Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby peripato » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 07:45:37

Daniel_Plainview wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:I think that the economy is in for a fast crash as it's becoming increasingly clear that infinite growth is no longer sustainable and the debts that future growth was supposed to deal with, will never be repaid.


The only thing preventing a "fast crash" is the ability of governments to issue more debt and print more money. But this short-term fix merely papers over the festering, underlying problems ... and it ignores PO. Meanwhile, most sovereigns are now past the breaking point in terms of soaking up more debt; so when the next global systemic crisis hits, one of two outcomes are possible: (1) fast crash; or (2) sovereigns begin printing like mad as they bailout the banks and other TBTF institutions.

But if the printing presses are switched to turbo, then the prices for commodities (especially oil and food) will skyrocket ... which will also end in a fast crash.

Absent a miraculous new energy source, I don't see any plausible way around a fast-crash scenario.

I agree. The longer the crash is delayed, the worse it will be. Each day there are more people and things being supported by a dwindling, irreplaceable environmental and resource base than ever before.
User avatar
peripato
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Reality

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Cloud9 » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 08:29:14

It depends on where you are in your life cycle. I would prefer that the price of bread go to fifty dollars a loaf over a decade as opposed to a fortnight. The longer things hold together the better opportunity for some of the boomers and all of the greatest generation to check out in relative comfort.

Those that long for the mad max scenario are like the kids in the back seat. No we are not there yet and when we get there life for a lot of us will become brutish and short.

Case in point: My wife was cut at work. The wound was treated at a workman’s comp clinic. The infection she picked up exploded and within 72 hours the infection nearly killed her. I rushed her back to the hospital and they put her on antibiotic I.V. s for 36 hours. She is recovering. Without that intervention I would be visiting her grave site this morning.

She is not a useless eater that so many of you fantasize about. She is a highly skilled professional. I and the world would have been diminished without her.
User avatar
Cloud9
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby dolanbaker » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 08:49:02

I certainly don't see a "max max" scenario, but I do expect to see an economic meltdown which will collapse the pyramid system that has been built up over the last century.

Chances are, it will have a limited affect on day to day living for the majority of people, just that they'll have to kiss their savings goodby as hyperinflation wipes them out or they are written down by a banking collapse.

Most of the economy will continue as before, the lights will stay on the trains etc will still run just the banking and financial sectors will be severly affected as well as theeir employees.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby TreeFarmer » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 08:59:57

diemos wrote:In the US the slow crash has been going on since the first oil shock.

The peak of US prosperity came in 1968. In 1968 a man with a high school education could get a job on the assembly line and make enough money to support a stay at home wife and children, own a home, own a car, have a decent retirement.

Those days are long gone.


I think you are pretty much on the money with this. If you are off, it is that the slow crash started in the early 70's with the first oil shock after we started to import oil.

Where we are at now is near the boundry between slow and fast crash. We've done 40 years of debt accumulation to give false prosperity and keep the slow crash slow.

Image

That graph shows the growth in both public and private debt combined. We've really piled it on with government debt being the lesser problem even though it gets the most attention. We are at debt saturation where we as an economy can't service any more debt even with ultra-low interest rates. Once the ponzi scheme we've ran starts to fall apart, it will fall apart quickly.

Peace.
User avatar
TreeFarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby nobodypanic » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 09:13:13

Daniel_Plainview wrote:
dolanbaker wrote:I think that the economy is in for a fast crash as it's becoming increasingly clear that infinite growth is no longer sustainable and the debts that future growth was supposed to deal with, will never be repaid.


The only thing preventing a "fast crash" is the ability of governments to issue more debt and print more money. But this short-term fix merely papers over the festering, underlying problems ... and it ignores PO. Meanwhile, most sovereigns are now past the breaking point in terms of soaking up more debt; so when the next global systemic crisis hits, one of two outcomes are possible: (1) fast crash; or (2) sovereigns begin printing like mad as they bailout the banks and other TBTF institutions.

But if the printing presses are switched to turbo, then the prices for commodities (especially oil and food) will skyrocket ... which will also end in a fast crash.

Absent a miraculous new energy source, I don't see any plausible way around a fast-crash scenario.

so you admit that keynesian measures are the only thing keeping the market system afloat.

this obsession w/inflation absent any sort of class calculation seems very strange to me. what inflation, or even hyper-inflation will do is continue market-rationing: those that can afford, will continue to have access to resources, while those that cannot, will not.

the alternative that is generally offered is, of course, stop printing! but then the whole thing will collapse rather quickly. however, even discounting that, the market rationing will still remain, and most of us will be priced out anyway as things worsen.
User avatar
nobodypanic
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Daniel_Plainview » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 09:18:39

nobodypanic wrote:so you admit that keynesian measures are the only thing keeping the market system afloat.

Fiscal policy (deficit spending) and monetary policy (QE, ZIRP, debt monetization, money printing) are the only things keeping this teetering house-of-cards from imploding.

nobodypanic wrote:the alternative that is generally offered is, of course, stop printing! but then the whole thing will collapse rather quickly. however, even discounting that, the market rationing will still remain, and most of us will be priced out anyway as things worsen.


Again, excessive printing will lead to runaway commodity prices ... which will lead to a fast crash.
User avatar
Daniel_Plainview
Prognosticator
Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Tue 06 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: 7035 Hollis ... Near the Observatory ... Just down the way, tucked back in the small woods

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby nobodypanic » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 09:30:59

Daniel_Plainview wrote:
nobodypanic wrote:so you admit that keynesian measures are the only thing keeping the market system afloat.

Fiscal policy (deficit spending) and monetary policy (QE, ZIRP, debt monetization, money printing) are the only things keeping this teetering house-of-cards from imploding.

right. so the only thing keeping the crash slow, is the above. and when it is removed... kaboom.

Daniel_Plainview wrote:
nobodypanic wrote:the alternative that is generally offered is, of course, stop printing! but then the whole thing will collapse rather quickly. however, even discounting that, the market rationing will still remain, and most of us will be priced out anyway as things worsen.


Again, excessive printing will lead to runaway commodity prices ... which will lead to a fast crash.

but your first statement implies that the crash is being held off by such measures. if the crash is being held in abeyance, then it isn't a fast crash but a slow one, or at least a slower one....
User avatar
nobodypanic
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Daniel_Plainview » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 09:43:56

nobodypanic wrote:
Daniel_Plainview wrote:
nobodypanic wrote:the alternative that is generally offered is, of course, stop printing! but then the whole thing will collapse rather quickly. however, even discounting that, the market rationing will still remain, and most of us will be priced out anyway as things worsen.


Again, excessive printing will lead to runaway commodity prices ... which will lead to a fast crash.

but your first statement implies that the crash is being held off by such measures. if the crash is being held in abeyance, then it isn't a fast crash but a slow one, or at least a slower one....


Yes, we are currently in a "slow crash" for precisely two reasons: (1) the various sovereigns are maxing out on fiscal stimulus and monetary life-support; when these stimulus measures end, then KABOOM; and (2) the various sovereigns are actively lying to their citizens by promulgating massaged data and by concealing the true gravity of the current plight (including the reality of PO); if the true reality were revealed, stock markets would collapse and bank balance sheets would implode ... = KABOOM.

Thus, the sovereigns' artificial fiscal/monetary legerdemain combined with their active deception and concealment are the only things keeping this house-of-cards from collapsing.

Is this a good thing? Is this justified in order to maintain BAU?

I believe that it's a very bad thing for obvious reasons.
User avatar
Daniel_Plainview
Prognosticator
Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: Tue 06 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: 7035 Hollis ... Near the Observatory ... Just down the way, tucked back in the small woods

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby nobodypanic » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 10:05:38

Daniel_Plainview wrote:
Is this a good thing? Is this justified in order to maintain BAU?

i think we can both agree here.

the problem is that we're likely to have very different ideas as to what the alternative to BAU ought to be. :wink:
User avatar
nobodypanic
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon 02 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 11:15:00

Cloud9 wrote:Case in point: My wife was cut at work. The wound was treated at a workman’s comp clinic. The infection she picked up exploded and within 72 hours the infection nearly killed her. I rushed her back to the hospital and they put her on antibiotic I.V. s for 36 hours. She is recovering. Without that intervention I would be visiting her grave site this morning.


My sympathies for the close call. 72 hours is way to long though. If you see lines, elevated temperature, leakage, or swelling, you get in the car and GO NOW. It can not wait. If the doc says "no biggy", go to another doc until you get one with a brain.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Cloud9 » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 11:25:49

I agree, we should have gone back earlier. The wound treatment physician had prescribed an antibiotic. When we called her and told her about the swelling, she said take the full course and then come back and see her. My wife took the medication and went back to work. She is too stoic for her own good.
User avatar
Cloud9
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 02:00:00

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Pretorian » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 11:34:22

Cloud9 wrote:She is not a useless eater that so many of you fantasize about. She is a highly skilled professional. I and the world would have been diminished without her.



I'm glad you didn't have to mourn, but may I ask where in your opinion lays a difference between a useless eater and a highly skilled professional?
Pretorian
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby AdTheNad » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 13:33:34

Pretorian wrote:I'm glad you didn't have to mourn, but may I ask where in your opinion lays a difference between a useless eater and a highly skilled professional?

Since we're being frank, do you consider yourself a useless eater?
AdTheNad
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed 22 Dec 2010, 06:47:48

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 13:54:56

What TreeFarmer and diemos said. Not coincidentally 1970 was the beginning of the Great Malaise (in the USA); oil shocks, stagflation, the rust belt, social unrest. The North Slope, North Sea, and increased ME production delayed the inevitable for a while, really until 1980. After that it was all about wars for oil, unsustainable debt and frenetic suburbanization. This at the expense of the once-great cities and our natural capital.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26766
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 15:30:45

Slow crash; what we have now. Continuing decline and deterioration of natural capital (light-sweet crude oil, high-quality mineral deposits, soils, forests, fisheries, atmosphere and oceans), essential infrastructure, cities, and social cohesion.

Fast crash; I don't tend to believe in a single monolithic world-wide "fast crash". Abundant oil and inexpensive transport gave us globalization, hence scarce/expensive oil should reduce traffic, inter-dependencies, and perhaps isolate damage to certain countries for a while while those of us with abundant resources and sophisticated infrastructures might continue. I fully expect local financial-fast crashes (Libya, Detroit, Michigan, Somalia, etc.) that results in economic/social chaos, local civil obedience, riots, police actions, curfews, etc. Does it spread? A localized crash might even embolden/enrich neighbors/other countries (less competition for resources, opportunity for looting, etc.)

Local fast crash can lead to deterioration of civil society, regional war, and and damage to international commercial institutions, financial systems. Damage to local infrastructure (roads, energy, product distribution) with chaos spreading to world-wide dependencies and transport failures. So a possibility of global world-wide fast crash. No country today can possibly go it alone. Well-distributed regional resource bases have been tapped out, and industry everywhere depends on the last, large, concentrated reserves/mines ie Australia for uranium, Chile for copper, ME for oil, etc. Even the largest countries today depend on tiny peaking reserves in distant places.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26766
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 15:56:13

So I vote for a slow-fast crash with periods of hysteria and hair-pulling.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26766
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby Pretorian » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 17:05:17

AdTheNad wrote:
Pretorian wrote:I'm glad you didn't have to mourn, but may I ask where in your opinion lays a difference between a useless eater and a highly skilled professional?

Since we're being frank, do you consider yourself a useless eater?


I personally consider myself to be the center of the Universe; which is true considering the distance between me and the borders of the Universe. So, obviously I do not consider myself to be a useless eater since the Universe itself is nothing but my personal aquarium of sorts which was given to me so I can pursue my happiness, and as soon as I die, the Universe will cease to exist. On the other hand, you or some other bystander might find me to be a useless eater, and that would not upset or bother me at all. Which is why I find it to be amusing when people fret so much even here, on more or less anonymous forum when labeled " a useless eater" while chances are 10 to 1 that it's true.
Pretorian
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby basil_hayden » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 17:41:41

User avatar
basil_hayden
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 17:41:56

Pre, that is mean relativistic BS. You are no more the center of universe than you are an elite recruitment of the commanding general of the Roman army. You are a social primate forced by evolution and your DNA to care about others.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26766
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: How Do You Define "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 05 Sep 2011, 17:47:50

So you're saying that a slow crash involves too much free time? I totally agree. Always said the crash will look like the Great Depression. Folks moping around in long wool overcoats, mismatched leather shoes (with holes in the sole), scarves and brown fedoras. And that would be the summer. 8O Starvation has a way of sapping body heat.
/sarc
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26766
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests