by aflurry » Wed 17 Sep 2008, 13:26:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hermit', 'I')'d like some help understanding the way in which PO has impacted the current economic collapse. To most, the collapse has come from our own financial and lending practices, but I'm sure that there is a PO aspect.... Can someone help me connect the dots?
it's tough to get big picture analysis like this sometimes, not least because the finance and economic industries are so shot through with obfuscating jargon to hide the ignorance of all the glorified used car salespeople who man the desks at those firms.
but i feel like the whole thing is and must be pretty simple. i was just thinking about how when i was a kid in the 80's. there was all this talk about america losing its manufacturing and industrial base, the real productive economy. on the basis of that, i expected the next few decades to show an decrease in material wealth in my country. instead, the opposite happened. everyone around me lives higher on the hog than they did when i was younger. buying BMW's, houses, electronics, nightclubbing, living on fancy restaurant food.
the reason is simple, and it began with reaganomics. people, institutions, and governments started eating through their savings and living beyond their means. credit became steadily easier to get, and everyone benefited because easier credit led to asset bubbles, and mania economy, which is sustained only by further leveraging the investment.
analysts get caught up in the intricacies of how these asset bubbles form, and self-reinforce, but really that's less important than the simple, easy to understand idea that they are based on investment in non-productive assets instead of productive activities.
anyway, i think you can overlay the timeline of this economic trend neatly over the period of the oil production curve where the rate of increase in production begins to slow, and the curve goes convex. people's expectations for the economy were for it to keep or increase it's rate of growth, but when it's chief energetic input began to taper off, the only way to maintain that economic growth was to decouple and leverage the economy off of this now diminishing growth rate. What I am afraid of is the idea that that leveraging can be maintained, albeit more and more precariously, as long as there is any small increase in the energy input. but as soon as that input rate begins to drop, there is no way in hell to leverage any more, because 0 X anything is still 0.
and at that point you get the proverbial "house of cards."
all of this business about securities debt, creative home loans, financial innovation, are just the details of the methods of sequestering and shuffling debt around and put off the inevitable settling of accounts.
this general framework of understanding makes me somewhat ambivalent about how the accounts are actually settled. whether through bailouts or a hands off "just letting the bastards pay" approach, because i don't think any of us are off the hook or free from blame. or material quality of life for the past 30 years has been based on the activities of these "fat cats" whether we are at the high or low end of the spectrum. and one way or another, we will all pay for it anyway.