[Last_Historian]

New blog post on future of the world-economy - http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2010/02/ ... me-begins/

Summary
* The coming economic unraveling of the current global economic order.
* The geopolitical influence of Greece's fiscal problems on Europe, namely the diminution of EU economic influence in favor of Germany.
* US problems: fiscal profligacy, political dysfunction, second wave of the housing crisis coming in 2011, the renewal of the banking crisis, peak oil begins to bite in 2011-13, geopolitical perturbations.
* longer-term effects on Europe, Japan, US.

[Ainan]

Some points:

far-right (demands for more state rights, anti-tax movements, “American reactionary patriots”, etc)” - though right now, the far-right movements appear to be the more powerful emerging faction (see the grassroots appeal of the reactionary, back-to-the-18th-century Tea Partiers, who in an electoral contest would now garner 17% of the vote – is the US finally going to see a powerful 3rd party?).

The tea partiers have been pretty much infiltrated and neutralised now. Instead of supporting Ron Paul and real freedom they will be brought into line behind Sarah Palin and the Neocon Republican party.

Let them burn. Germany is getting impatient of being used as Europe’s cash cow for the past 60 years, and may simply tell Greece to deal with it herself

What's the end result of this LH? All these European countries going broke, angry desperate populaces. I expect the rise of nationalism and the break up of the EU if the recession depression continues. Although some 'core states' as you suggest may dominate.

Whatever form America’s new political economy takes (something resembling Putinism?, or maybe Chavismo?), it will likely be far better suited for the coming age of scarcity industrialism (characterized by economic statism, Realpolitik, and mercantile trade relations), than the crumbling colossus that is today’s Pax Americana.

I like how you ended suggesting America will be suitable for 'economic statism', under and all powerful leader like Putin? Green communism again huh?

[Cloud9]

This is not the end game. We are currently in a period of flux. The rules are changing. In times like these, there is always the allure of the leader. We yearn for a messiah that will lead us through the chaos and into utopia. The two great American Dictators, Lincoln and Roosevelt ruled in times like these. We allowed them to suspend the Constitution and do what they felt was necessary to preserve the union. In the process, both men presided over an unprecedented growth of federal power. In each cycle citizens lost their civil liberties. Never the less, the form and function of the government was retained. We still had a congress and we still had a supreme court even though the power of both branches was muted.

It is one thing to stretch the constitution. It is a whole different thing to shred it. Legitimacy is the glue that holds the system together.

We can make a mistake. Others have walked down this path. Had it not been for WW II, a number of these folks may have found themselves in front of a firing squad.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... stcoup.htm

[mos6507]

It is one thing to stretch the constitution. It is a whole different thing to shred it. Legitimacy is the glue that holds the system together.

Didn't that alerady happen under Bush/Cheney? Aside from the bailouts everybody's whining over, seems like we've stepped back from the precipice lately.

[Cloud9]

Yes, Mos the Bush boys stretched the Constitution like a rubber band. That fact was not lost on the public and is one of the reasons they and their cartel are out of power. What Chicagoland has yet to figure out is that a vote against Bush was not necessarily a vote for them.

Sarah Palin has a speaker’s spot and a book deal but she has not captured the heart and soul of the tea party movement. That movement is an anti government, anti establishment movement based on a general discontent with the current state of affairs. Looking at the photos there are a lot grey hairs in that movement. It may be the last gasp of the sixties generation. Those of us who grew up in that period became accustomed to the smell of tear gas and the sound of protest. It may be all together fitting that we close out our existence with one last push.

We got sidetracked with kids, business and life. What we hoped for was not communism but rather an egalitarian society. We took our eye off the ball. What we got was power politics, crony capitalism and Jamie Diamond paying himself $17.5 million a year while half a million of us lose our jobs every month.

This is not the America we hoped for. Now that the kids are gone and our businesses are winding down our eyes are back on the ball.

Anybody that wants to lead this country better come up with a plan. Glittering generalities and political platitudes no longer cut it.

[Ludi]

In the process, both men presided over an unprecedented growth of federal power. In each cycle citizens lost their civil liberties.

Yeah, slave owners losing their right to own slaves was unfortunate, huh?

[mos6507]

It may be the last gasp of the sixties generation.

I really have a hard time seeing the tea-party movement as left-wing. If anything it's Alex Jones style libertarianism. In other words, libertarianism as a way to get back to some 1950s postcard caricature of the American dream. Age of aquarius and limits to growth need not apply, so to speak.

Anybody that wants to lead this country better come up with a plan. Glittering generalities and political platitudes no longer cut it.

Yes. A platform of being purely anti-establishment (think, the politics of "no") won't cut it.

[Ludi]

Some of the Tea Party seems to have the right idea.

"Platform of the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."

http://www.bostontea.us/platform

National committee resolution on gay marriage issues

"Whereas a majority of voters in the states of California, Arizona and Florida decided on November 4, 2008 that their state governments should not recognize marriages between two people of the same sex; and

"Whereas, although in a free society 'marriage' would
be of no concern to states (or government in any form), present conditions grant special privileges and immunities to those under formal marriage-contract, and

"Whereas discrimination against ANY voluntary segment of society by government entities is both abhorrent and a violation of the Bill of Rights ...

"Be it RESOLVED that the Boston Tea Party supports the rights of all people at home and abroad (including Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) people) to equal rights, privileges and immunities under the law and

"Be it further RESOLVED that the Boston Tea Party calls for an immediate repeal of all state and federal laws attempting or intending to restrict or define the term 'marriage.'"

Passed by consent of the national committee 6 aye, 0 nay, 1 abstaining, on 16 November 2008.

http://bostontea.us/node/554

But then you have these folks:

“Party like it’s 1773” is the rally cry, but this decision flies in the face of appealing to historical antecedent!

Do you think the original Tea Party participants (and the Founders) would have supported gay marriage? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Look at history: Anti-sodomy (read same-sex unions) laws were British law beginning with King Henry’s reign in the 1500’s. It was a CRIME to engage in sodomy and punishable by death. This was the framework of the Founders. The original 13 colonies adopted such laws, making sodomy illegal in the States, also. (By the mid 1900’s, all 50 of the United States had criminalized sodomy with various penalties for this ‘crime against nature’.) The Patriots would not have supported any notion that ‘same-sex marriage’ was an acceptable form of sodomy!!!!

How can you appeal to people via American tradition while supporting a modern moral stance that is completely contrary to what those same Christian Patriots would reject?

Sodomy is NOT sanctified by legitimizing it as marriage!"

[EnergyUnlimited]

Sodomy is NOT sanctified by legitimizing it as marriage!"

That is funny.
Peoples blubber about sodomy, abortion and pedophilia while their life support system and the very fabric of society unravels...

There will be much fun to watch the consequences shortly...
So to join US Army one will have to prove to be a gay anytime soon?

[mos6507]

Peoples blubber about sodomy, abortion and pedophilia while their life support system and the very fabric of society unravels...

I read a lot of doom bloggers worrying a lot about erosions of liberal gains in the civil liberties domain which seems a little misplaced. On the downslope, people will be more worried about where their next meal is coming from than whether they're being allowed to prance around in drag or wear a burqa to school.

[Last_Historian]

@Ainan,

What's the end result of this LH? All these European countries going broke, angry desperate populaces. I expect the rise of nationalism and the break up of the EU if the recession depression continues. Although some 'core states' as you suggest may dominate.

That is essentially what I talked about in this post. I agree that the EU has no future.

I like how you ended suggesting America will be suitable for 'economic statism', under and all powerful leader like Putin? Green communism again huh?

Putin is not all-powerful, just somewhat more authoritarian in his methods (and most Russians like that if opinion polls are anything to go by). And I hate to be so blunt, but If you think Putin is anything resembling a Communist, Green or old-school, then frankly you don't know what you're talking about. I am talking about the statism that characterizes the much more active involvement of the state in the process of capitalism, as is evident throughout the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China), and to an extent even France.

@Cloud9,

This is not the end game. We are currently in a period of flux. The rules are changing.

It's not the endgame for industrial civilization. It is the endgame for "liberal internationalism" / Pax Americana.

@mos,

I read a lot of doom bloggers worrying a lot about erosions of liberal gains in the civil liberties domain which seems a little misplaced. On the downslope, people will be more worried about where their next meal is coming from than whether they're being allowed to prance around in drag or wear a burqa to school.

They'll be worried about both. One thing we need to bear in mind is that if we get The Collapse, the structure of the family will change from the atomized, nuclear "post-industrial" families we have today, to more traditional, patriarchal arrangements that characterized the family after the concept of private property (with all that that implies). Hopefully we won't revert to the outright bigotry seen before the 20th century (or what appears as bigotry to the modern sensibility), but a general hardening of socially conservative attitudes seems to me unavoidable.

....

PS. For the record, I dislike the Tea Party program. They're a magnet for libertarian ideologues, corporate flunkies, and extreme social conservatives. Their low-brow, vitriolic rhetoric does not appeal to me (against Obama, against state healthcare, against AGW). Their whining hypocrisy is nauseating. Their hallowed freedoms directly impinge on others' freedom from getting screwed by corporations and later on by limits growth. Now granted, Mark Ames does have a penchant for hyperbole, but overall I agree with his views on them.

[Tanada]

For those following this discussion the Patriarchy discussion has been split off into its own thread HERE, as requested.

[Revi]

The endgame involves lots of pawns being sacrificed.

[Tyler_JC]

Mark Ames is missing the point.

He argues that the Tea Party supports giving smart people more voting power and says it's a bad thing.

But he fails to prove that the current Democratic system is preferable.

He just assumes everyone supports majoritarianism.

[mos6507]

They'll be worried about both.

No they won't. You know, the pyramid of needs?

All the stuff at the top of the pyramid are things we "worry" about when all our other needs are already pretty much under control. They are "luxury" worries.

Overshoot will make people focus almost exclusively on the bottom two tiers.

[Last_Historian]

No they won't. You know, the pyramid of needs?

All the stuff at the top of the pyramid are things we "worry" about when all our other needs are already pretty much under control.

Yes. But I don't see how it supports your point.

The highest rung is "self-actualization", which implies a liberal and individualistic society, which implies the recognition of women's rights to career, to her own persona, etc. When this rung can no longer be sustained, it will go.

As you say, after collapse the bottom two tiers will predominate. Now note that "safety" is considered to be almost exclusively a masculine responsibility in traditional gender roles throughout recorded history. The post-collapse violence will shift the balance of power towards men. Note also that "morality", "family", and "property" come under the safety category in the Wiki article you cited. All three pretty much scream of the return of patriarchy, IMO.

Speaking of which, sorry for posting about it in the wrong thread. Back to the economic discussion...

[mos6507]

No they won't. You know, the pyramid of needs?

All the stuff at the top of the pyramid are things we "worry" about when all our other needs are already pretty much under control.

Yes. But I don't see how it supports your point.

I'm not making a point about patriarchy. What I'm saying is that the context in which we ponder collapse is invariably one of the comfort and ease of BAU. We wring our hands over the prospect of eroding personal freedoms, high fructose corn syrup and flouridated water, loss of retirement benefits and health insurance, etc... when future generations may just be grateful to have their daily gruel each day. Everything's relative.

[eXpat]

Back to topic
How to invest for a global-debt-bomb explosion

The Big One is coming soon, bigger than the 2000 dot-com crash and the 2008 subprime credit meltdown combined. A huge market blowout. And as Bloomberg-BusinessWeek predicts: "The results won't be pretty for investors or elected officials."

After the global-debt bomb explodes don't expect a typical bear correction followed by a new bull. Wall Street's toxic pseudo-capitalism is imploding. Be prepared for a massive meltdown. Yes, already the third major bubble-bust of the 21st century, triggered once again by Wall Street's out-of-control Fat Cat Bankers. And it's dead ahead.
Can your family survive in the anarchy after the debt bomb explodes?

America's already descending into economic anarchy. We're all trapped in a historic economic supercycle, a turning point that must bleed through a no-man's land of lawless self-destructive anarchy before a neo-capitalistic world can re-emerge. Investors tell me they "feel" it at a deep level, "know" it's happening. They keep asking: "What's the best investment strategy to prepare now?"

This is no joke, folks. Are you prepared? Or preparing? Will your family survive in a post-apocalyptic world, when anarchy is rampant in America? Look at Washington, Wall Street and Corporate America today. You know it's already begun.

You are witnessing a fundamental breakdown of the American dream, a systemic breakdown of our democracy and our capitalism, a breakdown driven by the blind insatiable greed of Wall Street: Dysfunctional government, insane markets, economy on the brink. Multiply that many times over and see a world in total disarray. Ignore it now, tomorrow will be too late.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-invest-for-the-debt-bomb-explosion-2010-02-09

[mcgowanjm]

And the US government, at the highest levels, has to ask a fundamental question: For how long does it wish to be intimately associated with Goldman Sachs and this kind of destabilizing action? What is the priority here - a sustainable recovery and a viable financial system, or one particular set of investment bankers?

To preserve Goldman, on incredibly generous terms, in the name of saving the financial system was and is hard to defend – but that is where we are. To allow the current government-backed (massive) Goldman to behave recklessly and with complete disregard to the basic tenets of international financial stability is utterly indefensible.

The credibility of the Federal Reserve, already at an all-time low, has just suffered another crippling blow; the ECB is also now in the line of fire. Goldman Sachs has a lot to answer for.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gs

Not even a hiccup for GS. Front Running HFT's like it's
just another day at the office.

I just can't wait for the 'We shorted the entire US Economy
into Third World Status 'cause we're working for God'
statement.