's not facebook, nor is it newsweek; but it is interesting.

[ralfy]

Another article to consider, and from Gail Tverberg:

An Optimistic Energy/GDP Forecast to 2050, Based on Data since 1820

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/26/an ... ince-1820/