by ralfy » Mon 23 Jul 2012, 06:04:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'W')hat projection. It won't be a decade was my point. So far, the first few years of 'permanent global recession' under peak oil, (actually more a bumpy plateau also, so far) has been a mega boom in China, India, and not too bad at all for Brazil and several other southern countries. So call it a 'global recession' if you like, which it may be in overall gross numbers; but not everywhere. Large parts of Australia have yet to see 6%+ unemployment.
Actually, your point was that it won't be a decade-long global recession or a permanent one. What's left then, is a recession that's more than a decade-long or no recession at all. What is your choice?
Mega boom? Perhaps you mean mega-hoard and mega-asset bubbles.
Not too bad for Brazil and "several other southern countries," and thus no global recession? Australia is doing fine, and thus no global recession, either? Looks like a fallacy of hasty generalization to me, if not more economic "growth" based on trillions in bailout money pumped into the system.
Why not look at global food and oil prices, unemployment, global economic growth to determine such? For a wider perspective, how about global ave. ecological footprint per capita vs. biocapacity?