[Markos101]

Hi,

It's interesting to re-visit this site after a few months and get back into the discussion. Obviously this forum has grown somewhat and the peak-oil issue is beginning to rear its head in more mainstream circles as oil barrels continue their rise toward $70 per barrel.

But I want to talk about the post-peak economy, because a lot of people here seem to think that our standard of living will reduce, which is quite right. But hang on a minute!

The problem is that our whole business world is utterly geared toward growth. The growth in energy use per capita has effectively allowed for earlier retirement ages, with interest paid upon all cash given value by growth each year (produced by labour, of course).

But I cannot imagine an even barely functioning business world in a decline. Obviously our financial system cannot handle it; it will produce a volatility that will be beyond practical use. People's confidence will shoot down. But on top of that, a decline? Can you imagine a businessman sitting down at his board saying 'over the next 3 months we will close down 3 stores. Over the next 12 months we want to close down 10 stores, okay? And lay off 100 workers.'

I simply cannot see how a decline paradigm and the business world can relate at any level. What will happen to the business world in a decline? People will not simply hop from job to job or place to place, struggling to survive. The people will demand something from someone to be done - it seems to me totalitarian government will be an obvious side-effect of all this. There will be a forced net flow of labour and workers into the oil industry as that is where a lot of the cash will be flowing, at least at first. But people will reduce consumption. If they reduce consumption, jobs go if those new savings are not fiat loaned out to people for private projects.

So what will be the 'economy' post-peak? A non-growth economy it seems to me just doesn't work. You can't have a business world without growth. What will happen? What will the new society look like? Will the land-owners take over again? A power vacuum?

Mark

[Markos101]

To add to that, it wouldn't' make sense to me that unemployment would remain high, that's faulty economics. Rather, those unemployed will think of solutions as to what to do, likely increasing the number of enterprises dependent upon physical labour. What do these include? Well the trouble is it depends how long the economy transfers from machines back to physical labour again. Those unemployed will have to provide physical labour work - this will become the replacement value. Washing windows, cars, making baskets(!), and selling in local market places will obviously become more normal again rather than the big supermarkets. I think for some clues look at the 1700s economy in Europe.

Mark

[Bedevere]

Capitalism has failed. Now we can see it's inherent flaw. We sold our future and now the future has come.

[FireJack]

It's nearly impossible to make accurate predictions on what will happen once the economy crashes. Even a single action by 1 person can change everything. I wonder if one of the reason Bush is running the US economy into the ground is to turn the government into a theocracy. It would be a small simple step, I just hope canada doens't follow suit. We should be better off with the oil sands and all but this assumes the US doesn't decide to "save" us.
I would say in ten or so years we should have a pretty good idea as to where the world will be going.

[whiteknight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bedevere', 'C')apitalism has failed. Now we can see it's inherent flaw. We sold our future and now the future has come.

[turmoil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('whiteknight', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bedevere', 'C')apitalism has failed. Now we can see it's inherent flaw. We sold our future and now the future has come.

[Raxozanne]

Post peak economy: barter

The best way to do business

[nero]

I do think business can continue in a declining economy. Markos described a situation where a business planned the decline:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'C')an you imagine a businessman sitting down at his board saying 'over the next 3 months we will close down 3 stores. Over the next 12 months we want to close down 10 stores, okay? And lay off 100 workers.'

[I_Like_Plants]

There's capitalism and there's Capitalism. Huge difference between the two. I and friends do capitalism, buy surplus junk to fix up and test and resell, or build stuff to sell, etc. If we have a good year, great! If we make 20% less the following year, Oh well, suck it up and keep going - eat cheaper food, etc., and keep on going. But, Capitalists don't have small co's they have corporations, they issue stock, and it's grow or die. GROW OR DIE. A corporation is a machine set up to make money no matter what, and more each year or else. I myself with my small, nay, micro, company can decide to give stuff away, make less and have more free time, decide not to do biz with unscrupulous ppl even if there's more profit there, etc. A corporation will, if at all possible, work its employees 24/7, deal in stolen goods, sell rat poison as medicine, etc - there are no limits because it's not a person, it's a machine. Corporations are just barely under the control of humans, barely.

[Markos101]

I don't agree. The assumption that a corporate is just a machine is an image issue - personally, I am not suited at all to large corporations, and that is yes, because they are run like machines. The division of labour is so large that no one really learns anything much about how business works, other than their tiniest role in it. In my experience, your typical large company employee also does not care at all about their contribution to the world, and simply wants the most liabilities to their name possible by whoring themselves up the psy-op ladder system.

I think it's a popular Marxian theory (which I don't agree with by the way) that the division of labour creates alienation. Large corporations (I own a corporation, but it is in no way large!) are rather like number machines. Unfortunately when you are floating in a sea of currency, this is the most reliable ways you can bring order into chaos.

But more than that, the reason why they are target driven is for two reasons

(1) You have to define what you're aiming for, otherwise you're not aiming for anything
(2) Most importantly, no matter what, the shareholders want to see increased profits next year so they get more labour-free money.

And that's the truth - they want to run it in terms of numbers to bring in the order out of chaos necessary to increase the numbers (which can be very flexible due to accounting procedures) so that the shareholders like what they receive in their handouts at the end of the year.

Smaller companies - well these are a little more dynamic and growth oriented and the division of labour is less. Personally I'm a small company man, even if that means my take-home packet is less. I also like starting up companies.

Mark

[Markos101]

On top of that, in my experience, those who are anti-capitlaist are those who see a world of scarcity, when it is perfectly abundant. Capitalism is the fairest system you can get, short of employees not sharing the wealth of your typical corporate.

Anyone can obtain outside investment and loans to startup a company if they have an idea, and then get bankruptcy protection if it goes wrong. If you don't do it, it's all in the mind. Honestly it is.

Mark

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do think business can continue in a declining economy

[gg3]

Microenterprise is an example of free enterprise in a market economy. However, it is not capitalism strictly speaking: it earns a return on labor (sweat equity) more than on capital (invested financial equity).

If the choice is only between fascism and communism, communism is the more civilized option since it seeks to spread the sacrifice rather more equitably. However I think this is a false dichotomy. It should be possible to retain a market-type economy and freedom of enterprise, though on the basis of level trades and an absence of net growth.

[Macsporan]

The economy will be very different and a lot more small, cute and furry.

Multinationals and Globalisation will die the death.

Human and animal muscle will do a lot more work. There will be little unemployment as a consequence.

Unionism will be reborn because mass immigration will stop and the bosses won't be able to say: "Work for five dollars an hour or I'll export your job to China, har har har!" Labour's bargaining postion with Capital will improve and we'll have a strengthened Wefare State.

The transition will be hard but transitions alway are. People get by somehow.

One thing to watch out for is that people aren't evicted en mass from their houses when they can't pay the mortgage/rent.

Without a house you can't get a job, and without a job you can't get a house and also you die of exposure.

This didn't matter too much when the Russian economy collapsed because they lived in public housing or peasant cabins.

It will matter a lot in the US where everything is run be evil moneylenders who'd kill there own mothers for a stock option.

The government is going to have to intervene to ration vital goods and prevent mass homelessness, and everyone will be very gratful that they did, except perhaps the evil moneylenders.

I'd be happy to see them all swinging from the lamposts anyway.

[AmericanEmpire]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he government is going to have to intervene to ration vital goods and prevent mass homelessness, and everyone will be very gratful that they did, except perhaps the evil moneylenders.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AmericanEmpire', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he government is going to have to intervene to ration vital goods and prevent mass homelessness, and everyone will be very gratful that they did, except perhaps the evil moneylenders.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AmericanEmpire', 'I')'m trying to figure out where all the people who lose their jobs will be staying when unemployment is 50% though. People will lose their houses and apartments because they won't be able to find a job. Are tens of millions of people going to be living on the streets?

Thats pretty hard to fathom that could occur without social unrest. We'll have riots and all out chaos with that many people on the street.

[JeeBoomba]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'N')oone will be able to afford children or to get married.

[DefiledEngine]

Aren't people in the third world still rich enough to have children? If social security, health care and retirement is impacted, won't that contribute to people wanting children? If the need for manual labour is increased, won't that also give people the need for age security?

If not we'll end up in an economy with too many elderly and too few young. Isn't that a bad scenario in itself?

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JeeBomba', 'I') disagree. Marriage itself is nearly free--just go sign some papers at the court house and pay a nominal processing fee. Huge gala weddings and 2 carat rings are what makes it expensive.
Child-rearing as it currently exists will be too expensive to survive for long.