$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CARVER', '
')Its the same with the environment, it does not show up on our balance sheet, so it can be taken apart and transformed into things we do put on our balance sheets. From the balance sheet it looks as if we are doing great, but that is just because the balance sheet does not correspond with reality.
PeakOil is You
Were "The Levellers" right after all?
Re: Were "The Levellers" right after all?
by Paul64 » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 08:41:30
Interesting point. But actually, these days even the macro balance sheets, within the dismal, false world of 'economics', are messed up, unfixable, and point to in and of themselves certain eventual failure and disaster. Writers at mises.org and financialsense.com, considered economic pessimists, recognize these problems. They are aware of things like peak oil and resource scarcity. What they try to do is promote investing in gold, energy and commodities. It will work for the balance sheet and material security of the select privileged few individuals who currently have some positive paper capital, and follow that strategy, in the short and medium term.
But these pessimistic commentators who write of hard times ahead are capitalists through and through - their view of the world and their likely correct views on results in commodity investments and so forth is right only in a narrow sense; when the greater reality you note is considered as well, the true situation is far worse than those pessimists write about, and in the end all the gold in the world won't help. Also, the fact that as the gold price goes up, mining operations expand, indigenous communities are destroyed, and more earth, soil and water are ruined - those things don't matter to the pessimistic capitalists. The smart investors win the game at great cost to others and the planet.
Alas, I have retirement money in a mining fund, and it is doing well, so perhaps I am a hypocrite.
My thinking is if I can use that money within a year or 2 to secure some land when prices drop, and be a true steward of my piece, it works out in the end and I don't have to feel so guilty.Refugee from cubicleville:
http://www.morethanabel.net
http://www.morethanabel.net
- Paul64
- Peat
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri 23 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Were "The Levellers" right after all?
by JustinFrankl » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 08:58:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') don't see that civilization's modus operandi is consumption and growth. The Chinese, who are the oldest civilization, have had a philosophy of sustainability during long periods of time (this had a lot to do with finding limits to their resources). It's only logical that the civilizations that tend to invade land and grow as much as possible become the dominant ones until the world is full with people. But once that's happened, I don't see that the civilization post PO would have to be growth-oriented and expansionist by definition.
China may have in the past possessed long term stability in its population, but no longer. In 1949 there were 540 million Chinese. In 1995 there were 1.23 billion, an increase of 228%. In 1950 there were about 2.5 billion people on the planet. In 1995, there were about 5.6 billion people worldwide, an increase of 224%.
In the last 40 years or so, population growth in China has mirrored the growth of the rest of the planet.
And no, civilization post-peak, post-flu, post-climate change doesn't have to be growth and expansionist oriented. But without a different paradigm to replace it, humans will likely keep doing what they did before.
Only in very arcane circles do people talk about stability and sustainability; these ideas are alien and even anathema to most people. Certainly those people sitting atop the pyramids would hate to see a sustainability meme permeate society. Since those at the top of the pyramids tend to have the most say in certain affairs, the sustainability movement is unlikely to make much progress, as sustainability will diminish the size of their pyramids.
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Were "The Levellers" right after all?
by JustinFrankl » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 09:06:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul64', 'T')he smart investors win the game at great cost to others and the planet.
Therein lies our dirty little secret. Any growth that is achieved must come at the expense of the planet or at the expense of other players in the system.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')las, I have retirement money in a mining fund, and it is doing well, so perhaps I am a hypocrite.
My thinking is if I can use that money within a year or 2 to secure some land when prices drop, and be a true steward of my piece, it works out in the end and I don't have to feel so guilty.Guilt is largely a waste of energy, I avoid it when I can.
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
