AgentR11 wrote:
There is no unemployment problem; EMRATIO levels right now are about at the historical norm. The bubbles created unrealistic expectations. The expectations remain, but the bubbles do not; those unemployed as a result will eventually come to understand that they are not worth hiring and find something else entertaining to do with their lives.
"Global unemployment has reached dangerous levels, ILO report shows"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-develo ... -recession
And... HIGH food and oil? Food and oil are dirt cheap. Its just that they have been cheaper in recent memory. But historically, to get the amount of work available in a barrel of oil, or the amount of food calories available for a few bucks, people would have to work many more hours than they currently do.
If "many more hours" are needed to get the same amount of food and oil, then both are neither "dirt cheap" nor "cheaper." It gets worse when oil prices are much higher in many parts of the world than in the U.S. and purchasing power lower.
Yes it did; but it remains and will remain vastly in excess of what is required to grow food, deliver, and feed our current populations. Ag and rail distribution are spectacularly efficient. Bob the Prol may have to walk or bike to the grocer; but the shelves will be stocked.
Again, ecological footprint is higher than biocapacity, which means what remains is the complete opposite of "vastly in excess." What makes matters worse is that the ecological footprint has to go up even more to provide the semblance of basic needs to most human beings, who lack access to one more more basic needs and earn only around two dollars daily. On top of that, pollution and climate change will decrease what is available.
Also, it's once more nice to imagine that "Ag and rail distribution" and stocked shelves, like New England, represent the world. But you know that's not true.
What makes matters worse is that population will go up, and ave. ecological footprint has to go up as well because only a fraction of human beings have access to various basic needs.
This is why what I wrote is so terrifying; per capita footprint won't decline much, or may even increase a bit; numbers will also increase. There aren't any limits in place that can prevent this. Not until calorie crop production fails, and then things get unimaginably bad, rather fast.
That's my point! Per capita footprint is rising NOT necessarily because of climate change but because of increasing credit and a growing middle class, if not an increasing population that needs food and other requirements. And even as food and oil prices are higher due to financial speculation and employment problems, more people are replacing luxuries with necessities. At the same time, climate change and environmental damage leads to lower biocapacity, and this also contributes to higher food prices.
Food and oil are incredibly cheap. It is necessary that bubbles pop. It is expected. I don't see how that does not make "appropriate and necessary". Do you think bubbles should grow forever, or their gains remain locked in?
Food and oil are not incredibly cheap (as shown above) even as most of the bubble (i.e., over a quadrillion dollars in "shadow" derivatives; we've seen the effects of only around a trillion of that via subprime lending) has not popped.
And amazingly, they don't starve to death? Why is that? BECAUSE FOOD IS CHEAP!
Food is not cheap, as it has reached a fifty-year high:
"Global food prices hit new record high"
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/0 ... cord-high/That is why poverty and hunger have been going up worldwide:
"Rising Food Prices Intensify Poverty, Hunger In U.S. And World"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 37664.htmlLikely the reason why starvation has not taken place is because more are buying less consumer goods and more food. And that's because food is no longer cheap. That's also why exports for manufactured goods in Asia have been going down for several months, together with the BDI and global volume trade (as reported by ZH). When food prices are high, you think less of luxuries.
I did say "or other tradeable commodity". Silver works just as well, some might even suggest better for this example.
As I said, you can double the total metric tons and you end up with less than two troy oz per person. Include silver, which is cheaper, and the value per capita hardly goes up.
The gold standard is just one more illusion by those who still think that we can still have business as usual.
You do realize there is some significant space between "climate change isn't effecting" and "hundreds of thousands freezing to death" right? That is my point, the economic system, which will continue gimping along for the remainder of our lifetimes, and the resources available during that period are sufficient to avoid the latter, even while climate change is effecting all sorts of things.
You do realize that New England is not the world, right? Also, that the "economic system" that won't allow "hundreds of thousands freezing to death" isn't the same elsewhere?
Thus the limiter on the whole kettle of fish, is that at some point, climate change will prevent growing sufficient calorie crops year by year, such that reserves approach zero, and THEN we get true food cost increases. THEN those $10/day people starve and die.
Unfortunately, climate change is also driven by the same global capitalist system.
Also, lack of oil will lower the ability to produce more food. Increasing oil consumption is also driven by the same global capitalist system, as such a system requires increasing levels of prosperity, which translates to increasing resource consumption.
You also forgot to mention that increasing population and demand per capita also increases the cost of resources. Ironically, both were made possible because of the same global capitalist system, which led to lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates (which also increased human population) and more prosperity (which increased resource demand).
If economic problems take place like bubbles popping, then we have additional problems such as unemployment, austerity measures, etc., and people end up with less money, which makes food, oil, and even consumer goods more expensive. And those bubbles were made possible because of a global capitalist system with significant deregulation in the financial sector.
That is why I wrote in my first post:
Borrowing, spending, and using less is not the solution to problems affecting a global capitalist economy but the result of those problems.
That's because a global capitalist economy requires increasing production and consumption of goods for more profits, with more credit created to support such. And as more join the middle class, even more credit is created through financial speculation. Finally, the result of increasing production and consumption of goods is pollution, which has led to environmental damage and contributed to climate change, as well as peak oil. The result of financial speculation is credit bubbles popping, leading to problems such as unemployment and austerity measures.
Given such, people will have no choice but to borrow, spend, and use less. Their actions won't be a solution to these predicaments but the result of such.
That is why my argument has nothing to do with some "sense of ethics" but with what has been reported in this forum, which includes the effects of a global economic recession, peak oil, and climate change.
