Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Group of 20 (G20) Thread (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 16 Nov 2008, 20:34:20

The sinking of freshly minted money into paying off all the debt created over the last decade is precisely why we are not seeing as of yet hyperinflation hitting the product stream.

As Henry & Ben print more money, all the banks are doing with it is reconciling out the balance sheets, accounting for tons of contracts in the CDS market we know little to nothing about. Everyone is a counterparty to someone else, so profit taken one place here int he TRILLIONS just goes to pay off debt in another place ALSO in the TRILLIONS. Where's the money printed after this? Its GONE, the Anti-matter of Debt swallowed up the Matter of freshly printed money, the Monetarization of the debt.

Most of this money is going to resolve the debt problems of the mega rich, who own most of the world, but they don't end up any richer because of it. Think of it this way, if you are a McMansion owner and the Goobermint gives you $1M to pay off your mortgage, GREAT! You no longer owe anything on the McMansion. Thing is, owning the McMansion STILL is a money sink, it makes no money and costs a LOT to operate. Same thing a GM, you could pay off all of GMs outstanding debts with freshly printed money, but that would not make GM a going concern, it STILL makes no money.

The level of worlwide debt created through market derivatives that have little to no relationship to the actual value of the products and services created by any of the companies insured through this market guarantees that if you try to pay off all that debt with new money, all that happens is it disappears into a black hole, matter and anti-matter anhilliating each other. You have not made anything more profitable here at all. You are still stuck with the fact that the economy based on Oil as virtually unlimitless cannot stand. Automobile companies are STILL insolvent, they cost more to run then you can take profit out of them. Its a negative EROEI. Similarly, running a large military machine to steal the Oil necessary from Iraq to keep the machine running ALSO is negative EROEI. It costs more to run the military than you can get in return from the Oil left there.

The collapse you see here is the Death Throes of the Oil based economy. The perpetual motion machine was propelled by free flowing oil easy to get for around 80 years or so, but the low hanging fruit is all GONE now, and the LIABILITY it created of serious Overshoot of population means that for real balance to be achieved here it means more than just Money being destroyed, human lives have to be destroyed also. And they will be, it CANNOT be stopped. It can only be slowed down some, with good policy making it might be slowed to a point that general population aging and death could solve most of it over a couple of generations. Unfortunately, the political will is not there as of yet to grasp this and make policy that accounts for the necessary shrinkage, its too difficult for most people to grasp that mney and human life are inextricably intertwined. Money is an abstraction of resource, and you cannot make something from nothing. There is wealth left in the world, but it is not sufficient to support the population currently inhabitng the earth. People must die, and die they will. By what means remains an open question however, and whether there is leadership to negotiate the trip down the mountain in some other way than simply falling off the edge of the cliff is an open question also.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby AlexdeLarge » Sun 16 Nov 2008, 22:37:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TreeFarmer', 'H')ave you guys watched "money as debt"? I'll put the link below. That video explains in common language why the governemnt has to spend. Paying off debt destroys money, so with everyone paying off debts the money supply is shrinking rapidly. They government has to spend like a drunken sailor to keep from having deflation.

Enjoy http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2583451279



TF


Thanks for the link! Enjoyed watching it!
Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.
User avatar
AlexdeLarge
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1806
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: I have a whole ward

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 17 Nov 2008, 00:51:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jasonraymondson', 'I') should rip the audio and create a new one that is of higher quality and will capture peoples attention more.


Try the first portion of this one instead:

Zeitgeist: Addendum

Clear, concise explanation of money as debt. The main narrative begins about 4 minutes in...
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby CrudeAwakening » Mon 17 Nov 2008, 05:12:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TreeFarmer', 'E')nergy, why is it thatgovernment can borrow money and pay interest, yet it can't print money and not pay interest?

If only more people would ask that question.

Henry Ford once said "If the government can create a dollar bond, it can create a dollar bill".

Strange Rebirth of a Forgotten Idea
"Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
User avatar
CrudeAwakening
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby MrBean » Mon 17 Nov 2008, 07:02:37

If I was a dictator:

1. Cancel all debt. All. Including "money as debt".
2. Socialize all land and rent it to sustainable farming co-ops ("ecovillages"), rent payed in food surpluss to feed the non-farming population, as long as there are those around.
3. To keep the non-farming population busy and out of mischief, make them build something remotely usefull, like wind-mills etc, in return for the farming co-ops that feed them.

That's about it, plus few minor details to be honed out... :)
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby wisconsin_cur » Mon 17 Nov 2008, 07:07:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'I')f I was a dictator:

...

plus few minor details to be honed out... :)


The devil is always in those "few minor details."
http://www.thenewfederalistpapers.com
User avatar
wisconsin_cur
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4576
Joined: Thu 10 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: 45 degrees North. 883 feet above sealevel.

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby MrBean » Mon 17 Nov 2008, 07:32:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'I')f I was a dictator:

...

plus few minor details to be honed out... :)


The devil is always in those "few minor details."


Well, if you wan't to call the minor detail of one-party state led by dictator and absolute monopoly on violence to keep the transition into sustainability orderly process a "devil", that is allowed... so far... :)
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

G20 summit meeting fails to enslave us all

Unread postby Zardoz » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 01:24:51

Another prediction of the conspiracy theorists evaporates. Supposedly, this is where the New World Order was going to be established at last.

Next time for sure, right, CT buffs?

*yawn*

G20 summit shows lack of resolve

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he G20 summit must be considered a disappointing failure, even by the relatively low expectations set for the event. Leaders produced a long agenda of further studies, reports and work, but failed to provide a clear direction or tackle even the most fundamental decisions.

On the key issues, leaders displayed a worrying irresolution. Without unambiguous instructions from the top, discussions between finance ministers and officials will prove protracted and risk getting bogged down in detail. Negotiations between officials can fill in the details; they cannot make the kind of fundamental choices about strategic direction that leaders avoided at the weekend.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby Nickel » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 09:51:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'B')ut it's free trade within the EU. CAP can hardly be considered free trade.


Yeah, that's a good point. The EU still has the ability to put up outward-facing barriers, and I believe it already has a lot of them.
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby galacticsurfer » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 10:02:09

French are French. British are more loyal to Yanks than to EU if there has to be a choice, either/or. However a trade war is conceivable between EU/US, thereby slowly deteriorating the relationship bit by bit. If a PO collapse occurs then regional cooperation would be helpful but who can really expect assistance from abroad when you don't have enough food/fuel for your own country?
"The horror, the horror"
User avatar
galacticsurfer
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed 09 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 14:26:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'I')f I was a dictator:

1. Cancel all debt. All. Including "money as debt".
2. Socialize all land and rent it to sustainable farming co-ops ("ecovillages"), rent payed in food surpluss to feed the non-farming population, as long as there are those around.
3. To keep the non-farming population busy and out of mischief, make them build something remotely usefull, like wind-mills etc, in return for the farming co-ops that feed them.

That's about it, plus few minor details to be honed out... :)

All of that recently have been attempted in Zimbabwe.

1. Debt was canceled.
With annual inflation rate of 500 quintillion % that was childishly easy.

2. They confiscated land from rich and gave it to poor.
They could also give it away to chimps and outcome would be the same.

3. Non farming population there is also doing something (obviously they are not sleeping 24 hrs a day) albeit it doesn't make them any better off.
That is because it is only remotely useful.

Lets do it in America. :-D
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby MrBean » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 15:46:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBean', 'I')f I was a dictator:

1. Cancel all debt. All. Including "money as debt".
2. Socialize all land and rent it to sustainable farming co-ops ("ecovillages"), rent payed in food surpluss to feed the non-farming population, as long as there are those around.
3. To keep the non-farming population busy and out of mischief, make them build something remotely usefull, like wind-mills etc, in return for the farming co-ops that feed them.

That's about it, plus few minor details to be honed out... :)

All of that recently have been attempted in Zimbabwe.

1. Debt was canceled.
With annual inflation rate of 500 quintillion % that was childishly easy.

2. They confiscated land from rich and gave it to poor.
They could also give it away to chimps and outcome would be the same.

3. Non farming population there is also doing something (obviously they are not sleeping 24 hrs a day) albeit it doesn't make them any better off.
That is because it is only remotely useful.

Lets do it in America. :-D


Good observations.

1. Obviously Zimbabwe should have gone all the way and cancel money alltogether instead of merely through hyperinflation. :)

2. What do you have got against chimps, except that they resemble Bush? By all means, giving the confiscated land back to chimps is even better idea!!!

3. In recent news, part of the non-farming population - cops - have been beating other part - doctors and nurses who protested against collapsing health care system. Glad to see them engaging in healthy activities of physical excercise.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Economist advises governments - spend till you drop

Unread postby eXpat » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 16:46:56

You may keep the change.
Bush Said to Tell Aides He Won't Seek Bailout Funds
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration told congressional aides it won't ask lawmakers to release $350 billion remaining as part of the $700 billion U.S. financial- rescue package, people familiar with the matter said.

The administration of President George W. Bush ends in less than 10 weeks, and a delay in submitting a request to lawmakers would leave it to President-elect Barack Obama to tap remaining funds in the bailout fund.

link
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
George Bernard Shaw

You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand
User avatar
eXpat
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3801
Joined: Thu 08 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby gmin » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 23:27:27

fortress Europe's survival depends on continued cheap and reliable supply of natural resources from Russia, north Africa, and Middle East.
not something within EU's reach.
User avatar
gmin
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2006, 04:00:00

Re: G20 summit meeting fails to enslave us all

Unread postby Armageddon » Tue 18 Nov 2008, 23:43:02

Patience young grasshopper
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7450
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: G20 summit meeting fails to enslave us all

Unread postby lowem » Wed 19 Nov 2008, 00:54:31

It was never certain that this was going to be a "wake up next morning and everything changes" kind of thing.
Live quotes - oil/gold/silver
User avatar
lowem
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Singapore

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby Nickel » Wed 19 Nov 2008, 16:45:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gmin', 'f')ortress Europe's survival depends on continued cheap and reliable supply of natural resources from Russia, north Africa, and Middle East.
not something within EU's reach.


They should let us join. :)
User avatar
Nickel
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1927
Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Canada of America
Top

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby evgeny » Wed 19 Nov 2008, 18:04:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gmin', 'f')ortress Europe's survival depends on continued cheap and reliable supply of natural resources from Russia, north Africa, and Middle East.
not something within EU's reach.


The economist's dream was blocked for an IMF serving the rich. Reforms proposed by G20 leaders are too little, too late

Poor old Lord Keynes. The world's press has spent the past week blackening his name. Not intentionally: most of the dunderheads reporting the G20 summit that took place over the weekend really do believe that he proposed and founded the International Monetary Fund. It's one of those stories that passes unchecked from one journalist to another.

The truth is more interesting. At the UN's Bretton Woods conference in 1944, John Maynard Keynes put forward a much better idea. After it was thrown out, Geoffrey Crowther - then the editor of the Economist magazine - warned that "Lord Keynes was right ... the world will bitterly regret the fact that his arguments were rejected." But the world does not regret it, for almost everyone - the Economist included - has forgotten what he proposed.

One of the reasons for financial crises is the imbalance of trade between nations. Countries accumulate debt partly as a result of sustaining a trade deficit. They can easily become trapped in a vicious spiral: the bigger their debt, the harder it is to generate a trade surplus. International debt wrecks people's development, trashes the environment and threatens the global system with periodic crises.

As Keynes recognised, there is not much the debtor nations can do. Only the countries that maintain a trade surplus have real agency, so it is they who must be obliged to change their policies. His solution was an ingenious system for persuading the creditor nations to spend their surplus money back into the economies of the debtor nations.

He proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency - the bancor - which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country's trade deficit or trade surplus.

Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account at the International Clearing Union, equivalent to half the average value of its trade over a five-year period. To make the system work, the members of the union would need a powerful incentive to clear their bancor accounts by the end of the year: to end up with neither a trade deficit nor a trade surplus. But what would the incentive be?

Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But - and this was the key to his system - he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. Any country with a bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations' deficits.

When Keynes began to explain his idea, in papers published in 1942 and 1943, it detonated in the minds of all who read it. The British economist Lionel Robbins reported that "it would be difficult to exaggerate the electrifying effect on thought throughout the whole relevant apparatus of government ... nothing so imaginative and so ambitious had ever been discussed". Economists all over the world saw that Keynes had cracked it. As the Allies prepared for the Bretton Woods conference, Britain adopted Keynes's solution as its official negotiating position.

But there was one country - at the time the world's biggest creditor - in which his proposal was less welcome. The head of the American delegation at Bretton Woods, Harry Dexter White, responded to Keynes's idea thus: "We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no." Instead he proposed an International Stabilisation Fund, which would place the entire burden of maintaining the balance of trade on the deficit nations. It would impose no limits on the surplus that successful exporters could accumulate. He also suggested an International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which would provide capital for economic reconstruction after the war. White, backed by the financial clout of the US treasury, prevailed. The International Stabilisation Fund became the International Monetary Fund. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development remains the principal lending arm of the World Bank.

The consequences, especially for the poorest indebted countries, have been catastrophic. Acting on behalf of the rich, imposing conditions that no free country would tolerate, the IMF has bled them dry. As Joseph Stiglitz has shown, the fund compounds existing economic crises and creates crises where none existed before. It has destabilised exchange rates, exacerbated balance of payments problems, forced countries into debt and recession, wrecked public services and destroyed the jobs and incomes of tens of millions of people.

The countries the fund instructs must place the control of inflation ahead of other economic objectives; immediately remove their barriers to trade and the flow of capital; liberalise their banking systems; reduce government spending on everything except debt repayments; and privatise the assets which can be sold to foreign investors. These happen to be the policies which best suit predatory financial speculators. They have exacerbated almost every crisis the IMF has attempted to solve.

You might imagine that the US, which since 1944 has turned from the world's biggest creditor to the world's biggest debtor, would have cause to regret the position it took at Bretton Woods. But Harry Dexter White ensured that the US could never lose. He awarded it special veto powers over any major decision made by the IMF or the World Bank, which means that it will never be subject to the fund's unwelcome demands. The IMF insists that the foreign exchange reserves maintained by other nations are held in the form of dollars. This is one of the reasons why the US economy doesn't collapse, no matter how much debt it accumulates.

On Saturday the G20 leaders admitted that "the Bretton Woods institutions must be comprehensively reformed". But the only concrete suggestions they made were that the IMF should be given more money and that poorer nations "should have greater voice and representation". We've already seen what this means: a tiny increase in their voting power, which does nothing to challenge the rich countries' control of the fund, let alone the US veto.

Is this the best they can do? No. As the global financial crisis deepens, the rich nations will be forced to recognise that their problems cannot be solved by tinkering with a system that is constitutionally destined to fail. But to understand why the world economy keeps running into trouble, they first need to understand what was lost in 1944.
User avatar
evgeny
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon 11 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby Quinny » Wed 19 Nov 2008, 18:28:04

Evgeny - thanks for that - I wouldn't mind reading more - what's your source.

Forgot to say, but - A bit like Reverse Engineers relative used to say - neither a lender or a borrower be.......
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: G20 meeting beginning of fortress Europe?

Unread postby evgeny » Wed 19 Nov 2008, 18:43:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'E')vgeny - thanks for that - I wouldn't mind reading more - what's your source.

Forgot to say, but - A bit like Reverse Engineers relative used to say - neither a lender or a borrower be.......


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund
User avatar
evgeny
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon 11 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron