[careinke]

[As for President Elect Trumps tax plans they are so far as I can tell a milder form of the Reagan plan that set off a boom in USA manufacturing and employment in his first term. People around here have a tendency to forget that even in a stagnant world economy individual countries can experience growth. Note that during the last 10 years China and India have both grown considerably even as the world economy was pretty stagnant.

Pence is a Fair Tax Supporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtVmEfPqTaI

I'd be happy with that.

[careinke]

Strangely the republicans are taking us in the opposite direction of their vaunted ideal of free trade.

why would the anti tax party institute a regressive tax on consumers that benefits only government coffers?
You can't lift tariffs enough to offset labor differentials.

The problem with manufacturing from the workers standpoint is not ferigners it's automation

None of this makes sense, it is like trump convinced us all to put on blindfolds while he takes us on a ride to his alternate universe

ONLY I...

Tariffs are a consumption tax, so I fully support them for that reason alone. The progessives (always with a small p) would much rather tax a persons labor. Even though imposing tariffs would also lower FF consumption, reduce transportation costs, and encourage even more production in the US. Cutting consumption and population are the only valid choices to save mankind, but the progressives (always with a small p), are more concerned with increasing the US population (for the votes), and shove production overseas so the elite progressives (always with a small p), don't have to actually see the poor working conditions, slave labor, and massive pollution forced on other far away countries, to get their elite toys at a lower price.

[careinke]

Jeeze, I'm just freaking myself out, I may take up whiskey again

But the 1928 comparison is instructive. It’s the last time a Republican president enjoyed anything like the majority Trump will have, particularly in the House.

And how did that work out for them?

Hoover took over in a time of general prosperity but stagnant wages and vast income inequality. Populists in Congress proposed dramatic increases in tariffs to help the struggling agricultural sector, the equivalent of today’s beleaguered blue-collar workers.

The proposal divided Republicans in Congress and Hoover before they produced the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, setting off retaliation, freezing international trade, contributing to the Great Depression and accelerating a ruinous cycle of nationalism around the world.

Hoover’s ghost should haunt the GOP right now. A populist, protectionist president has come to power at a time of long-depressed wages and vast inequality. He threatens to implement a 45 percent tariff against China and 35 percent against Mexico, and he’s about to collide with free-traders and pro-business interests in his own party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ge%2Fstory

That would be great for the environment.

[Pops]

Tariffs are a consumption tax, so I fully support them for that reason alone.

Because why not, poor people should pay

The progessives (always with a small p) would much rather tax a persons labor.

This isn't about raising revenue, deficits don't matter any more, you gotta keep up

Even though imposing tariffs would also lower FF consumption, reduce transportation costs, and encourage even more production in the US.

China exports low priced commodity goods made with near-slave wages.
The US exports goods made with highly skilled, highly paid labor.
So yeah, let's throw a wrench in that! That'll show 'em!

The US loses the good jobs, gains the poor jobs (or robot jobs I expect) and pays higher prices across the board for the privilege.

Good plan

Cutting consumption and population are the only valid choices to save mankind,

naw, in the "we must destroy the village to save it" playbook we still have nukes, pandemics, rogue planets... see trumps consultant Alex Jones for a complete list.

[Pops]

That would be great for the environment.

What a silly thing to say.

[Newfie]

Pops,
I'm sorry but I'm really having trouble with your posts. I can't tell anymore when you are being sarcartic or sincere.

I thought Carinke had a great post. Your response left me very confused about your actual thoughts, other than you are pissed off.

No need to do anything or respond, just thought you might (or might not) appreciate the friends feedback.

[Pops]

let me clarify, newf
I don't follow Alex Jones, I don't think it is good policy to trade good jobs for bad or impose a consumption tax on poor people or ignore the deficit or cause misery for the sake of the "environment."

Predicting the next great crash is the central conceit of this site, the hunt for the black swan always has been the focus. I hear the wings flapping more now than any time since '08 - or maybe before.

[dinopello]

I think if Trump gets his way, the economy won't crash anytime soon. Trump wants massive new federal spending (on infrastructure and defense) - it is his nature and that was in his policy statements. That would be a boon to the economy. The type of spending on infrastructure is what Obama always wanted but could never get through congress. Construction and defense-related stocks have already spiked in anticipation.

It remains to be seen how the congress will respond to Trumps spending requests - and then what Trumps reaction to that will be. I think Trump could actually put the kind of political pressure on recalcitrant republicans that Obama simply couldn't. And, he will happily work with Democrats.

Obama would have wanted to raise taxes to pay for the spending but Trump will gladly use debt financing. The real-estate mogul made his fortune leveraging debt and he has promised to do the same for America. Then, when the crash does come it might be a tad harder - but we will have nice new bridges and roads - and of course, a terrific wall.

[Cog]

Trump believes his plans will increase GDP by 4-5% a year. The additional tax revenues from that growth will result in no deficit increases. We will see.

[evilgenius]

There is no equivalency between Obama and D campaign promises and statements in the 08 election and those of trump and I dare you to show me wrong

trump has shown an indifference not only to civility and social norms but to simple fact, the functions of government and the constitution

You can choose to believe that every promise made is a lie and this is just more of the same old same.

I on the other take him at his word.

I take him at his word too.

I think what we're about to see is a whole different kind of tyranny than that which we have been used to. Cog wrote somewhere that he felt oppressed under the old order. I think he was referring to his gun rights. I've watched a lot of people freak out over their gun rights over the past several decades. Freaking out over your gun rights, or the fact that abortion exists, or any one of a long list of single issue political agendas that come from corn pone land, as our old friend Jim Kunstler would call it, has been a major source of fuel for the GOP's fire. Mostly these agendas have something to do with morality, or personal cognizance. As such they are kind of antithetical to what society, or civilization, is. They come from a point of view that more or less says that the self-sufficient person is the lynch pin of human interrelations.

Our advanced society doesn't in fact rely upon the self-sufficient person. It relies upon people specializing and playing roles within it. Liberals don't like the idea of carrying guns because they feel that the police have a job to do. They want to be able to go about doing their own thing without having to worry about carrying a tool kit, other than their cell phone, with them everywhere they go. That may come to an end. People may have to wake up to a lot more of what constructs the world around them simply because those in power won't allow them to ignore it. This is where the economy will really suffer. You can't have the advanced economy we've enjoyed without specialization. It's been quaint up until now for the great unwashed to hurl insults at a banking system few of them understand because they blame it for their own disenfranchisement, and it makes a ready target. Start taking that apart however, and see how much a much more easy to understand version supports economic success. Ditto for all of the going back to the gold standard appeals we are about to hear welling up from Lord knows where. I take it seriously that a nut job like Alex Jones has the new president's ear.

I've posted in a few places here that I believe gun sales are about to take off. It's true that the prevailing wisdom says that gun sales will cool now because those who have always sought guns have less reason to fear they will lose them. Well, the issue now isn't whether the right to have guns is at stake. The issue is one of coming into a sense of self-sufficiency. For most people this will involve owning a gun. Your average gun owner is about to become a whole different type of person. I'd wager that the current average is a Christian who somehow manages to equivocate when it comes to guns. They're all for God, and packing, somehow. The new average is going to be somewhat less religious. That doesn't, of course, mean that they will shoot more people. After all, they aren't nearly as used to equivocating as those who claim some kind of moral high ground are.

[Hawkcreek]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.
That by itself is the scariest part. All these different, ego driven, wordsmiths are allied in believing that a crash will happen. It seems that no one even questions it any more.
I intend to make myself believe that it isn't gonna happen (it will probably take a lot of recreational pot here in this great state of Washington), but if I close my eyes and repeat it firmly and loudly enough, the crash will go away.
Ok, just trying to add a little humor.

[GHung]

Hawk said; "Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen."

Since virtually every economy in history has crashed at one time or another, it's a very good bet this one will too. Considering its size, it has a good chance of crashing spectacularly at some point.

[SumYunGai]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.

That's what I call progress. We are all Futilitists now.

[Tanada]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.
That by itself is the scariest part. All these different, ego driven, wordsmiths are allied in believing that a crash will happen. It seems that no one even questions it any more.
I intend to make myself believe that it isn't gonna happen (it will probably take a lot of recreational pot here in this great state of Washington), but if I close my eyes and repeat it firmly and loudly enough, the crash will go away.
Ok, just trying to add a little humor.

Well I do think the economy will crash, however I also think some sort of economy will build back up from that crash. For some folks the concept of any recovery after the crash is inconceivable. I like to believe I hold the more moderate cyclical view of things because of my historical knowledge. Ancient Babylon crashed, ancient Egypt crashed, but in both cases many post crash civilizations arose in those same places. Egypt had nearly three THOUSAND years of civilization rising, falling and rising again and again. Once Agriculture was discovered they never really lost it and went back to Hunter Gatherer culture, they just had some very rough times now and then.

[GHung]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.
That by itself is the scariest part. All these different, ego driven, wordsmiths are allied in believing that a crash will happen. It seems that no one even questions it any more.
I intend to make myself believe that it isn't gonna happen (it will probably take a lot of recreational pot here in this great state of Washington), but if I close my eyes and repeat it firmly and loudly enough, the crash will go away.
Ok, just trying to add a little humor.

Well I do think the economy will crash, however I also think some sort of economy will build back up from that crash. For some folks the concept of any recovery after the crash is inconceivable. I like to believe I hold the more moderate cyclical view of things because of my historical knowledge. Ancient Babylon crashed, ancient Egypt crashed, but in both cases many post crash civilizations arose in those same places. Egypt had nearly three THOUSAND years of civilization rising, falling and rising again and again. Once Agriculture was discovered they never really lost it and went back to Hunter Gatherer culture, they just had some very rough times now and then.

"I also think some sort of economy will build back up from that crash."

Gosh, Tanada, don't go out on a limb here. Some guy trading a can of beans for some chicken eggs is technically an "economy". None of us know what sort of economy will 'build back', but it's a good bet that there won't be enough chairs for a lot of people when the music stops this time. Our current economic level and intensity depends on current levels of resource/energy extraction and utilization. I don't seeing us coming close to that when the next big step down occurs. There's the rub; overshoot won't be resolved until our population level allows it.

[Tanada]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.
That by itself is the scariest part. All these different, ego driven, wordsmiths are allied in believing that a crash will happen. It seems that no one even questions it any more.
I intend to make myself believe that it isn't gonna happen (it will probably take a lot of recreational pot here in this great state of Washington), but if I close my eyes and repeat it firmly and loudly enough, the crash will go away.
Ok, just trying to add a little humor.

Well I do think the economy will crash, however I also think some sort of economy will build back up from that crash. For some folks the concept of any recovery after the crash is inconceivable. I like to believe I hold the more moderate cyclical view of things because of my historical knowledge. Ancient Babylon crashed, ancient Egypt crashed, but in both cases many post crash civilizations arose in those same places. Egypt had nearly three THOUSAND years of civilization rising, falling and rising again and again. Once Agriculture was discovered they never really lost it and went back to Hunter Gatherer culture, they just had some very rough times now and then.

"I also think some sort of economy will build back up from that crash."

Gosh, Tanada, don't go out on a limb here. Some guy trading a can of beans for some chicken eggs is technically an "economy". None of us know what sort of economy will 'build back', but it's a good bet that there won't be enough chairs for a lot of people when the music stops this time. Our current economic level and intensity depends on current levels of resource/energy extraction and utilization. I don't seeing us coming close to that when the next big step down occurs. There's the rub; overshoot won't be resolved until our population level allows it.

The thing is Ghung nobody knows what the actual level of overshoot is. Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that takes place everyone in authority knows two things are a priority, feeding the general population and keeping someone else from beating up your spot on the planet to take your food for their population. On a base level most countries actually can feed their whole population simply by focusing on the basics and not the luxury foods. You don't NEED fresh grapes and oranges in mid winter no matter where you live. You need X amount of calories to live and you can get X amount from internal production almost everywhere.

This is not a permanent situation, if climate disruptions like droughts and floods hit your homeland particularly hard you need outside supply sources and that is what makes war such a threat going forward.

That being said the idea that Uncle Sam or Vlad the Putin will supply fuel to average consumers to fritter away in a shortage instead of supplying the farms and military first is just nutty IMO. Yeah rationing stinks, but going hungry and being invaded by the ravening hoards from Canada stinks much worse It would take a long time post peak for the governments anywhere to not have fuel for farming and military defense operations.

There might be too many people on this ole globe for a post oil economy to feed them all, but when rationing starts you can expect the first things being adapted to alternative fuel sources will be the farming and military systems, for the same reason they will be getting the first ration of petroleum. Say it takes a decade to convert every piece of farm equipment to whatever alternative is arrived at. Do you honestly believe that the down slope from peak oil will be so steep that the 5% that goes for producing and moving food items won't be possible before the conversion can be done? Seriously?

This thread is about the economy crashing, more or less like it did in 1929, 2001, 2008 and a bunch of other times. That is why I brought up Ancient Egypt and other civilizations, a crash is not a permanent situation. That is provided we are not talking something like a dinosaur killer asteroid impact or Yellowstone super volcanic eruption.

[GHung]

"That is provided we are not talking something like a dinosaur killer asteroid impact or Yellowstone super volcanic eruption."

....or nuclear war. I understand that humans are adept at muddling through hard times, collectively, and a big part of that is individual/group resilience. I also don't disagree that, barring catastrophe, many will persist. My question is; what scale of recovery will be possible considering our consumption of everything over the last two hundred years. Pretty much of the low-hanging fruit is gone, some forever, and that means whatever civilizations reform after a collapse will be limited to pre-industrial levels until humans develop some very different ways of doing things. We're doomed to undergo some severe behavior modifications, collectively. I think that Greer's dark age scenarios are highly likely before major civilisations can evolve 'new deals' with what the planet can support in real time.

By the way, I see your 'triage' meme (governments prioritizing resource distribution) as being necessary, but temporary, solutions, and that our level of overshoot is underestimated by many.

[careinke]

Its kind of funny that no one has questioned the title of the thread. Everyone seems to accept that a crash will happen, and is just arguing about when it will happen.
That by itself is the scariest part. All these different, ego driven, wordsmiths are allied in believing that a crash will happen. It seems that no one even questions it any more.
I intend to make myself believe that it isn't gonna happen (it will probably take a lot of recreational pot here in this great state of Washington), but if I close my eyes and repeat it firmly and loudly enough, the crash will go away.
Ok, just trying to add a little humor.

I do that everyday, it doesn't work. So far my most optimistic hope is over the next year, climate change really smacks us between the eyes, and wakes all of us up.

[SumYunGai]

That being said the idea that Uncle Sam or Vlad the Putin will supply fuel to average consumers to fritter away in a shortage instead of supplying the farms and military first is just nutty IMO. Yeah rationing stinks, but going hungry and being invaded by the ravening hoards from Canada stinks much worse It would take a long time post peak for the governments anywhere to not have fuel for farming and military defense operations.

This is true only if you assume that geological decline is the only thing we have to worry about. Unfortunately, an economic crash tends to dramatically reduce our ability to produce oil and deliver it. You also make the assumption that governments could effectively maintain any useful command and control after a very severe economic crash. But electrical and telecommunication grids could go down very fast once a severe crisis begins.

There might be too many people on this ole globe for a post oil economy to feed them all, but when rationing starts you can expect the first things being adapted to alternative fuel sources will be the farming and military systems, for the same reason they will be getting the first ration of petroleum. Say it takes a decade to convert every piece of farm equipment to whatever alternative is arrived at.

What alternative? You are assuming that there will be controlled rationing. But when the economy fails, the government will be basically bankrupt. They will lose control.

Do you honestly believe that the down slope from peak oil will be so steep that the 5% that goes for producing and moving food items won't be possible before the conversion can be done? Seriously?

Yes. It won't be a question of a shortage of fuel. The next economic crisis itself might be enough to stop food deliveries to cities, resulting in mass starvation and die-off.

This thread is about the economy crashing, more or less like it did in 1929, 2001, 2008 and a bunch of other times.

I don't think so. Many people believe that this crash will be far worse than any crash in history. What makes you so sure that the economy can only crash "more or less like it did in 1929, 2001, 2008 and a bunch of other times"?

That is why I brought up Ancient Egypt and other civilizations, a crash is not a permanent situation.

When ancient civilizations collapsed, it was not equivalent to our economic "crashes" of 1929, 2001, or 2008. Those ancient civilizations completely collapsed. That has never happened to modern industrial civilization before. This crash could easily (and, I believe, will likely) result in the total collapse of our civilization.

Here is how:

An economic/financial/credit crisis results in financial system/supply chain cross contagion. This self reinforcing effect causes the abrupt failure of just in time delivery systems all around the globe. This includes the failure of food deliveries to major cities. There will be no effective way for any government to react.

Have you read the Korowicz paper?

That is provided we are not talking something like a dinosaur killer asteroid impact or Yellowstone super volcanic eruption.

Unfortunately, we are.

[onlooker]

Okay, I see a bit both sides of your arguments Tanada and Sum. First on the pessimistic side, the electrical grid is a key weak point as so much of our civilization and its routine necessary functions are tied to the Grid. Second, JIT does put an element of danger and chaos into the Equation. Now, for the optimistic stance. Sum your assertions while not faulty in logic presumes lack of adaptation and pre-planning. I expect that the US economy and others will quickly transition to a more Command type economy. It seems inevitable. By doing so, the eventualities that Tanada assumes will be realized. Priority will be given to food, military and in some cases health services. Again if we compare countries we must look at countries with strong stable governments and an existing infrastructure to ameliorate the worse of what is to come. I believe the US is one such country. Also, remember that once international trade breaks down those countries that can hold on, will be those that have a relatively favorable resource to population ratio. I think generally this describes the Western Hemisphere in contrast to the Eastern Hemisphere. So, I see a mixed bag and feel that Canada and US are probably as well positioned as anyone to withstand the more dire outcomes. Of course it will NOT be a picnic anywhere.