[onlooker]

It appears we have entered a new era but what this will be is still uncertain. It is uncertain because it hit so fast. The central banks are going full MMT out of necessity. The risks to liquidity are just to great to allow the markets to sort this one out. Vladimir Lenin said “In Some Decades, Nothing Happens; In Some Weeks, Decades Happen”. I really think this is a defining period with the end of globalism’s assent. Economics defines politics so this will surely alter the way people cooperate and compete. I don’t think the markets will be allowed to crash like they used to but what will change is a decline in real wealth so the markets will be little more than a façade of appearance of wealth when the reality is much less will be there. Global value chains driven by the raw greed for yields can never be matched in regards to production. Value chains will adapt be being smaller and shorter. On the other hand, a world of less could be a world that can scale better actually offering more wealth in well-being. People are going to have to try to do more locally if they want more. Localism is the best system for the public and private good. Globalism will remain but this virus checked its advance. Let’s hope that the level this all settles to offers opportunity for more rational human activity found in localism.

Very well said Green.  And welcome to the nuthouse haha. Seriously, we are entering in a myriad of ways a different era for human societies in a holistic sense ie. in all facets.  This is the era of contraction.  Forced contraction via limits to growth.  And if we are smart voluntary contraction or  degrowth. So, yes localization is part of that scaling back. We must also implement  workable strategies to control and curb our population.  Our collectine human impact on the Biosphere  and demand on resources simply cannot be sustained much longer.

So, economic throughput MUST decline as well as population growth. No longer can we separate economics from the environment. They must be inextricably linked as a unit in our current and future policies.  We must embrace and navigate contraction for the sake of posterity

[REAL Green]

This is definitely a new economic era. China and Europe are doing the same but they do not represent the same global reach as the dollar represents so this is a massive move towards a completely managed global market. Will the Fed be able to backtrack? Their tapper of last year was a lame attempt to normalize. I really think normality is gone. It was gone before but now the stake is in the heart of free markets.

I am curious to see how far the FED goes with the traditional beneficiaries who are first in line for the money so profit handsomely. Will there also be new restrictions for arbitrage and riskless profiting? I don't think it matter "paying dollars on the penny" for this new economic system. In a sense it is universal basic income at the top.

The key point that needs to be seen through this fog of consequences is actual economic activity. You can construct fiat safety nets and ceilings but you can't make fiat activity. What results is deflation, inflation, and combined in stagflation. Eventually the distortions will wash down the toilet of hyperinflation in the end if taken too far. Activity is organic like grass.

The issue now is moral hazard and the corruption factor. Free markets when allowed to operate properly allow real price discovery that is the best way to produce a unit of economic activity. Until the corruption factor that leads to private profit at the publics expense which leads to where we are at in late stage capitalism today. Now in this new arrangement we will have a system primed to mal-invest because of economic safety nets at the top. Bureaucrats can’t mean test like real free market price discovery? We need only look to the 20th century and the Soviet system to see this. You can’t save everyone on a sinking ship and you can’t make the grass grow.

Is this late stage capitalism’s retirement party? How long can it last? Will nations cooperate at this level? Will there also be a new global currency regime to replace the excessive influence of the dollar? Now that the dollar has been taken to this new level, I doubt other nations will want to be as reliant on it. Yet, there are no real alternatives. To get to a global currency there would need to be common agreement. Will we end up with regional currencies and a greatly reduced globalism? Has all the gold buying been a secret admission a new global currency system is ahead? Lots of question and exciting dangerous times because a global Minsky Moment could be ahead.

[REAL Green]

[

We actually do need an example like Georgia to solidify a bit to what degree lock down is even effective. The numbers will tell.

I am in agreement with you in theory. In reality, I am not sure there is any way to measure how well a population engaged in lock-down. If people are cut off from restaurants they may go to the store more often or hang out with friends elsewhere.

There is a growing amount of evidence that urban teens and young adults are meeting in large groups. Shooting have caused the police to break up enormous parties...But it really doesn't matter now anyway- we are opening up no matter what. Debate is happening in public for appearance sake, but behind the scenes Governors are panicking over the unemployment and tax revenue stats...Everything Govs are putting out about following guidelines and making decisions from those rules is for show- they know there is no turning back. Just watch- not a single one will reverse course- not one. Watch. We are opening up [i]because there is no other option anymore. The economic nightmare ahead, if they fail, is like nothing the US has seen in maybe 90 years. The numbers are that bad.

Globalism 1 is over. This great turning is more than this pandemic. It has been a tension of the last decade with an undulating plateau of growth and decline. We see new tech and wealth generated by that productivity to only be reduced elsewhere by problems and failure. We have hit the abstract ceiling of growth. There are still forces of growth and they will continue to support civilization. Inevitably forces of triaged degrowth will be entertained by politicians who know that tough decisions are a career ending problem but they have no choice.

The pandemic was the pin that popped the globalism 1 bubble. This pandemic is not that severe compared to what it could be. The issue is civilizations inability to accept nature’s way of managing species with Darwinian survival of the fittest. In this society no one can die or there is anger and blame. This took many decades to overcome the Darwin reality with science and medical efforts so it will take time to get over it. In globalism 2 there will be less wealth to deal with medical efforts to save all. Medicare for all is just rationed care. It likely is a good policy if it could be implemented right but in today’s world of moral hazard a good policy gets ruined pretty quick by people seeking advantage over shared sacrifice.

The problem with the response to this pandemic is similar to the response to climate change and that is denial of consequences. We built up a system of globalism 1 that was not resilient to travel and a way of life that is urban/suburban and mobile. The interconnectedness of complicated networks in a complex system makes solutions as bad as the underlying problem. In climate change the attitude is green growth when the only thing that works is degrowth with less affluence. So, what we get is the Paris accord that is a complete joke. China and India continue to grow with the idea that eventually sustainable development will allow green activity. The science of the problem is good but the science of the solutions a trap.

The pandemic response is a similar failure in this regard that you can shut down an economy and avoid death when shutting down the economy invites death too. The balance has been tipped with towards the medical scientist at the expense of those who are at the edge of the system barely surviving now. The affluent educated liberal class can sustain sacrifice. Deplorables at the bottom can’t. You take away their livelihood to save nursing home residents who have a year or two to live in a macro sene is inviting failure. You take away people lives to save the weak and those living bad behavior of obesity and smoking all because of this medical mentality of nobody should die. It does not add up.

This is nobody’s fault in a sense even if the virus escaped a lab. It is a consequence of the lack of resilience and poor wisdom of globalism 1. The poor wisdom is perusing knowledge and affluence at any cost and thinking everyone can be saved. In globalism 2 we will see the acceptance of decline because it will be systematic and widespread. The triage of degrowth will happen becuase there is no other option. It may be disguised with fake solution just like climate change. This opening up of the economy is a triage policy disguised with guidelines that will in many cases be ineffective. It is inevitable especially in places with low death rates the policy will be adapted by a public questioning the sacrifices and seeing a generalized failure of guidelines to be implemented with results.

[Newfie]

Green,

Earth AND humanity desperately need to adapt a Degrowth policy. Degrowth, at least in the beginning, will entail a certain degree of hardship if for nothing else than we need to learn new ways. I think it’s fair to make an analogy to an addict in the early stages of withdrawal. Eventually, if successful, we will get to the point where we can long for the cigarette without lighting up. We are not there yet.

[Tanada]

Perhaps Covid will really achieve this wonderful goal for all of us?

[REAL Green]

Perhaps Covid will really achieve this wonderful goal for all of us?

I don't think globalism can die like many would like just becuase that would be the end of things. We are trapped in its clutches. I do think these past 2 years are the prelude to a step down to a level that will never see the peak of globalism again. We are in the middle of this step down now. That is my opinion mainly becuase this damage to globalism is more than just the pandemic shock. It is also a cold war with trade and the military between US and China. It is the end of US hegemony and the start of a true multipolar world. It is also planetary issues pointing to globalism as a central problem like with climate change. It is a reaction from ordinary people to absurd positions of the globalist that do not reflect many Main Street values. This feeling is across the globe. It is also a peak financialization ending with debt issues and moral hazards. Any one of these might have been survivable for globalism but taken as a group means a new level is being found for globalism. This will likely take 2 years to sort out so hang on to your pants and watch out for the unsuspecting haircuts.

[Newfie]

Tanada,

I doubt it. Unlike Ibon who thinks we will learn something from this I’m less sanguine. I think we will strive to go right back to where we were. How many times have we rebuilt houses on oceanfront sand lots?

To the larger question you imply, is it a worthwhile goal to reduce the economy, personally I think it is a necessary goal in order to forestall even worse in the future.

My life stone follows.

The 5 largest, most dangerous, threats to humanity are:
1-Climate Change.
2-Resource depletion: water, soul, oil, etc.
3-anti-bacterial/anti-viral drug resistance. Get sally pandemic.
4-Global financial system fragility, over complexity.
5-Over population.

This pandemic hits on 3 and 4. For a few years I’ve been saying I think 4 will be the emergent actor, hitting first. But also that things are chaotic and unpredictable.

Growth makes non of these factors better. Degrowth removes pressure on all.

A way, that’s my personal reasoning, it’s what makes sense to me.

[vtsnowedin]

I see 5- overpopulation as the driving cause of 1, 2 and 3.
Fix that and things can get better. Fail to fix it and nothing you can do will make any of the others go away.

[Ibon]

Tanada,

I doubt it. Unlike Ibon who thinks we will learn something from this I’m less sanguine. .

Well nothing has changed, since almost 15 years you have been sanguine and I have been optimistic! haha.

In all seriousness, on all the tangible metrics; wealth, standard of living, infrastructure, technology your pessimism is justified. We will ratchet down.

On the intangibles however, I will be vindicated. The intangibles are those things that are not measured by GDP; time with family and friends, getting back to working physically, the well being that results in not being in the rat race, being in debt. declining obesity and drug abuse, more civic duty and volunteering, more gardening and free entertainment like walking in a park instead of consuming plastic shit.

Obesity and drug abuse are disaeases of opulence and societal dislocation. THey are not diseases when everyone has to start tightening their belts. Related to this we see obesity and drug abuse hitting many rural former rust belt states where industries have disappeared. What aggravates these social ills is feeling left behind. Folks in rural Ohia and Indiana and Kentucky see their whole communities shattered while the east and west coast states are thriving. The contrast aggravates the sense of hopelessness. Once contraction starts being more homogenuously distributed there could very well be a bit of a spiritual renaissance in these areas because they will not feel singled out. The young generation finding self worth in more physical labor may break the cycle of dispair that has hollowed out many areas of rural America.

Maybe.

[Ibon]

To put on my most optimistic hat. After every major inflection point of hardship we see a renaissance. After WWI and the 1918 spanish flu pandemic we had the roaring 20's

After the depression and WWII we had a couple of the most productive and prosperous decades.

Degrowth and the dying slowly of globalism of course will not allow a renaissance of growth, but that does not mean there will not be a spiritual renaissance. I predict there will be. Spirits always up lift after calamity, the young are inherently more optimistic.

Imagine a generation that has to find a place to put their optimism when materialism is no longer possible and has lost its shine and glitter. It will most likely be directed in community, the arts, music, civid duty, gardening, nature, personal growth.

Especially if a poorer world no longer allows for parasitic consumerism we start looking up to new mentors and heroes. They wont be icons of consumerism like we see today. They will be of a more virtuous nature.

That is my most optimistic spin

[REAL Green]

Degrowth and the dying slowly of globalism of course will not allow a renaissance of growth, but that does not mean there will not be a spiritual renaissance. I predict there will be. Spirits always up lift after calamity, the young are inherently more optimistic.

Exactly! This is my conclusion in my realgreenadaptation.blog. We are going to decline in a material sense but this will open up a spiritual expansion at least at diverse local levels that are places that currently have seeds of change planted. That said lots of pain and conflict is ahead as is always the case with abandonment, dysfunction, and the irrational bubbles up from the turbulence. Yet, as found in the chaos theory there are also patterns in randomness so despite the chaos formative forces are there. If we can harness these patterns of abstract growth of spirit then this period does not have to be talked of as the new dark ages. This may be an evolution of mankind at least in various places. The world is so big and overpopulated and there is so much noise both good and bad there will likely not be peace on earth and kumbaya. If you can cultivate a local that can take advantage of the step down from globalism1. Globalism2 will offer a niche of growth for locals ready to fill vacancies left by those wiped out in globalism1.

[jawagord]

Tanada,

I doubt it. Unlike Ibon who thinks we will learn something from this I’m less sanguine. I think we will strive to go right back to where we were. How many times have we rebuilt houses on oceanfront sand lots?

To the larger question you imply, is it a worthwhile goal to reduce the economy, personally I think it is a necessary goal in order to forestall even worse in the future.

My life stone follows.

The 5 largest, most dangerous, threats to humanity are:
1-Climate Change.
2-Resource depletion: water, soul, oil, etc.
3-anti-bacterial/anti-viral drug resistance. Get sally pandemic.
4-Global financial system fragility, over complexity.
5-Over population.

This pandemic hits on 3 and 4. For a few years I’ve been saying I think 4 will be the emergent actor, hitting first. But also that things are chaotic and unpredictable.

Growth makes non of these factors better. Degrowth removes pressure on all.

A way, that’s my personal reasoning, it’s what makes sense to me.

Reverse the order Newfie, number 5 should be at the top of your list. As Jeff Gibbs says in Planet of the Humans, the CO2 molecule is not the problem, human population growth is the problem.

But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments. 

Like many environmental documentaries,“Planet of Humans” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy. “We have to have our ability to consume reigned in,” says a well-coiffed environmental leader. “Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back,” says a scientist. 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

[Newfie]

Jag,

The foundation rests on the bottom layer.

Remove it and all else falls.

But since people read top down I give them the easier ones first. Then they can say “Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes”. Before they get to the biggie.

Normally I say “In no particular order” but I guess you have unmasked my spin.

[ralfy]

To put on my most optimistic hat. After every major inflection point of hardship we see a renaissance. After WWI and the 1918 spanish flu pandemic we had the roaring 20's

After the depression and WWII we had a couple of the most productive and prosperous decades.

Degrowth and the dying slowly of globalism of course will not allow a renaissance of growth, but that does not mean there will not be a spiritual renaissance. I predict there will be. Spirits always up lift after calamity, the young are inherently more optimistic.

Imagine a generation that has to find a place to put their optimism when materialism is no longer possible and has lost its shine and glitter. It will most likely be directed in community, the arts, music, civid duty, gardening, nature, personal growth.

Especially if a poorer world no longer allows for parasitic consumerism we start looking up to new mentors and heroes. They wont be icons of consumerism like we see today. They will be of a more virtuous nature.

That is my most optimistic spin

I think the world population was much smaller in 1918, together with per capita demand for resources, and resources mostly untapped.

[EnergyUnlimited]

To put on my most optimistic hat. After every major inflection point of hardship we see a renaissance. After WWI and the 1918 spanish flu pandemic we had the roaring 20's

After the depression and WWII we had a couple of the most productive and prosperous decades.

Contrary to current situation after significant hiccups of the past we were always below carrying capacity level.

Degrowth and the dying slowly of globalism of course will not allow a renaissance of growth, but that does not mean there will not be a spiritual renaissance. I predict there will be. Spirits always up lift after calamity, the young are inherently more optimistic.

... as long as there is a planetary scale EMP attack or a massive solar storm aka Carrington event, so the younger generation lose access to internet and smartphones in particular.
Otherwise we will observe accelerating degeneration into virtual abyss.
But there is some hope for youngsters from poorer Third World countries here - those not excessively infested with digital technology.
Otherwise future is bleak for all in decades if not centuries to come.

Imagine a generation that has to find a place to put their optimism when materialism is no longer possible and has lost its shine and glitter. It will most likely be directed in community, the arts, music, civid duty, gardening, nature, personal growth.

As long as smartphones, laptops and all sort of Google services are working, there is no bright future.
There will be escape into digital oblivion, progress of alienation, loss of social skills and further degeneration of personality.
5D porn for all from the age of 9 type of future.
However destruction of high tech infrastructure either due to lack of resources to keep it working or due to EMP event may return us to situation where human labour is again valuable and in demand, what in turn can lead to a renaissance you mention.
Another prerequisite of such renaissance would be destruction of global corporate and banking infrastructure, so tens of thousands of small firms employing people could exist instead of 1 corpo employing robots.
But here I am an optimist. It may take time counted in decades or centuries but Mother Nature will terminate current edition of corporate world for sure.

Especially if a poorer world no longer allows for parasitic consumerism we start looking up to new mentors and heroes. They wont be icons of consumerism like we see today. They will be of a more virtuous nature.

First lot need to be a warrior type - to destroy banking and industrial behemoths currently living out of taxpayer handouts and trading while bankrupt.

[vtsnowedin]

I think the world population was much smaller in 1918, together with per capita demand for resources, and resources mostly untapped.

Also the 20s saw the rise of the ICE automobile from Model Ts to the model A introduced in 1927 to compete with the Buick sixes which were the first cars that would last 100,000 miles Along with Fordson tractors and their Farmall competitors putting millions of horses out to pasture or to the glue factory making food much cheaper.

[sparky]

.
vtsnowedin
" I see 5- overpopulation as the driving cause of 1, 2 and 3.
Fix that and things can get better. Fail to fix it and nothing you can do will make any of the others go away."

That's about it , traveled through Paris , Bruxelles and Amsterdam in the mist of the coronavirus
the streets were empty bar a few scurrying figures , very few cars
the impression I had was of a world a few years after 9/tenth of the people had disappeared
it also brought to mind how totally useless most of the people jobs were ,
they could be dispensed with for no meaningful losses

[vtsnowedin]

.

it also brought to mind how totally useless most of the people jobs were ,
they could be dispensed with for no meaningful losses

Maybe no loss to you but the job holders and those they serve feel quite differently about it.
The planet would do just fine with a zero human population but most humans don't see that as a viable option for themselves or their Grandchildren.

[Newfie]

VT,

What’s the right number of humans?

1Zero?
2As few as possible to assure species survival?
3Enough to get the job done, if we knew what the job is?
4As manny as possible?

[vtsnowedin]

VT,

What’s the right number of humans?

1Zero?
2As few as possible to assure species survival?
3Enough to get the job done, if we knew what the job is?
4As manny as possible?

Good and difficult question. It is clear the current 7.2 billion is too many but I of course don't want to volunteer to reduce the number nor does anyone else.
The current goal would be to stop the increase by some means other then war and slowly decline as populations age out.
Perhaps a final goal of getting down to two to three billion determined by how well the rest of the environment is doing. A truly sustainable population would be the goal.