Page 3 of 5

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 18:10:45
by JohnRM
I think that what most of us mean when we talk about "slow" versus "fast" crash is the irrevocable failure of the global or national economy.

A fast crash is something that is going to happen suddenly and with very little warning. 2008 was a fast crash. Almost overnight, the world was a very different place.

A slow crash is something that is going to take years to occur. The breakdown of the fabric of our civilization occurs in stages, over a period of years rather than weeks or months. The fast crash of 2008 was, of course, part of a much larger global story and crash which has been playing out since, I think, the beginning of 1999, when oil prices bottomed out, started to increase, with the only price drops coming during recessionary or slow periods.

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 18:19:09
by peeker01
2008 was not a failure of the economy, rather a failure of the regulatory function of government.
The interest from home loans has always been a stable refuge for banks and investors. The per-
version of the risk-reward equation cause by speculators with no adult supervision is what
brought you 2008.

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 19:26:37
by Pretorian
pstarr wrote: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.



Pstarr, I am surprised you deny validity to the modern science.. According to it, the distance between me and Universe's borders is the same in any direction, and according to English language:

cen·ter/ˈsentər/
Noun: The middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface.

Therefore, I AM the center of the Universe. If that is not the case, well, perhaps a couple of Nobel prizes are waiting for you.

I also consulted my DNA , and it explicitly told me that DNAs that care about anything but it's own security and continuation tend not to last very long, primates and not primates alike. So it mandated me to act accordingly.

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 20:06:06
by pstarr
Pretorian wrote:
pstarr wrote: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.



Pstarr, I am surprised you deny validity to the modern science.. According to it, the distance between me and Universe's borders is the same in any direction, and according to English language:

cen·ter/ˈsentər/
Noun: The middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface.

Therefore, I AM the center of the Universe. If that is not the case, well, perhaps a couple of Nobel prizes are waiting for you.
Like I said. Relativistic post-modern pseudo-science. You can believe anything you want about your or anyone's position in the universe. I happen to believe in lots O' me's arguing with lot'O you's.

wiki wrote:The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.


As for your misguided claims for selfishness;

Pretorian wrote:I also consulted my DNA , and it explicitly told me that DNAs that care about anything but it's own security and continuation tend not to last very long, primates and not primates alike. So it mandated me to act accordingly.
Wrong. You are a predatory social primate, and live in a hierarchical structure (not unlike the wolves) where all adults care for other's young and other adults (except in isolated cases during periods of starvation, pack re-alignment). This altruistic behavior (an extension of parental/child protection) is made possible by a phenomena called "group selection" where individual gene success is propagated by pack behavior. IE inherent support for young is extended to members of the group.

You deny it, but you have a propensity to care for others regardless of your political ideology.

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

Unread postPosted: Mon 05 Sep 2011, 21:04:49
by Pretorian
pstarr wrote:As for your misguided claims for selfishness;

Pretorian wrote:I also consulted my DNA , and it explicitly told me that DNAs that care about anything but it's own security and continuation tend not to last very long, primates and not primates alike. So it mandated me to act accordingly.
Wrong. You are a predatory social primate, and live in a hierarchical structure (not unlike the wolves) where all adults care for other's young and other adults (except in isolated cases during periods of starvation, pack re-alignment). This altruistic behavior (an extension of parental/child protection) is made possible by a phenomena called "group selection" where individual gene success is propagated by pack behavior. IE inherent support for young is extended to members of the group.

You deny it, but you have a propensity to care for others regardless of your political ideology.


Well but this is exactly what i am talking about. My DNA's security and continuity which you want to call selfishness mandates me to make sure that my offsprings have somebody to mate with a few decades later. It suggests that I should throw some offal to the old hag which might save my cubs from drowning or clawing each other's eyes while their mothers fell asleep or went to get some water. Be that as it may there are limits to this , and Monkeysphere exists for a good reason.

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

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Sep 2011, 00:11:04
by Loki
The last few years here here in the US (arguably since the 1970s) is an example of a “slow crash,” at least economically. I like Dolanbaker's distinction between economic crashes and civilizational crashes. I think these concepts are often conflated by peak oilers, especially those with a Mad Max bent. Totally different time scales.

Short of a global-scale nuclear war or geologic/astronomic event (both exceptionally improbable), I don't see a fast crash coming to the First World in the lifetime of anyone posting at PO.com. Most of us will just get poorer and poorer, perhaps substantially so. Reduce your expectations, especially if you're in the working/middle class. But don't expect civilizational collapse any time soon (this will likely be on the scale of centuries; see John Greer).

As for the Third World, they've been screwed for a while. Their crash may be a little faster (famines, plagues, wars, genocides, etc.), particularly in Africa, which has been one long, hard, fast crash for quite some time.

But no worries for the Ayn Rand crowd, the fabulously wealthy will continue to be fabulously wealthy, First or Third World. They may have to sell a yacht or two, though. The injustice!

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

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Sep 2011, 07:36:48
by Pops
Loki wrote:But no worries for the Ayn Rand crowd, the fabulously wealthy will continue to be fabulously wealthy, First or Third World. They may have to sell a yacht or two, though. The injustice!

I agree with what you said except this part.

Most wealth is just bytes on a chip, as volatile as a fart in a whirlwind.

Buffet 'lost' $30 Billion in 2008 - but he didn't loose anything tangible, nothing. Just flipped a few 1's to 0's.

Look at how the markets fall at a mere puff of ill wind, that's 'wealth' disappearing. It only reappears when enough people believe a fair wind is about to blow.

What will happen to all those bytes when everyone realizes the wind is gone forever?

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

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Sep 2011, 11:21:28
by evilgenius
I think to most people the slow part is when someone like me is ranting at them that something like housing or gold is unsustainable, but they can look around and see for themselves that I am wrong, and the fast part is when it becomes real for them in an obvious way. The slow crash is not obvious to everyone. The fast crash is obvious. During the slow crash people ignore what they ought to be doing for selfish reasons based mostly in preening themselves. During the fast crash people ignore what they ought to be doing for selfish reasons based mostly in survival.

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

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Sep 2011, 20:53:37
by Loki
Pops wrote:
Loki wrote:But no worries for the Ayn Rand crowd, the fabulously wealthy will continue to be fabulously wealthy, First or Third World. They may have to sell a yacht or two, though. The injustice!

I agree with what you said except this part.

Most wealth is just bytes on a chip, as volatile as a fart in a whirlwind.

Buffet 'lost' $30 Billion in 2008 - but he didn't loose anything tangible, nothing. Just flipped a few 1's to 0's.

Look at how the markets fall at a mere puff of ill wind, that's 'wealth' disappearing. It only reappears when enough people believe a fair wind is about to blow.

What will happen to all those bytes when everyone realizes the wind is gone forever?


Yah, but Buffet is still fabulously wealthy, and will be until he dies. I doubt any of these folks have all of their wealth in the casino, they own plenty of hard assets. They can still be fabulously wealthy relative to the peasants, and that's what really matters in the end. It's all about status and power, not so much the number of ones and zeroes.

Thinking more about the OP, I guess I'm not 100% sure about the slow vs. fast crash question. I'm confident that cannibal armies won't be marching on my little Oregon village any time soon, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea that economic decline for the average working/middle class American could be a lot faster than I'd like to think, e.g., increase to 40%+ unemployment over the course of two years combined with a serious bout of hyperinflation. Not the most likely scenario, but not outside the realm of possibility. A lot of us would get a LOT poorer real fast if something like that happened.

But my guess is a slower economic decline, working on a decadal scale, punctuated by 2008-type events. This is for the US, and likely Europe, Aus/NZ, Canada, etc. There will be a high degree of variability based on geography and social class, of course.

Regardless, the long-term prognosis is dim, especially given the climate change wild card. If I had kids I'd raise them with much, much lowered expectations about their future standard of living.

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

Unread postPosted: Tue 06 Sep 2011, 23:23:20
by careinke
Pretorian wrote:
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.


Holy smokes Pretorian, that could be a direct quote from Ayn Rand (a true patriot). Are you related?

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 14:53:58
by Loki
careinke wrote:
Holy smokes Pretorian, that could be a direct quote from Ayn Rand (a true patriot). Are you related?

A “patriot” indeed, except of course for her open contempt for pretty much everything the Founders espoused.
[quote=John Adams]the Spirit of Commerce ... is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic.[/quote]
I think the loss of a republican value system among the more well-off and its replacement with Randian sociopathic selfishness will likely accelerate the crash for the average American. It already has.

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 15:08:15
by careinke
Loki wrote:
careinke wrote:
Holy smokes Pretorian, that could be a direct quote from Ayn Rand (a true patriot). Are you related?

A “patriot” indeed, except of course for her open contempt for pretty much everything the Founders espoused.
[quote=John Adams]the Spirit of Commerce ... is incompatible with that purity of Heart, and Greatness of soul which is necessary for a happy Republic.

I think the loss of a republican value system among the more well-off and its replacement with Randian sociopathic selfishness will likely accelerate the crash for the average American. It already has.[/quote]

I think she truly loved the US, of course look what she had to compare it with. Adams and Jefferson were always at odds, was one of them less of a patriot because of it? I think not.

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 18:36:45
by Loki
careinke wrote:I think she truly loved the US, of course look what she had to compare it with. Adams and Jefferson were always at odds, was one of them less of a patriot because of it? I think not.

Don't want to go too far off topic, but there is absolutely nothing Jeffersonian in Rand's radical ideology. Whether Rand loved the US or not is irrelevant, fact is Objectivist "ethics" (if you can call them that) is antithetical to republican ethics. Calling her a patriot is laughable, she was a radical who sought to undermine whatever republican values remained in the US.

I wish folks would put down the Rand pipe and pick up some Jefferson every once in a while.

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 18:58:38
by Pretorian
careinke wrote:
Pretorian wrote:
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.


Holy smokes Pretorian, that could be a direct quote from Ayn Rand (a true patriot). Are you related?



Well , we could have shared an ancestor a few thousands years ago or so. Anyway, enough of these accusations; I am perfectly un-selfish within the borders of my Monkeysphere and common sense.

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

Unread postPosted: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 18:59:49
by Pretorian
I also am willing to reconsider my "Go to hell" attitude as soon as world population drops to about 100 million or so

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Feb 2018, 18:34:47
by Tanada
Here you go crashers.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Feb 2018, 20:27:31
by ralfy
Several fast crashes, as seen during the last few years, and part of a global slow crash.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Tue 13 Feb 2018, 09:43:59
by asg70
ralfy wrote:Several fast crashes, as seen during the last few years, and part of a global slow crash.


Image

Crash in the context of doom is not what we've "seen during the last few years".

BAU...continues...apace. That is inconsistent with the definition of "crash". Crash as anticipated in the archives here implies, at the very least, great-depression-level conditions of grinding unemployment and poverty, probably coinciding with severe shortages of basic necessities, rationing programs, etc... That ain't happening. Even in countries that are suffering from hopeless debt problems like Greece, they're still muddling through. There are only a few shit-hole spots in the world like Venezuela and Syria and the root causes of their misery is not peak-oil.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 14 Feb 2018, 10:38:11
by Subjectivist
The Slow Crash has been going on for 50 years but some people denand fast crash or nothing, so they can't even see it.

Re: "Fast Crash" vs. "Slow Crash"?

Unread postPosted: Wed 14 Feb 2018, 10:52:22
by asg70
Subjectivist wrote:The Slow Crash has been going on for 50 years but some people denand fast crash or nothing, so they can't even see it.


If it's so slow nobody can feel or see it, who cares?