Peak Oil News and Message Boards

ennui2 wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

So this is a completely subjective thing..

Subjective thinking effects our ability to recognize that if the elite continued to exploit the middle class until they were reduced to serfs that this might actually be beneficial to the biosphere.

A strong affluent and consuming middle will one day be recognized as far more egregious to the planet than those nasty rich people.

careinke wrote:I am basing this on demographics, most of us baby boomers are retiring, and we are such a huge population bulge, what we do overrides everything economically.

Monte just spent a lot of energy trying to tell us that boomers retiring plays little role, but I think more attention should be spent on it, considering how big the bulge is. Now he's bringing up a post from 12 years ago? Cognitive dissonance?

Ibon wrote:Subjective thinking effects our ability to recognize that if the elite continued to exploit the middle class until they were reduced to serfs that this might actually be beneficial to the biosphere.

Subjective thinking (or more appropriately, subjective value-systems) means that most people don't really care about what's beneficial to the biosphere. They simply want a system that benefits them--in the now.

Subjective thinking (or more appropriately) subjective value-systems means that most people don't really care about what's beneficial to the biosphere. They simply want a system that benefits them--in the now.

Tragedy of the Commons.

ennui2 wrote: Monte just spent a lot of energy trying to tell us that boomers retiring plays little role, but I think more attention should be spent on it, considering how big the bulge is.

In relation to what cause the demand destruction in the run up to the 08 crash, it did play little role.

I brought up the retiring boomers in my very first post on this site 12 years ago, and listed it as one of the key ingredients to a PO perfect storm. Why it will impede mitigation.

Not their drop in consumption, but their impact on the debt. There is $100 trillion in unfunded entitlements.

ennui2 wrote:

Ibon wrote:Subjective thinking effects our ability to recognize that if the elite continued to exploit the middle class until they were reduced to serfs that this might actually be beneficial to the biosphere.

Subjective thinking (or more appropriately, subjective value-systems) means that most people don't really care about what's beneficial to the biosphere. They simply want a system that benefits them--in the now.

What "they" ("we") want will increasingly be in severe conflict with both the biosphere and those who hold the reins on those benefits. Sooner this is recognized the more one can adapt ones expectations to this reality instead of shooting ideological blanks.

Most folks in this region of Panama are well fed and have shelter to sleep in. The lowest wage earner has a cell phone.

How Do You Know When Your Society Is In The Midst Of Collapse?
by Brandon Smith
As economic turmoil worldwide becomes increasingly apparent, I have been receiving messages from readers expressing some concerns on the public “perception” of collapse. That is to say, there are questions on the average person’s concept of collapse versus the reality of collapse. This is a vital issue that I have discussed briefly in the past, but it deserves a more in-depth analysis.

What is collapse? How do we define it? And, are some of the notions of collapse in the public consciousness completely wrong?

It’s funny, because skeptics opposed to the idea of a U.S. collapse in particular will most often retort with a question they think I cannot or will not answer – “So, Mr. Smith, when specifically is this supposed collapse going to take place? What day and time?”

My response has always been – “We’re in the middle of a collapse right now; you really can’t see it right in front of your sneering face?”

The reason these people are incapable of grasping this kind of answer is in large part due to the popular mainstream conceptions of systemic collapse. These are conceptions that are for the most part delusional and not in line with the facts. The public idea of collapse comes predominantly from Hollywood, and not from personal experience. For the masses (and some preppers, unfortunately), a collapse is an “event” that happens visibly and usually swiftly. You wake up one morning and behold; the television and phones don’t work anymore and zombies are at your doorstep! Yes, it’s childish and cartoonish, but anything less than a Walking Dead/Mad Max scenario and many people act as if all other threats are benign.

This is the driving reason why many Americans are absolutely oblivious to the economic instability that is rampant and blatant within our system the past few months. They might see the same signals that alternative analysts see, but these signals do not register in their brains as dangers.
read more:
How Do You Know When Your Society Is In The Midst Of Collapse?
Alt-Market.com - supporting local economies, barter networks, farmers initiatives, and alternative currencies backed by tangible commodities.
alt-market.com|By Brandon Smith

onlooker wrote:Since the economic situation is fluid and different in different areas of the US, I thought I would create a thread whereby we can call contribute our personal experience, observations and insight as to the economic situation in the neck of the woods where each of you reside. I do this because I find people do not trust certain media or sites and others trust those same. So I highlight personal, so that everyone can relate what they are verifying with their own senses as to the economic situation or via personal anecdotes. I personally, in my neighborhood do notice economic stagnation, less workers, long lasting shut business premises, less food per package. Thoughts? Oh and people from others countries feel free to chime in.

Where I am (south east UK), there are a lot of shut business premises. While I suspect a lot of this is due to a lot of shopping being done online, I don't think this accounts for all of it - the high business rates probably don't help. We also have a shopping mall in the town centre that is starting to see some of the smaller premises close. These used to be filled with boutique shops that sold generally high - value items (such as bespoke clothing, furniture etc), so seeing these close doesn't appear to bode well for the local economy; a lot of the decline began after 2008 I'd say.

Rod_Cloutier wrote:I work for a mega-corporation food wholesaler. The company is absolutely panicked that growth has slowed from the 30 year long term average of 15%, to 7-8%. They are buckling down, cutting waste, trimming high wage management positions, and increasing sales targets to get growth back to 15% per year.

I don't personally see it coming. I think times of 15% growth per year are done, and 7-8 % isn't that bad really. Woe to business as usual if growth actually fell to zero or if margins started to contract. The whole economy of scale business model would crash and burn.

The steady state economy that so many people speak about achieving is a myth; we either grow or collapse.

First, growth at a high rate can't continue forever. Once entities get large, growth tends to slow down. China's economy is a classic example. (The term mega-corporation seems to indicate a big entity).

Second, you're right that the desire to continue growing at a 15% rate may be ill conceived and (as I just mentioned) may not be realistic. However, I give management props for trying to do something before, say, large losses develop. Corporate management often does little until such a trend becomes a disaster.

Given most corporate goals (and thus rewards to management) are focused on growth targets -- naturally the focus will tend to be on such growth instead of something perhaps more realistic and productive -- but potentially bearing much larger risks, like CHANGING the product mix, moving into a different area, etc.

One can't blame management for wanting to avoid doing the unconventional when they'll likely be fired if they fail AND unconventional has a serious risk of failure.

Ibon wrote:

ennui2 wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

So this is a completely subjective thing..

Actually, ennui2 wrote that in our discussion. I agree with him (i.e. clearly "personal awareness" is completely subjective) -- I just don't want "credit" for what he said.

MonteQuest wrote:

ennui2 wrote: Monte just spent a lot of energy trying to tell us that boomers retiring plays little role, but I think more attention should be spent on it, considering how big the bulge is.

In relation to what cause the demand destruction in the run up to the 08 crash, it did play little role.

I brought up the retiring boomers in my very first post on this site 12 years ago, and listed it as one of the key ingredients to a PO perfect storm. Why it will impede mitigation.

Not their drop in consumption, but their impact on the debt. There is $100 trillion in unfunded entitlements.

You're speaking out of two sides of your mouth.

Boomers retiring IS MITIGATION insofar as it should drop oil consumption. It's serendipity rather than a deliberate measure, but it's mitigation nonetheless.

So you respond "Oh, no. That's bad, because it craters the ecomomy."

The doomer schtick you're playing, therefore, is to present a no-win scenario.

Behind one door is economic doom by letting our foot off the gas of economic growth.

The other is Mad Max doom caused by flooring the growth paradigm all the way to an oil panic and empty store shelves.

Well, I think these are two different things.

You have people who naively push for steady-state or de-growth. They do not, in the same breath, doom-monger about how there will be blood on the streets due to the end of the growth-paradigm and a debt bomb. No. They seem to think we can deliberately choose a de-growth pathway. You don't, though. You present a "hell bent on leather" BAU-or-bust scenario.

I just think you have too narrow a frame of reference.

sunweb wrote:You wake up one morning and behold; the television and phones don’t work anymore and zombies are at your doorstep! Yes, it’s childish and cartoonish, but anything less than a Walking Dead/Mad Max scenario and many people act as if all other threats are benign.

All you have to do is read some Orlov to realize that there is a significant strain of doomerism that continues to actively portray collapse in very stark and dismal terms, as Orlov compares it to the fall of the soviet union. That post-Soviet Russia actually recovered (to some degree) is omitted from his narrative. He would rather focus on people rushing to plant survival gardens instead. That things didn't turn out that way has forced some pundits to pivot over to labeling anything and everything that happens as doom, even though it's not easily felt on Main Street.

pstarr wrote:The post Soviet-collapse renewal and continuing economic health has only been possible because of the its export markets.

Who cares? It's a renewal. And similarly, the emphasis on Cuba (Power of Community) ignores the fact that it's now on its way to opening up and will probably soon homogenize down to a China flavor of BAU.

It's funny how all this virtuous huddling together and muddling through goes out the window the moment the crisis subsides. Jeavon's paradox.

pstarr wrote:When the Russian population demands full use of said petroleum as consumption overwhelms production

Yes. Doom always "nigh".

I don't say that in order to imply it won't ever come, but I guess I'm a little tired of the repetition of outlining a "When this or that happens, oh, boy, it's gonna be one serious clusterf*ck!"

pstarr wrote:At least not for me. Maybe for you...

Yeah. I get the drill. Hope springs eternal that one day soon you'll watch the suburbs collapse in a hail of brimstone.

Here in DFW people are still doing alright, but completely clueless as to their actual wealth. They are not poor, by any means, but they aren't as wealthy as they think.
Say, for instance, that you think your net worth is a million, but your actual net worth turns out to be a hundred thousand, in purchasing power terms. You will not be among the poor, but that's still a big difference!
Same thing for ten million vs a million, etc.

I am still convinced everybody has an inflated paper wealth.

But the realization hasn't hit because America has slowly turned into a fake economy. Fake it until you make it, image is everything, debt fueled consumption.

When does this end? Who knows. I thought this would all be over years ago.

The billionaire developer went belly up his development got sold off for less than half price his dream of a 6 star resort remains a dream.