Constantin Gurdgiev and Brian Lucey Misunderstand The Euro Crisis

by Ratioanal Ecologist. Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:51

The problem with the world economy can be traced to the massive spike in oil prices that occurred in the 2000s. This spike led to increased price inflation and a shrinking of credit just at the time when the financial system had put in place the preconditions for collapse(sub-prime lending, wild speculation and fraudulent financial products).
Oil prices, in the long term, are only going in one direction and will resume this trajectory once demand increases-which it inevitably will. Peak Oil has in all likelihood been reached.
The cheap Cocaine(oil) that the various bubbles needed will no longer be available.
And no system can make oil!
Oil spikes cause recessions. But what are recessions? A dip in consumption!
Consumerism and Globalisation will be ended when the black stuff (not Guinness) fails to flow.
The next 50 years is about Peak Oil, Peak Water.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jul 14, 2011 15:11

..or just a symptom of your general inclination?

Either way, to reduce the problems of western economics to the simplicity of energy supply strikes as a wee bit superficial.
You are only looking at micro-fluctuations in a few factors.
Western economics is founded on war and theft(the privatised claiming of public goods which creates scarcity and economic flow to the advantage of the possessor). It was a sick way to run the world even before we became dependent on hydrocarbons.

as for '..no system can make oil..', get yourself an olive tree. Or a rape-seed plant if you've only a window-box.
And weren't the German's producing synthetic fuels to beat the naval embargos, way back?

And the 'next fifty years' will be about whether we can shed a large residue of animal evolutionary traits and realise our humanity; or join the dodo.

Its a sort of a contest between us humans, and a bunch of mutating corporate dinosaurs that have stitched our resources into their liquid accounts so as to exclude the vast majority from access to a share of the wealth our sweat has generated. Trouble is the dinosaurs have hired a large contingent of pre-human hominids to serve them and maintain their dominance.

What 's the difference between a corporate lawyer and a catfish?
Well, one is a muck-sucking bottom feeder; the other is a fish.

by Paddy Hackett Thu Jul 14, 2011 15:37 rasherrs at eircom dot net Ireland

You seem to share Proudhon's naive view that property is theft when you make the claim that economics is theft. To base property on theft is tantamount to basing it on morality. But who decides what theft is and what is theft?

Even hunter-gatherer society there existed forms of property --tribal propery. Would you necessarily call this property form theft.

Paddy

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jul 14, 2011 16:37

Its a matter of proportion. I possess my own personal property, but I was referring to the above simplistic reduction of our economic problems to oil prices. Keep to the context.

I am not an ideologue. I know Proudhon's name but am unfamiliar with his writings. Am i right in presuming he originated the 'all property is theft' cliche?I thought that was Marx, but I met too many Marxists to ever want to read him either. Most of his fans seemed opiated by his texts and incapable of framing an argument without his biblical endorsement.

But I do hold that claiming of public resources without recognising attaching public responsibilities is theft, among other crime designations(its been accompanied by slavery, torure and murder historically).
I think we have to reach a stage where we will not nationalise, but internationalise resources on an overt level. Too idealistic?Naive?Is not a private exclusive claim to any portion of the earth primitive?Whether by an individual(Cecil Rhodes), corporation, or nation(the modern intermediate neo-tribal bloc).
Tribal property is NOT private property, quite the opposite. Internationalising ownership would simply move that up a notch to the human tribe ownership.And enlightened self-interest would seem to require we include the human responsibilities to other fauna and our ecological interdependence. We are in transition to the that larger tribal identity, despite the vested interests in retarding our evolution.
Ownership is an abstract concept, with multiple definitions and levels of attaching conditions.
But do please, NOT presume I am promoting any ideas other than my own provisional and tentative opinions. Where i see questionable posts I tend to challenge. I do not come equipped with dogma of any shade(so far). Nor do i carry flags for 'thinkers'. I do my own, however weak or sloppy.

I hope that clarifies. If not I'll give it another shot. Or disagree if I'm off track, in your own opinion.

by Paddy Hackett Thu Jul 14, 2011 21:12

"But do please, NOT presume I am promoting any ideas other than my own provisional and tentative opinions. Where i see questionable posts I tend to challenge. I do not come equipped with dogma of any shade(so far). Nor do i carry flags for 'thinkers'. I do my own, however weak or sloppy."

Your own provisional and tentative ideas are not your ideas. All ideas come from others even if they have been modified and even transformed. Ideas are a social product. Even Einstein and Newton were not completely original. They intellectually influenced by others.

by Rational Ecologist. Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:14

To begin thanks for drawing attention to the misspelling of my moniker and the humourous aside arising from that. Humour is more important than ever in today's mad world.
When I said that no system can make oil, I was quite clearly referring to the black stuff that comes out of the ground. I am aware of the production of 'synthetic oil', however, I do stick by my point that cheap oil has given rise to mass consumerism. I don't think all of the problems of the world are down to recent spikes in oil prices, rather price is more a symptom than cause, nonetheless, given that we are addicted to oil it is perhaps the case of the system bringing itself down by ignoring Nature and resource depletion.
It seems you are hoping for some sort of existential or spiritual revolution, whereby humankind overcomes it's animal limitations and see see the whole, the cosmos as the moral realm. Man I hope you are right because I share James Lovelock's viewpoint-by century's end we will have a human population of less than 1 billion. I hope I am wrong.
I am really not sure what is the best system but I do know that Capitalism is a nihilistic, suicidal and disgusting one.
We are a tribal species but in a ecosystem we can't deal with.
Read 'Rogue Primate' or 'The Human Zoo'.
Thanks!

by Rational Ecologist. Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:18

F**k! Now I've misspelt your name. Sorry but I am a shocking typist.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:09

Depends on the billion. If its the neo-con elite ruling a slave population for their ends, then the human experiment (or whatever you want to call it) has failed. The animal won.

If its a billion rational, socially interdependent healthy hominids conscious of the delicacy of biological existence and in control of its animal instincts(currently still dominant and not under rational control)then maybe we will have evolved a notch.

Either way I wont be about to complain. But that dont bother me as I labour under the delusion I already reached human status. I'm not convinced the likes of the dragons in their Swiss and offshore dens of looted wealth for their bloated financial ego-extensions qualify. But then who am I to call that, as I said, subjective opinion is all I can deliver.

As for Paddy's 'your own ...are not yours..'. I think if you read yourself Paddy, you might spot your contradiction. No reason why ideas cannot be owned in common.

Besides, Einstein and Newton and Groucho all put their individual stamp on and altered by their interpretations, already current ideas, to make their perspectives uniquely their own. They do say there are only seven basic jokes, its how ye tell 'em.