For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: Will I be the lucky one?
The fundamental truth of peakoil is that we have fewer resources to share and more people to share them with. Besides the global distribution of wealth and resources is shifting. Europe has gotten old and wary and the US has grown fat and lazy. We cannot hope to defend our current standards of living against the young and determined societies in the east. If the world as a whole has to take a step back, we in the West have to take a bigger step back than anyone else.
It is tempting to translate these realities into a future in which anarchy rules. A lot of people here have a romantic picture of a society in which it is every man for himself; A future filled with villains and heroes (Of course they place themselves in the latter category). I’m not among those who stock up on food or weapons and make their retread to a log cabin. I don’t believe this will happen, at least not in my lifetime.
The problems I fear are much more mundane and less romantic. We live in a very special era. At no point in history we, as a collective, have been so wealthy. We complain a lot, but if you have a low ranked job, or even no job at all, you still have access to medical care; you still can buy your food; you can still afford to have a roof over your head. Our society is so wealthy that they even take care of the elderly and the handicapped. This is unique in history.
I fear that the economic backlash of peakoil will make this unaffordable. I foresee a future in which the social system will be slowly dismantled. Already our politicians are cutting on these items at the first signs of economic trouble. It is also increasingly becoming apparent that they will not be able to keep their promises when it comes to pensions and medical care.
With that our society will separate in the “have” and “have not”’s. Those who will be lucky to be above the cut will live quite comfortably. Those who are below the cut will face an uphill struggle to make a living. As always the difference is in jobs. Those who possess skills, which are relevant to society, will be rewarded as such. That reward will make the difference between being able to get medical care, to be able to live in comfort, to be able to retire and not.
My scientific titles will probably not be worth as much in the future as they are now, however I possess the practical skills of a 10.000 year old trade. I doubt that it will be out of fashion soon. Although I consider myself in a good position I can’t deny that there is also a factor of chance involved. To make it in life you have to be at the right place at the right time and make the right decision. Planning for the future will only get you so far, you need luck to make it there.
So far I have been lucky, but will that luck last?
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:17 am Post subject:
Good post smiley.
Do you feel lucky, punk?
I do. Born healthy, white and smart enough in the richest country, at the richest time in history.
I agree that many have a Hollywood vision of hunger, physical labor and privation – I’m sure I do as well.
I wonder if the dismantling of the social systems that liberals and conservatives argue about really matter in the end? People talk here about how hard it will be to keep the produce from your garden in the apocalyptic version of the future; I wonder how hard it will be for the powerful to keep their wealth?
There is so much discussion of Entropy on this board by the Second Lawyers; I wonder how that rule can be applied to money and power? If you have little wealth - it only takes little to keep it. On the other hand, if you have a great deal it surely will take much more wealth to keep it - maybe much more relatively speaking. Will money and power concentration dissipate quickly in the falling economy?
Perhaps the luckiest ones in the future of 40 or 50 years hence, will be those who were raised with and so accustomed to the least. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
A lot of people here have a romantic picture of a society in which it is every man for himself; A future filled with villains and heroes
I only disagree that this is a "romantic" view. It might just be a matter of word choice.
There's the romanticized "noble savage" view that some on the "liberal" side have--we're all innately good and being free of social influence will free us; then there's the romanticized notion of the "invisible hand" of the so-called free market on the conservative side: ya just gotta put your faith in the markets: "everything comes out in the wash."
I do agree that we're in for some harsh surprises.
There is so much discussion of Entropy on this board by the Second Lawyers; I wonder how that rule can be applied to money and power? If you have little wealth - it only takes little to keep it. On the other hand, if you have a great deal it surely will take much more wealth to keep it - maybe much more relatively speaking. Will money and power concentration dissipate quickly in the falling economy?
I don't think so Pops. I see wealth more as a cyclical affair.
Wealth has some kind of gravity attached to it (wealth attracts wealth). You can invest wealth (e.g. money) and you get some kind of return (e.g. interest). Once the returns exceed your spending it is impossible to not become more wealthier.
For instance Bill Gates has a fortune of about $42 billion. With some sound financial management he is expected to double that amount every 10 years. That means that within the next 80 years the Gates dynasty will have accumulated all the currently existing money in the world.
But that is measured in money. You think that owning a farm is a better measure of wealth and I agree. But imagine how many farms $42 billion would buy you. Even if the standards of wealth would change, Bill Gates would be a terrible lot wealthier than you and I. Moreover his wealth would keep on expanding.
Of course wealth growth cannot be infinite. Wealth exists by public consent. People will only allow you to be wealthy when they think you deserve it. One of the reasons I believe so many billionaires are so preoccupied with charity is to justify their wealth to themselves and to the general public. But as wealth has the habit to multiply over time it is bound to cross some kind of limit at which people will say:"you do not deserve to be so wealthy".
This is the stuff of revolutions. Like in the ancient Roman empire, Russia, and France people will take the matters in their own hands. They will cut off what they believe are excesses. Like a brushfire a revolution clears the ground for new growth. I don't know where we are in that cycle right now, but it isn't that important. Revolutions only replace a small established elite by a new, equally small, elite. The poor will stay poor and the middle class will stay middle class.
Nowhere in history being poor has been an advantage. Being poor in essence means that you are dependent on the generosity of other people. We are able to provide our poor with a reasonable standard of living. A quick look across the globe shows that is not everywhere the case. Our poor could be a lot worse off and I fear that peakoil will have the hardest impact on them.
Throughout history it is clear that the best place to be is just above average. You don't want to be poor and you don't want to belong to some kind of elite.
Quote:
So you're a prostitute then smiley?
No but that is my backup plan (if everything else fails)
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:
You are probably right smiley, and I agree that being in the middle is probably the safest place. But just to poke this a little further:
The definition of wealth is “An abundance of valuable material possessions”. Throughout most of history possessing wealth meant land, livestock, buildings, tools, even items deemed to have value due to their rarity and durability such as precious metals – the emphasis however was on “material”.
Today a person of wealth may also have many possessions but much of their “wealth” is NON-material – ones and zeros in a computer somewhere, IOUs, “equity”. I can’t remember the real number but Mr. Gates lost millions or maybe billions of dollars a day during the stock market drop. In other words his wealth, at least the amount that he didn’t have under the mattress, was the opposite of material.
If all the banks, stock markets, and money presses were to stop tomorrow; land, tools, etc. would still have value. The digital representation of my past labors on last month’s bank statement would still have value, but only to start a fire.
Ted Turner owns hundreds of thousands of acres in the southwest I believe, if his paper worth were to disappear, how would he be able to protect that wealth without the money to hire many guards – that is if the land is worth protecting.
Oh well, enough of that - I guess I’m just putting off working on the greenhouse, _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6375 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject:
You are probably right smiley, and I agree that being in the middle is probably the safest place. But just to poke this a little further:
The definition of wealth is “An abundance of valuable material possessions”. Throughout most of history possessing wealth meant land, livestock, buildings, tools, even items deemed to have value due to their rarity and durability such as precious metals – the emphasis however was on “material”.
Today a person of wealth may also have many possessions but much of their “wealth” is NON-material – ones and zeros in a computer somewhere, IOUs, “equity”. I can’t remember the real number but Mr. Gates lost millions or maybe billions of dollars a day during the stock market drop. In other words his wealth, at least the amount that he didn’t have under the mattress, was the opposite of material.
If all the banks, stock markets, and money presses were to stop tomorrow; land, tools, etc. would still have value. The digital representation of my past labors on last month’s bank statement would still have value, but only to start a fire.
Ted Turner owns hundreds of thousands of acres in the southwest I believe, if his paper worth were to disappear, how would he be able to protect that wealth without the money to hire many guards – that is if the land is worth protecting.
Oh well, enough of that - I guess I’m just putting off working on the greenhouse, _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Today a person of wealth may also have many possessions but much of their “wealth” is NON-material – ones and zeros in a computer somewhere, IOUs, “equity”. I can’t remember the real number but Mr. Gates lost millions or maybe billions of dollars a day during the stock market drop. In other words his wealth, at least the amount that he didn’t have under the mattress, was the opposite of material.
The poor man drives an old and rambling small car. The more fortunate man has a car with a few airbags and a safety cage. The rich man has an armored car. Given an equal probability for a car accident, the rich man has a higher chance of survival. Being wealthy means that you can protect yourself from risks.
Wealth is not about having money. It is not about having electronical IOU's of some sort. Wealth and power are about having the ability to change the odds in one's favor.
So Gates had an accident. He lost a few billion dollar. He still has his silver mines, his land and other possessions. People like Gates and Buffet only have a surprisingly small percentage invested in stocks.
I for instance have a lot more riding on the stock market. Every month part of my wage goes into my pension. That money is invested into stocks and governmental IOU's (A "risk free" strategy). Do you think that Gates retirement is gone when the market crashes? Mine is.
Since I don't expect to see that money back again I try to sort my own financial future.
I'm not wealthy but I have no debts and I have even a bit of money to get me through hard times. I think I've got the necessary skills and dedication to make something of my life. But I still will be dependent on a source of income. I still be dependent of having a job, not getting fired etc. For that I need a bit of luck.
I guess that when peak oil arrives we're all going to need that bit of luck.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
