Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE WWII Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Who deserves most credit for winning WWII?

Russia, because it singlehandedly destroyed Hitler and the Third Reich, sacrificing 26 million Russians in the process
33
No votes
The local Resistance movements in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc... for their enormous courage in sabotaging the Nazi war machine locally
4
No votes
The former 'colonial subjects', because even though they were still being oppressed by the Western world, they fought in a war that was least of all theirs; colonial subjects from North Africa, Black Africa, India, Burma
4
No votes
 
Total votes : 41

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby Jaymax » Tue 20 Sep 2005, 20:42:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('richardmmm', 'S')o we need to worry about peak debt bubble alot more than peak oil.


For once, I tend to agree with you. I think many people are as in denial about our monetary crisis as they are about peak oil.


And for two seconds I will break my hiatus to say "me too".

--J
Doomerosity now at 2 (occasionaly 3, was 4)

Currently (mostly) taking a break from posting at po.com. Don't trust the false prophets of doom - keep reading, keep learning, keep challenging your assum
User avatar
Jaymax
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: England
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby entropyfails » Wed 21 Sep 2005, 12:59:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ashurbanipal', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nsolvable formulas (the term you probably wanted to use is undecidable statements, statements whose truth value cannot be determined, but this is a minor point)


Actually, it isn't. Principia Mathematica aside, math and logic are different enough at least that terms differ. I dare you to assign a truth value for x in the equation x+3=x-7 by any existing and generally acknowledged system of logic. At best, this is going to be taken as as logical atom and the whole thing assigned a truth value (in this case, it will always be FALSE).


While I agree with some of your general principals, I don't understand this point in your post. Math and logic are the same thing. Any system capable of distinguishing entities and groups of entities holds within it the entire foundations of both mathematics and logic. We've known this since 1930 and you have typed this into a machine built on that premise.

You don't assign truth values for variables. You assign truth to statements in a system. Your equations is provably false because by using = and + and - in your equation, you imply the use of the meanings of those terms. Hence you subtract x from both sides of the equation and get 3 = -7. That is provably false by the law of identity in the system that you have used.

That comports to an idea in natural reasoning that we have codified into a system of symbolic manipulation system called logic. Now any sufficiently powerful system will have equations in which we cannot decide the truth of by the rules of said system. We denote this by saying that math and logic are incomplete.

Obviously, we have an unsolvable system issue here (ie undecidable). We cannot find out our equations balance (ie hold true across our situation) because of the huge number of variables involved. In fact, we will never know until after the fact if our numbers add up because the error margins in our analysis will quickly sum up to be greater than any value we want to get out of the system.

Anyone who says, "we can get out of this" has no more knowledge than someone who says "we cannot get out of this." Hence I prefer the middle ground here... I don't know.

But given the general trends, I'd say we'll turn peak oil into peak coal into peak wood. Then we'll eat off the last bits of our shattered environment and kill off humans and all other large lifeforms on the planet. Unless we can find a way to change our cultural vision.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby ashurbanipal » Wed 21 Sep 2005, 16:48:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile I agree with some of your general principals, I don't understand this point in your post. Math and logic are the same thing. Any system capable of distinguishing entities and groups of entities holds within it the entire foundations of both mathematics and logic. We've known this since 1930 and you have typed this into a machine built on that premise.


In part, this is incorrect, and in part, it depends on your level of analysis. I agree with Russell and Whitehead that, ultimately, mathematics is founded on set theory, which in turn is logic. But what mathematicians actually do and what logicians actually do are somewhat different, enough that mathematicians speak of unsolvable equations, while logicians talk of unsatisfiable or indeterminate expressions, propositions, sentences, etc. depending on whose system you're using. That was my point; ES tried to nitpick with a ridiculous and irrelevant critique, I responded appropriately.

As to whether logic or math is founded on the ability to distinguish entities...I don't know that the matter is that clear.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou don't assign truth values for variables. You assign truth to statements in a system. Your equations is provably false because by using = and + and - in your equation, you imply the use of the meanings of those terms. Hence you subtract x from both sides of the equation and get 3 = -7. That is provably false by the law of identity in the system that you have used.


Sorry if something I wrote seemed confusing, but that was my point. It seemed to me that ES was trying to tell me that truth values were to be assigned for variables in mathematical equations, which is (as you have noted) incorrect.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat comports to an idea in natural reasoning that we have codified into a system of symbolic manipulation system called logic. Now any sufficiently powerful system will have equations in which we cannot decide the truth of by the rules of said system. We denote this by saying that math and logic are incomplete.


Well, I don't know that that (i.e. exactly what you said, above) comports to logic. But I am familiar with Godel and calculability issues.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')bviously, we have an unsolvable system issue here (ie undecidable). We cannot find out our equations balance (ie hold true across our situation) because of the huge number of variables involved. In fact, we will never know until after the fact if our numbers add up because the error margins in our analysis will quickly sum up to be greater than any value we want to get out of the system.


It may be that the system we're attempting to model is
so complex that it becomes practically incalculable. But that has nothing to do with formal incalculability or indeterminability. I think that the salient facts can be determined with a sufficiently small margin of error that reasonable certainty will be possible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyone who says, "we can get out of this" has no more knowledge than someone who says "we cannot get out of this." Hence I prefer the middle ground here... I don't know.

There's always some room for skepticism, but I believe this is not correct. I've been spending a lot of time going over the posts in the more important (or, at least, longer) threads on these boards, and I see this position turn up rather a lot. It's coming up on the thread with Michael Lynch quite a bit. I plan to post more when I have finished my analysis, but it appears to me that Lynch, and those who agree with him, are doing everything they can to confuse the issue. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. In fact, there are a manageable number of salient facts and attendant data, and the rest are red herrings. They're confusing, as nearly as I am able to tell, because people are not used to thinking rigorously about an argument.

Of course, if part of your definition of knowledge includes indelible or unshakeable certainty, then you're right. But you'd be able to say the same about, literally, everything.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut given the general trends, I'd say we'll turn peak oil into peak coal into peak wood. Then we'll eat off the last bits of our shattered environment and kill off humans and all other large lifeforms on the planet. Unless we can find a way to change our cultural vision.

I don't know that a complete die-off is going to happen. In fact, I'd say there's a pretty good chance it will not.
User avatar
ashurbanipal
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: A land called Honalee
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby deconstructionist » Thu 22 Sep 2005, 11:50:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('airstrip1', 'B')y any rational standards human existence has always been futile because there are ultimately no winners and no survivors. It does not require Peak Oil to make it so. Given that we are all engaged in an existential struggle for meaning in an uncaring universe I would suggest that all arguments about whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about the future are simply pointless.

In agreement with the above theory, Douglas Adams said that God offered this answer to the meaning and purpose of existance: "We apologize for the inconvenience."
:-D


if x+7 = x-3
then x = infinity

As for the optimist/pessimist argument... i'm somewhat of a pessimist. but i'm past the point where i really enjoy the optimist vs. pessimist debate anymore... though i do get sucked into it now and again. i feel like fighting for either side is a losing battle. no one on either side is being convinced of anything, the argument eventually breaks down to name-calling and insults, and it does not foster an environment where we can work together despite our different outlooks.

the optimist believes that we will use less and things will be just fine. there will be a techno-fix or things will get more local, everyone will be better off, and the stubborn pessimist point of view is just fear-mongering. the pessimist believes that we will use less and things will become really crappy and many people will not survive. there is no techno-fix and the stubborn optimist point of view will bring on the collapse even faster. we both agree on something--we have to use less.

optmists and pessimists need to respect each other's view points and work together towards reducing consumption of fossil fuels. we don't neccessarily need to change viewpoints, we need to change our behavior and attempt to serve as an example to our neighbors and the members of our local communities to do the same. let's start now, and let's work together. the peak oil movement cannot stand to be partisan--we are all looking for the same thing--a viable world to live in post-peak.
UNLESS
User avatar
deconstructionist
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat 25 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Salem, MA
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby aflurry » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 15:58:27

entropyfails wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyone who says, "we can get out of this" has no more knowledge than someone who says "we cannot get out of this." Hence I prefer the middle ground here... I don't know.

But given the general trends, I'd say we'll turn peak oil into peak coal into peak wood. Then we'll eat off the last bits of our shattered environment and kill off humans and all other large lifeforms on the planet. Unless we can find a way to change our cultural vision.


ashurbanipal responded:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know that a complete die-off is going to happen. In fact, I'd say there's a pretty good chance it will not.


that's a funny switcheroo. the agnostic goes full-bore doomer and has to be pulled out of the well by the pessimist.

mr./ms. ashurbanipal, i like your style. and though i guess this is a rant thread by definition, i do think it is useful to look at the respective traps which ensnare the optimist and pessimist. i'd like to see this done with a more forgiving attitude than is often practiced on these forums, because the difference between the two does not seem to me to be the primary schism in the understanding of peak oil. we all have our coping methods, after all.

i will allow that i am given to pessimism by birth or by rearing. i will also allow that nihilism creeps in, sometimes as a nervous desire for oblivion, sometimes as a contempt for the booooring culture that gave us this mess. my optimism, such as it is, tends to come in the form of feeling like the shit was going to come down at some point anyway, a couple hundred years one way or the other. might as well be happy to live in interesting times.... kind of a euphoric pessimism, actually. give me a break it's the best i can come up with.

anyway, given all this, i try to be aware of the line over which pessimism becomes nihilism. one so-called optimist accusation used against the pessimist is that the pessimist WANTS this to happen. (kind of a high price to pay just to be right.) makes me think of the first Simmons lecture I heard, which he opened up with an odd line: (paraphrased) "Don't get me wrong, I think abundant cheap energy has been a good thing." Hmm, true or false? I don't know. but, does my retrospective disgust over the misuse of abundant energy in modern civ make me want PO to come like an avenging angel and clean it all up? i think it is worth considering for me, alone, in the dark, but not something i should have to defend against in a public argument as a result of the optimists common ploy, which is:

Overstatement!
-overstate the pessimist's argument and then gloat over how silly it seems. demonstrated often in threads on climate change.
-what ever happened to that BiGG guy anyway?

Anyway, aside from a few nutjobs running around here, i think most of the optimists are here for the same reason i am, and their perspective is valuable. PO is a scary thing, and blind faith in the mythology of human ingenuity is a fine shelter from fear. hope it lasts.
User avatar
aflurry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby aflurry » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 16:10:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('richardmmm', 'S')o we need to worry about peak debt bubble alot more than peak oil.


For once, I tend to agree with you. I think many people are as in denial about our monetary crisis as they are about peak oil.


I don't have anything handy to back this up. But is there any support for the view that the debt bubble began expanding as a result of US48 oil peaking in the 70's? That is, we did not allow our economy to contract with our resource base, but instead began an eroding process of expansion through credit?

In this way, isn't the debt bubble just a symptom of peak oil, relatively localized?
User avatar
aflurry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 16:26:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('richardmmm', 'S')o we need to worry about peak debt bubble alot more than peak oil.


For once, I tend to agree with you. I think many people are as in denial about our monetary crisis as they are about peak oil.


I don't have anything handy to back this up. But is there any support for the view that the debt bubble began expanding as a result of US48 oil peaking in the 70's? That is, we did not allow our economy to contract with our resource base, but instead began an eroding process of expansion through credit?

In this way, isn't the debt bubble just a symptom of peak oil, relatively localized?


If one can find a correlation between easy credit in the 70's and the US abandoning the gold standard in 1971 (same year US oil peaked) then maybe there is support.

The debt bubble started in 1913 following the FED reserve. No debt in 1912, 1 billion in 1913. The rest is history. We grew the debt even in the face of an oil glut.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby aflurry » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 17:16:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')f one can find a correlation between easy credit in the 70's and the US abandoning the gold standard in 1971 (same year US oil peaked) then maybe there is support.

The debt bubble started in 1913 following the FED reserve. No debt in 1912, 1 billion in 1913. The rest is history. We grew the debt even in the face of an oil glut.


Hmm. So then if this debt has existed for so long, why the sudden urgency (eclipsing that of peak oil)? I don't ask this rhetorically. Our current debt situation seems to me intuitively unmanageable. But WTF do I know? 1 bil probably seemed like alot in 1913 too, but here we are today still scraping along. Because debt is to me a more purely financial idea than oil reserves, which have geological limitations, i can more easily imagine that it is not ready to bite us in the ass, as people claim. with PO on the other hand, my imagination tends to veer in the other direction.

if debt started 58 years before the abandonment of the gold standard, why do i need to tie debt to the abandonment of the GS? the connection between oil peaking and the explosion of debt seems more cause-and-effect-y than that of fiat currency -> debt explosion, especially since, as you point out, the effect precedes the cause.

school me please.
User avatar
aflurry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 20:17:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', ' ')Hmm. So then if this debt has existed for so long, why the sudden urgency (eclipsing that of peak oil)? I don't ask this rhetorically. Our current debt situation seems to me intuitively unmanageable.


Well, for starters, if not for the dollar hegemony, we would have gone the way of Argentina long ago. We used to do the lending; the #1 creditor. Now we are the #1 debtor.

40% of our GDP growth is financial speculation. In other words, we borrow money from the Chinese and sell our houses to each other with it. We use the "wealth generation" to go to Wal-Mart and buy Chinese stuff.

The trade deficit is unsustainable, it must narrow.

Either we become the #1 exporter, or the #1 saver of money or we raise interest rates. Guess which one the FED has chosen to use?

It's a bit of financial terrorism, so to speak; the only reason the foreign central banks continue to buy our debt is because the Chinese do. And they do it to fund our consumption of their goods in order to modernize China. How long they will continue to do so is anybody's guess.

But that is what is fueling our economy and theirs. USA debt.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')f debt started 58 years before the abandonment of the gold standard, why do i need to tie debt to the abandonment of the GS? the connection between oil peaking and the explosion of debt seems more cause-and-effect-y than that of fiat currency -> debt explosion, especially since, as you point out, the effect precedes the cause.


Exactly. But going off the gold standard unleased the money dog. We no longer had anything to curb our monetary expansion. The value of money was now based upon faith, not gleeming gold bars.

And that faith is based upon exponential growth in a finite world to repay all that borrowed money.

Can you imagine how fast the compounded debt will escalate once we no longer have the ability to grow the economy as in the past?

What will we tell the owners of the debt we owe? Sorry, just because the US borrowed 80% of the world's savings doesn't mean we intend to pay it back? Will there be a struggle for energy resources to grow economies and repay debts? What irony; a war with our banker over energy resources to repay our loans to them. :lol:

Hell, we can't grow the economy fast enough in a cheap oil world to pay off the debt. :lol:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby rogerhb » Wed 28 Sep 2005, 20:23:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Maddog', 'S')o the Optimist reasons that it has to have a solution and continue to try and solve it while the Pessimist just gives up and uses facts saying it's false. Wow, isn't that just like this website sometimes.


No, we're voluntarily reducing our level of complexity, which is a far far cry from both giving up and hoping for a solution.
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby aflurry » Thu 29 Sep 2005, 11:16:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')ell, for starters, if not for the dollar hegemony, we would have gone the way of Argentina long ago. We used to do the lending; the #1 creditor. Now we are the #1 debtor.

40% of our GDP growth is financial speculation. In other words, we borrow money from the Chinese and sell our houses to each other with it. We use the "wealth generation" to go to Wal-Mart and buy Chinese stuff.

The trade deficit is unsustainable, it must narrow.


But contrary to what you may have predicted early on, we did NOT go the way of Argentina. I mean, I have all the sympathy in the world for the argument, but the results of these financial arrangements can be surprising. The relationship with the chinese you are describing could also be described as absorbing the productive chinese economy into our own consumptive american economy. As long as the dollar DOES remain hegemonic, maybe the system is not so endangered as you describe. And while I can see many political reasons for people wanting to take the dollar down worldwide, I see fewer economic reasons. I am not saying this is desirable, right, or even necessarily sustainable. I am just saying you may be wrong about the imminent collapse of this system.

I'll just give you an example of where I am coming from. My mother, bless her, was a back-to-the-land hippie. (except she got kicked off the land... what does that make her now?) Her explanation for living most of her life in poverty was that she had expected the monetary system to collapse. She is a brilliant pessimist... kinda like you. But it's 30 years later now, and she still has to pay rent in dollars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ither we become the #1 exporter, or the #1 saver of money or we raise interest rates. Guess which one the FED has chosen to use?

I'm sorry, remind me what power does the Fed have over the first two?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')How long they will continue to do so is anybody's guess.
But that is what is fueling our economy and theirs. USA debt.

I think this is kind of my point. They have lots of incentive to continue at this point. Why would they, or more importantly, how could they stop?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Exactly. But going off the gold standard unleased the money dog. We no longer had anything to curb our monetary expansion. The value of money was now based upon faith, not gleeming gold bars.
And that faith is based upon exponential growth in a finite world to repay all that borrowed money.
Can you imagine how fast the compounded debt will escalate once we no longer have the ability to grow the economy as in the past?


See, I really am trying to understand this "glory days of the gold standard" argument. I just haven't been able to yet. I am frustrated that most of the explanations of the theory get bogged down in hyperbole and pedantic dismissals. Why is it so obvious that "faith based" - talk about politically charged rhetoric - money is less secure than "gleeming (sic) gold bars"?

Now, the finite world issue... well that just comes back to peak oil doesn't it? see? try as i might to escape it, i always come back to the view that this is our primary problem.

As for exponential growth. That wasn't happening prior to 1971? Sure it was. Exposential growth has nothing to do with the gold standard.
User avatar
aflurry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Mon 28 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby ashurbanipal » Thu 29 Sep 2005, 17:45:52

I know these points weren't addressed to me, but I couldn't really resist here:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut contrary to what you may have predicted early on, we did NOT go the way of Argentina.


The reason we didn't is because we have simultaneously established a military hegemony. Despite our recent poor showings in Vietnam and Iraq 2, most world leaders understand that we are very good at deposing people that screw with our economy too much, or bombing their countries to dust. We're the only country to have demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons in war. For a long time, people were very scared of American military might. This is becoming less and less the case by the day; very soon we will no longer have an obvious military hegemony, and we will need to either win another big and bloody war with a credible opponent, or give up financial supremacy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he relationship with the chinese you are describing could also be described as absorbing the productive chinese economy into our own consumptive american economy.


Eventually, and probably before too long, the Chinese are going to want it for themselves. Karl Marx will be proved right in that regard.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s long as the dollar DOES remain hegemonic, maybe the system is not so endangered as you describe. And while I can see many political reasons for people wanting to take the dollar down worldwide, I see fewer economic reasons. I am not saying this is desirable, right, or even necessarily sustainable. I am just saying you may be wrong about the imminent collapse of this system.


I, too, do not see the financial system of the United States collapsing in the very near future. The signs are dire, though, and I wouldn't give it more than another couple years. Whoever replaces Bush may come up with something brilliant, who knows. I don't like to place hope in such thinking.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ll just give you an example of where I am coming from. My mother, bless her, was a back-to-the-land hippie. (except she got kicked off the land... what does that make her now?) Her explanation for living most of her life in poverty was that she had expected the monetary system to collapse. She is a brilliant pessimist... kinda like you. But it's 30 years later now, and she still has to pay rent in dollars.


That someone (even your mother) concluded something in the past and was proven wrong doesn't mean that concluding the same today is also wrong.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m sorry, remind me what power does the Fed have over the first two?

The Fed doesn't have the authority to legislate regarding imports and exports. However, their ability to set the prime rate affects both in predictable ways.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think this is kind of my point. They have lots of incentive to continue at this point. Why would they, or more importantly, how could they stop?

They will stop when they are convinced the United States is weakened enough that we can be taken down. That's nature, it's what aggressive animals do to one another. It (i.e. the massive debt owed) will provide both the pretext and impetus for either military or legal action.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ee, I really am trying to understand this "glory days of the gold standard" argument. I just haven't been able to yet. I am frustrated that most of the explanations of the theory get bogged down in hyperbole and pedantic dismissals. Why is it so obvious that "faith based" - talk about politically charged rhetoric - money is less secure than "gleeming (sic) gold bars"?

Of course, gold itself is not valuable, at least not any more than dollars are. It has no real use except, if you happen to believe in alchemy, it may be necessary to make the Medicine of Metals. But it's liquid supply increases roughly in step with the liquid supply of other things of value--i.e. arable land, food stocks, fuel, medicine, etc. As people invest energy in those other things, they dig gold out of the earth, and thus it becomes a useful proxy for how much actual value exists in the world. Furthermore, as countries either produce their own gold, or trade other things of value for it, their gold stocks increase, so it becomes a proxy for the total amount of value in a given nation's economy.

It takes a lot less energy to print paper money than to get gold out of the earth and refine it; the stocks of paper money are (relative to gold) nearly limitless. If the money supply is constrained to not expand beyond the supply of gold available, then we're reasonably assured that the amount of money in circulation can be matched to the amount of energy, either already invested or potential, in the economy. But when we can print money without retraint, we can easily print way more money than could be presented as actual value available. And that's exactly what we have done, especially if you count as "currency" other liquid securities such as stocks, options contracts, etc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow, the finite world issue... well that just comes back to peak oil doesn't it? see? try as i might to escape it, i always come back to the view that this is our primary problem.

In a sense it does, and when it happens, it will be worse than the looming economic crisis by a long shot. It will represent a lessened ability to generate things of real value. What's coming in the more immediate future (probably) is a mass realization that there are more dollars than what they represent should warrant. Way more. Either money will have to be taken out of circulation (meaning everyone gets a lot less of it per annum) or it will be devalued (which makes the same difference).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for exponential growth. That wasn't happening prior to 1971? Sure it was. Exposential growth has nothing to do with the gold standard.

Well, that's not really the way to think about it. Growth was a lot slower prior to 1971. Money supply increased in roughly the same proportion to things of actual value. The enormous growth was fueled by oil. That's no longer the case. It's easy to see that eventually that has to lead to disaster. Whether that happens at the point when there aren't enough things of actual value for the people in the system to survive, or before it, is anyone's guess. It's worth pointing out that what we've done so far, as resources have proven inadequate to support the population of earth, is to simply remove people from the monetary system as ill-fortune befell them. Witness the easily prevented plagues, famines, and environmental disasters of the "third world."
User avatar
ashurbanipal
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: A land called Honalee
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby smiley » Thu 29 Sep 2005, 19:04:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')magine that there are two guys--one a pessimist, the other an optimist--looking at a formula scrawled on a chalkboard.


Here's the optimist's solution.

if x+8 = x-3 then (x + 8 )^2 = (x-3)^2

x^2 + 16x + 64 = x^2 -6x + 9

22 x = -55

x = - 55/22

That is the problem with the optimists, on the surface their solutions look fine, but they never bother to test their solutions on the original problem.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: WWII and related pseudo topics

Postby rogerhb » Thu 29 Sep 2005, 19:19:35

I just thought I would share my new signature.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Top

WWII is about to finally end.

Postby Micki » Mon 25 May 2009, 09:19:41

I didn't know but apparently Japan and Russia have been at war since WW2.
Technically speaking I thougth that would have ended the state of war when Sovjet disintegrated but now Japan and Russsia are about the formallise peace agreement and if of course has some interesting consequences for US. From Privateer (sorry no link)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')PECIAL REPORT: WORLD WAR II IS ENDING
Global post war WW II geo-politics and geo-strategy have been shifted this week in Tokyo after a visit by Russian Prime Minister Putin on Tuesday, May 12. Mr Putin and hi delegation and his Japanese opposite numbers have pledged to resolve a decades old territorial northern islands border dispute.

One of the anomalies after the end of WW II was that a formal peace treaty between Japan and the USSR was never signed. Nor has one been signed with Russia after the USSR disappeared in 1991.

The Historical Background:
Technically as well as diplomatically, Russia and Japan are still at war. It is as if WW II had never ended. It is this still ongoing state of war between Russia and Japan which has given the United States the political foundation for the placement of its armed forces on the soil of Japan. As the occupying power, the United States was made internationally responsible for the defence of Japan.

In the immediate aftermath of WW II, the US and Japan signed the Peace Of San Francisco to make this relationship formal. De facto and de jure, Japan is today still formally occupied by the United States.

Suddenly - PEACE Breaks Out:
Prime Minister Putin's official state visit to Japan over this past week has set both Russia and Japan on the fast track towards a full, formal PEACE TREATY, ending the state of war between them. At the official signing of such a peace treaty, any need for Japan to be defended by anybody against Russia disappears. As a result, the US geo-politically loses the foundation stone for its armed presence in Japan.

Geo-strategically, a US military withdrawal from Japan's soil has to follow, or the US makes itself into a genuine military occupation force in Japan, maintaining its position there solely by means of armed force.

Doing so in the plain face of a Russian/Japanese peace treaty would cast a hard light indeed upon US bases in Japan. That light would also shine on the other 740 military bases the US has worldwide.

The Japanese/Russian Tokyo Peace Summit:
At the talks in Tokyo, both sides said that they would study "all options" to end their standoff over a Russian held island chain that was occupied by Soviet troops at the end of World War II. Japan's Prime Minister Aso told the joint press briefing this: "We must reach a final resolution on the sovereignty over the four islands in order to remove the obstacle of the territorial issue that lies between Japan and Russia." Prime Minister Putin had different priorities. Putin reiterated his view that both countries should strengthen economic ties before they resolve the dispute and finally sign a post-war peace treaty.

Prime Minister Putin said this: "We are developing economic cooperation in order to create conditions for the signing of a peace treaty." "We should strive to cleanse ...our relations of everything that stands in the way of their development." Note very carefully here that Putin's act of moving the Tokyo Peace Talks into the commercial realm makes them a matter of the economic price Japan has to pay Russia to get its four northern islands back. No political or future strategic price is involved. This makes it clear that in principle, a peace treaty has already been agreed to between Russia and Japan.

On a global timing basis, the fully formal announcement of a peace treaty between Russia and Japan is very likely in early June, simply because President Obama is to visit Europe on June 6 - D-Day - to again remind the Europeans of what the US did back then. Obama then flies to Moscow for his first State visit.
Micki
 
Top

Re: WW2 about the finally end.

Postby outcast » Mon 25 May 2009, 10:21:06

Technically, Japan and Italy are still at war. After Mussolini got booted from power, Japan considered it a betrayal and declared war.
Y2K is real. Y2K is going to rock our world.
-Kunstler

Don't respond, I'll just ignore it.
-MonteQuest
User avatar
outcast
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 885
Joined: Mon 21 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: WW2 about the finally end.

Postby mos6507 » Mon 25 May 2009, 10:42:53

IMHO, Japan should be let loose to defend itself on its own without any WWII era restrictions. Enough already.
mos6507
 
Top

Re: WW2 about the finally end.

Postby RdSnt » Mon 25 May 2009, 11:04:21

Being a chess grand master certainly does come in handy at times :lol:
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada
Top

Re: WW2 about the finally end.

Postby Pretorian » Mon 25 May 2009, 17:00:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I')MHO, Japan should be let loose to defend itself on its own without any WWII era restrictions. Enough already.

Better yet , it should be cut of any energy imports, like it was before it "attacked" Pearl Harbor
Pretorian
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4685
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Somewhere there
Top

Re: WW2 about the finally end.

Postby Micki » Mon 25 May 2009, 19:46:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', 'B')etter yet , it should be cut of any energy imports, like it was before it "attacked" Pearl Harbor

I think the Nipps are seeing the writing of wall. That is why they are int eh alternative energy business...whale oil.
Micki
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron