[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'G')lobal trade only for some necessities.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'G')lobal trade only for some necessities.

[Sixstrings]

This is a good thread, lots of directions to go, feel free anyone to bounce off the previous posts. I just have another note about UK..

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GASMON', 'I')'m voting out. Stuff Europe, Stuff USA (the leaders and politicians, NOT the people)

[Sixstrings]

This thing does look odd, did Obama actually flat out say it was his decision to remove the Winston Churchill bust?

One thing to just note though, AGAIN, is that UK and US politics are so linked that really Churchill over here is a REPUBLICAN thing -- Obama was snubbing conservatives in general, when he took Churchill out.

But yeah, I'm gonna have to watch this thing on youtube, diplomatically that's just ridiculous to come swaggering into London like a loud American telling Brits how to vote and economic scaremongering and bragging he threw away Winston Churchill's bust, what's up with that.

(I still suspect Cameron and Obama were in cahoots though)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Obama, Cameron and the Day of the ‘Remains’
The president’s entry into the ‘Brexit’ debate included adding to the economic scaremongering.

The debate about whether Britain should remain in the European Union or leave (“Brexit”) took a dramatic turn Friday when President Obama broke off from wishing Queen Elizabeth II a happy 90th birthday to lecture the British people about how to vote in the EU referendum on June 23.

In a joint news conference with Prime Minister David Cameron, who has staked his political future on Britain’s voting “Remain” rather than “Leave,” Mr. Obama was full of surprises.

For one thing, he admitted that it had been his call to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office when he first became president. That was a jaw-dropper, because until now the White House has maintained that the decision was taken before Mr. Obama took up residence and was no reflection on the president’s attitude toward Britain or its “special relationship” with the United States.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-cameron-and-the-day-of-the-remains-1461364735

[vtsnowedin]

The issues are much too numerous and complex for the simple poll choices provided. Are you for trade deals? Which ones and what are the terms of the deal? I'm for free trade for the most part as I have stated elsewhere but that has conditions on it like not allowing a government subsidized product to unfairly compete with a local one that is taxed. Also I would not allow imports of a product produced with little or no environmental controls to come in and undercut a locally produced product that was produced under strict anti pollution controls.
And there is also the issue of National security. Each country should retain sufficient industrial capacity to provide for it's own defense all the way from the mine to the tank or plane.
So I can be for "free trade" but against NAFTA or the Pacific trade deal ( I forget what the acronym is) because they are not good deals, not because the major premise is wrong.

[ralfy]

Ultimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'U')ltimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'U')ltimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

[onlooker]

Too many uncertainties and variables too predict in detail how it will play out V. One thing I am confident though in saying is that it will be marked by turmoil and extremes of an ideological nature. Until hopefully, the remnants of what is left of human society can reconfigure itself in a sustainable, orderly, harmonious and productive manner. Nothing is certain except uncertainty. That is why I say hopefully. I may ask you in turn V, how long do you think Capitalism and Globalization can last given that already indications exist that it is unraveling and given the environmental constraints and limitations which are conspiring to end profiteering and the pursuit of materialism and concomitant greed.

[Newfie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'U')ltimately, it won't be a matter of choice due to limits to growth. Given that, there will still be free trade, etc., but not in the way most imagine.

[vtsnowedin]

I think capitalism will last indefinitely because it is human nature and can contend with scarcity much better then any alternative. Globalization will undergo larger changes as scarcity provokes resource wars.But I doubt it will retreat to a world full of isolationist countries living only on there own resources. We will still swap Iowa corn and Kansas wheat for Brazilian coffee and India's tea.

[Newfie]

Corn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

[Sixstrings]

Interesting, nobody voted for globalism.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'C')orn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

[Newfie]

What did we do before it existed?

We always have to be careful to appripriatly Quailfy our answers here. The answer depends upon when in the decline you are using as your reference. Service jobs won't go away immediately. They will be reduced. And the reductions will become deeper as the global economy unwinds. How deep it will go is the question of which none can be sure. At the worst case zero, but that is near extinction.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'O')K do either of you wish to elaborate about how you think it will play out.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'I') think capitalism will last indefinitely because it is human nature and can contend with scarcity much better then any alternative. Globalization will undergo larger changes as scarcity provokes resource wars.But I doubt it will retreat to a world full of isolationist countries living only on there own resources. We will still swap Iowa corn and Kansas wheat for Brazilian coffee and India's tea.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'C')orn and wheat sustain the body. Tea and coffee do not.

But more to the point a Service Economy does not sustain the body. The quantity of people involved in the Service Economy are largely redundant and the population will be reduced by that amount, more or less.

[REAL Green]

It appears we have entered a new era but what this will be is still uncertain. It is uncertain because it hit so fast. The central banks are going full MMT out of necessity. The risks to liquidity are just to great to allow the markets to sort this one out. Vladimir Lenin said “In Some Decades, Nothing Happens; In Some Weeks, Decades Happen”. I really think this is a defining period with the end of globalism’s assent. Economics defines politics so this will surely alter the way people cooperate and compete. I don’t think the markets will be allowed to crash like they used to but what will change is a decline in real wealth so the markets will be little more than a façade of appearance of wealth when the reality is much less will be there. Global value chains driven by the raw greed for yields can never be matched in regards to production. Value chains will adapt be being smaller and shorter. On the other hand, a world of less could be a world that can scale better actually offering more wealth in well-being. People are going to have to try to do more locally if they want more. Localism is the best system for the public and private good. Globalism will remain but this virus checked its advance. Let’s hope that the level this all settles to offers opportunity for more rational human activity found in localism.