by Outcast_Searcher » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 15:15:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'O')_S said;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;I respectfully don't think this kind of behavior will realistically crash the system, though. I think the system is far more flexible and durable and adaptable than the "fast crash" crowd gives it credit for. I also don't think a 5% downturn would do it, and if you got 10% of folks to cooperate and lower consumption/spending by half over time, that's what you'd get -- IF you could stop the global population from growing (and good luck with that)."
The combination of contraction-promoting proceses will have knock-on effects. As few as 5% 'pre-collapsniks', people like us that have had it with BAU, along with a growing number of involuntary recruits will send the overall industrial project into a death spiral.
So I think where we disagree is magnitude. Where do you come up with 5% reduction in economic activity over time (everyone won't do this at once clearly) will crash the entire system?
Why couldn't it be 20%? Or even 40% if it's somewhat gradual? People doing this will clearly be reducing their debt, BTW.
I think we can put some parameters on this. Clearly 100% will do it, by definition. 2% wont. (We had about a 2% global reduction in the 2008-9 crash, rapidly and involuntarily. It was scary and crashed the stock markets about 40%. People were worried about a possible depression. But all it caused was a deep recession, and some scaling back.) And for most people, more than perhaps 30%, or 50% at most would induce real hardship (hunger, lack of heat/cooling, transport, medical care, etc.) And people aren't going to do THAT en masse, unless they have no choice.
Do you have anything more than a gut feel that 5% would do it? (And complaining about things like "all the debt" doesn't come close to justifying 5%, without real specifics as to how/why the dominos would fall).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
by Cog » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 15:54:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'D')oomers=Death cult. Lets crash the global economy and kill billions but lets not say that directly. You want to help out on over-population and a negative impact on the environment, stop eating.
I think you have us confused with some other people. We are trying to avert the premature death of billions.
Cheers
The title of the thread is Lets Crash the Global Economic System. What exactly do you think that would result in?
by GHung » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 15:57:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', 'O')_S said;
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;I respectfully don't think this kind of behavior will realistically crash the system, though. I think the system is far more flexible and durable and adaptable than the "fast crash" crowd gives it credit for. I also don't think a 5% downturn would do it, and if you got 10% of folks to cooperate and lower consumption/spending by half over time, that's what you'd get -- IF you could stop the global population from growing (and good luck with that)."
The combination of contraction-promoting proceses will have knock-on effects. As few as 5% 'pre-collapsniks', people like us that have had it with BAU, along with a growing number of involuntary recruits will send the overall industrial project into a death spiral.
So I think where we disagree is magnitude. Where do you come up with 5% reduction in economic activity over time (everyone won't do this at once clearly) will crash the entire system?
Why couldn't it be 20%? Or even 40% if it's somewhat gradual? People doing this will clearly be reducing their debt, BTW.
I think we can put some parameters on this. Clearly 100% will do it, by definition. 2% wont. (We had about a 2% global reduction in the 2008-9 crash, rapidly and involuntarily. It was scary and crashed the stock markets about 40%. People were worried about a possible depression. But all it caused was a deep recession, and some scaling back.) And for most people, more than perhaps 30%, or 50% at most would induce real hardship (hunger, lack of heat/cooling, transport, medical care, etc.) And people aren't going to do THAT en masse, unless they have no choice.
Do you have anything more than a gut feel that 5% would do it? (And complaining about things like "all the debt" doesn't come close to justifying 5%, without real specifics as to how/why the dominos would fall).
I said that
" The combination of contraction-promoting proceses will have knock-on effects." Maybe you missed that. I grabbed onto 5% because it was mentioned upthread. I don't know what percentage of people dropping out of the all-in consumer culture will be affective at causing terminal decline, or what that decline curve will be. I do know a number of people who have grown tired of BAU and are moving on to something different and less supportive of growth. It's clear that the few percent drop in consumption during the recession had a larger effect than many expected, and it has taken huge injections of capital to achieve a very modest return to growth. Many of those bills remain on the books. These things lead me to believe that our systems aren't as resilient as some hope. Our financial systems are highly leveraged, one way or another, even as our input/output systems become more stressed.
There are also undeniable signs of stress among consumers, especially in the US (witness this election) and I think more folks are discovering that consumerism is hard work, and the rewards just aren't worth it, despite what they're told on TV. To that point, many folks are finding it convenient to skip the commercials; rejecting their consumer programming. What effect could that have over time? Many are also shopping online rather than browsing the stores with all of their enticements. To what effect?
Predicting the behavior of hyper-complex systems is nearly impossible. Predicting trends, not so much. Ultimately, anti-growth factors, whether cultural or forced, will be hard to ignore by an economy that has had little success in bringing back growth levels of the past. A small percent of the population rejecting consumerism and unnecessary consumption is just another straw on that camels back.
by GHung » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:27:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'Y')ou think you will survive a crash of the global economic system because you are a prepper? LOL that is the funniest thing I've read on this board for eons.
I'm not dismissing prepping. I am one myself. But I don't fool myself into believing I'm going to survive a global crash.
I think I'll have a better chance, but that's not the point. It's about not being complicit. It's about acceptance and the peace it brings; something that seems foreign to you. Funny you think that's funny. Anyway, I have grandkids and I don't want them to grow up to be sociopaths, or to think that they have the right to consume things at an unprecedented rate; things
their grandkids will need just to survive.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
-

GHung
- Intermediate Crude

-
- Posts: 3093
- Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
- Location: Moksha, Nearvana
-
by Outcast_Searcher » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:36:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')Predicting the behavior of hyper-complex systems is nearly impossible. Predicting trends, not so much.
This is pretty amusing, coming from the fast crash doomer crowd. The cornies and the moderates have been saying all along, that the trend toward slow growth favored by the system is likely to continue for a long time.
And month after month, year after year, the constant alarmist cries for short term crashes of the system have been proven wrong, again and again.
So why are your intuitions about feedbacks, small percentages being enough, etc. to crash the whole system to be believed any more than all the other assertions over the history of short-term-crashism (for want of a better name)?
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
-

Outcast_Searcher
- COB

-
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
- Location: Central KY
-
by onlooker » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 16:55:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'D')oomers=Death cult. Lets crash the global economy and kill billions but lets not say that directly. You want to help out on over-population and a negative impact on the environment, stop eating.
I think you have us confused with some other people. We are trying to avert the premature death of billions.
Cheers
The title of the thread is Lets Crash the Global Economic System. What exactly do you think that would result in?
At least some of us would have a fighting chance. Not so with a dead Earth
by Hawkcreek » Fri 21 Oct 2016, 17:39:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'Y')ou think you will survive a crash of the global economic system because you are a prepper? LOL that is the funniest thing I've read on this board for eons.
I'm not dismissing prepping. I am one myself. But I don't fool myself into believing I'm going to survive a global crash.
You must think that prepping improves your chances of surviving a crash, or why do it? I would be willing to bet a million dollars that none of us on this forum lives forever, but like Ghung says - why not try to leave a better world for our grandkids?
That probably means a fast crash is better than a slow crash, if you look at it in the view of how much damage we will do, and how many resources we will sacrifice to the gods of corporate culture, if left to BAU.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
-
Hawkcreek
- Expert

-
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Washington State
-