# American economy vs. Chinese economy



## Almaviva

Today I heard on POTUS (a satellite radio channel that is supposed to be non-partisan) a depressing assessment of America's current economic troubles, in part related to China's rise.

The economist who was being interviewed (I didn't catch his name) was extremely pessimistic.

Basically he said that China has purchased American debt in such a way that the injected money indirectly caused the housing bubble with excessive credit being extended to the population. Meanwhile China's strategy of cheap labor caused many of our most important factories to move there.

Then the bubble burst; we were left with foreclosed empty houses, and they were left with our factories and jobs.

Now we have lost, maybe irreversibly, our means of production. According to this economist, even if/when we balance our budget and stop the mounting debt, the damage has been done already and he doesn't see how it can be undone.

He said that in the past Americans were resilient, got to work, and fixed similar troubles. However now America has a poorly educated workforce (as compared to that of the budding Asian nations) and a complete lack of competitivity with China in terms of industrial production. They are outplaying us in fuel consumption as well and the markets are looking to them to sell their production. As they grow more and more they will become the main consumers of oil and will start calling the shots in that market, causing more shortage here, with the usual consequences (higher gas prices, higher inflation, lower industrial production due to lack of sources of energy, power grid problems, etc.). Our inevitable inflation (which he predicts will make a return in full force relatively soon) and currency devaluation (stemming from our growing debt) at one point will make the dollar lose its places as the reference currency and the OPEC currency. Countries will start to sell their reserves in dollar, adding to the downward spiral of our currency. We may see a race to sell dollars in the international market.

Doom is ahead. It looks like the decline of the American empire is inevitable and can't be reversed any longer.

I remember when items made in China were cheap plastic toys. Then they took over the entire toy industry. And lately they have taken over mostly everything else, with a few exceptions (automotive industry, medical equipment, airplanes, weapon systems). Yes, these are big industries in which we still have a good foothold. But they will probably be the next targets of the Chinese (not to forget that there will be competition from other emerging economies as well - India, Russia, Brazil... the latter, for example, has already started making and selling airplanes - next time you fly JetBlue, pay attention, chances are you'll be flying on an aircraft made in Brazil).

The journalist asked if the 2012 elections could change our fate. The economist said he doesn't believe it will; he doesn't think it's a question of liberal or conservative politics, but rather one of geopolitical economic forces that will continue to develop independently of who is our president or who controls Congress. He said that he doubts the ability of our politicians to do anything anyway, since our current political process never results in consensus and truly significant bi-partisan action. American politicians, he said, are short-sighted and will rather engage in political posturing seeking re-election, instead of actually working to fix problems. Unlike our politicians, the Asian ones are pragmatic, smart, and have been working sharply to develop their countries and to become the leading world region. He said that the Asian countries seem more flexible in adopting sensible regulations and engaging in sacrifices with a longer-term objective in mind, while we Americans are bloated and spoiled and will cling to privileges and won't work for a common goal.

The economist said that if tomorrow Chinese factories decided to stop making iPods, iPhones, and iPads, we westerners would have to do without these items. They all come from China now.

Last week I did some home improvement projects. The new tiles for my bathroom were made in China, as was the grout to glue them together. The new high-end chandelier for the foyer was made in China, just like the other light fixtures we got (not cheap plastic-looking any longer). Damn, I just checked: the Acer laptop I'm using to type this is made in China.

We have lost the race, folks. We won't recover. We're doomed.

Opinions?


----------



## samurai

I think that you make some excellent and well-reasoned points in defense of your argument. I wish I could poke a hole in your overall conclusion, but I am hard pressed to do so. I guess our only hope at this juncture is that the Chinese don't decide to pull the economic rug out from under us in the foreseeable future, as this would most likely ruin them as well {I guess the best analogy in this case might be that of "throwing out the baby with the bath water".} 
I also firmly believe that until--and unless--we cut our complete dependence on oil from the Middle East, we will continue to be not only at the mercy of the Chinese and the OPEC countries, but will more and more resemble one of those nations of the "third world", who not so long ago were turning to us for financial help. 
I don't know if I would go quite so far as you in declaring us "doomed", but it is indeed not a pretty forecast--at least in the near term.
p.s. Might the economist to whom you refer in your post is Paul Krugman of the New York Times?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Almaviva said:


> The new high-end chandelier for the foyer was made in China, just like the other light fixtures we got (not cheap plastic-looking any longer). Damn, I just checked: the Acer laptop I'm using to type this is made in China.


:lol: Your chandelier comment just about puts it nicely.

I think you might be a touch pessimistic. America is not "doomed" - your living standard is not going to plummet to that of a developing economy. China is king of manufacturing because it has the comparative advantage in doing so, meaning that it is relatively cheaper for it to manufacture the damn things we all buy (like the iPods, the toys, the clothes, the chandeliers :lol: ), compared with if it was manufactured domestically in America or indeed, here in Australia. Our nations will find it mutually beneficial to engage in trade because we will have other stuff that China will want. That, very broadly, addresses the trade issue that appears to trouble many folks seeing the "made in China" decalaration.

The real problem domestically for America though, certainly at current times, has to do with your gigantium external/foreign debt (broadly defined as total debt owed to foreign entities by domestic entities, including the government). Without getting too bogged down into subjective arguments, and technical details, the obvious question with regards to huge foreign debt is how does the nation "pay if off"? Most "quick fixes" tend to be: (1) you can cheat by printing money, just like the British did, which sent the Pounds Sterling to one of its lowest levels ever in modern times, (2) and or let the biggest spenders (usually the government) cut spending and or raise taxes. Both are exactly what many countries are doing - but how sustainable is it - not withstanding economic, social and polictical reasons for the merits of doing so.

Socially, I think people in many developed countries like Australia, have become relatively complacement with debt. Take a read of your local papers, news etc., speak with people and you see just about everyone feels "comfortable" or at least find it acceptable, having mortgages that require just about all/most of the bread-winners' employable years to pay off, have mutiple cars, the fancy holiday "put on the mortgage" etc. Debt fuelled aggregate demand on non-productive assets and consumption, especially when the economies tend to have a boom-bust cycle (i.e. a recession every now and then), is precariously dangerous.

There is still a little while yet to go for countries in China, but not that long. Its economic infrastructure which begun not long ago, still has a lot to do before its service industries can match developed countries (as opposed to currently being a manufactured based economy for its exports). Its banking and finance sectors are no way the maturity of ours, not to mention regulatory standards. That said, one does admire the Chinese economy for being responsible for the largest improvement in living standards ever seen in modern times affecting the most number of people (considering there are still many basket economies out there who are still engaged in civil wars for whatever reason).


----------



## science

Being the #2 economy in the world isn't exactly Armageddon. 

Anyway, it's really a mistake to consider national economies in isolation anymore. For instance, we really should Canada and the US a single economy. 

If you're thinking of economies as war engines, in the event of a war with China, everyone loses, but in the end our alliance would have the larger economy. 

Finally, China has a lot of problems too. Little riots all the time, the slow erosion of the party's power, dishonest accounting, an ageing population, and uncontrollable black markets. They will become the #1 economy in the world, but not without some bumps along the way.


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> That said, one does admire the Chinese economy for being responsible for the largest improvement in living standards ever seen in modern times affecting the most number of people (considering there are still many basket economies out there who are still engaged in civil wars for whatever reason).


This is true. A thing too few people appreciate is that the global economic development of the past 30 years or so, especially in China, is the greatest humanitarian accomplishment in human history.


----------



## Legato

science said:


> Being the #2 economy in the world isn't exactly Armageddon.


I keep wondering what's so terrible about it . . . could only be a case of pride, couldn't it? China is doing a fantastic job. Given

"American politicians, he said, are short-sighted and will rather engage in political posturing seeking re-election, instead of actually working to fix problems. Unlike our politicians, the Asian ones are pragmatic, smart, and have been working sharply to develop their countries and to become the leading world region. He said that the Asian countries seem more flexible in adopting sensible regulations and engaging in sacrifices with a longer-term objective in mind, while we Americans are bloated and spoiled and will cling to privileges and won't work for a common goal." [Almaviva]

. . I know which country I'd prefer to be in control.


----------



## science

Oh, no, I'd prefer the US by a lot! 

Let's let China get their GDP/cap up to 25k and run a clean election with a free press before we get too excited.


----------



## Ralfy

Problems for the U.S. began in 1971 when three things happened: U.S. oil production dropped because of peak oil, the U.S. moved away from the gold standard to create more credit to finance wars, and the same dollars were used to purchase resources (including oil) and various goods overseas. That's why the trade deficit started to increase and remained chronic since.

A decade later, the Reagan administration began to deregulate, offer tax cuts, and borrowed more to finance government services. The result was a growing government debt.

During the same period, corporations started to play casino capitalism. During the '70s, they had already started moving manufacturing to other countries because local wages were too high (and they had to be high because more citizens wanted the "American Dream," i.e., a house, car, appliances, college education for the children, a move away from manufacturing to higher-paying jobs in service industries), but now they started to move from Main Street to Wall Street to earn more money.

Citizens received high wages but they were not enough to pay for a middle class lifestyle, so banks began to offer more credit (which they would have done in any event as banks can only earn money by lending money). That with more deregulation during the Clinton administration led to casino capitalism for citizens: buying and selling houses whose prices had never gone down the last eighty years. Wall Street naturally played along, later packaging the toxic assets (i.e., when home prices started dropping because it turned out that the same citizens who borrowed money to buy houses that they couldn't afford were also the same who were supposed to buy the same houses that were taken over by banks) with other investments and offering them to foreigners. At the same time, various investors began to accumulate more debt based on debt (like citizens using houses purchased using loans as collateral to borrow more money and buy more goods), leading to U.S. banks exposed to something like $370 trillion in derivatives.

The results include government debt driven primarily by war costs and tax cuts, household debts at one point reaching 120 pct of disposable income, and a total debt of around $57 trillion cut across households, government, and corporations. In order to support a middle class lifestyle, the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production and similar percentages for various resources. And even as signs of deflation are appearing, increasing demand from emerging middle classes around the world, esp. China and India, is taking place.

Similar phenomena are taking place in other OECD countries, including Japan, and now China: essentially global capitalism driving increasing production and consumption of goods fueled by oil and other resources and financed by increasing credit, with some making more money by issuing more credit. What we are experiencing right now is the result of increasing credit: a credit crunch leading to economic instability. A resource crunch will follow, and that will make a credit crunch look like a walk in the park.


----------



## Almaviva

samurai said:


> p.s. Might the economist to whom you refer in your post is Paul Krugman of the New York Times?


I truly didn't catch his name, I turned the radio on with the interview ongoing and I don't think his name had been repeated by the time I changed channels and got to less depressive content (Met Opera Radio...)


----------



## Almaviva

Legato said:


> Being the #2 economy in the world isn't exactly Armageddon. [science]
> 
> I keep wondering what's so terrible about it . . . could only be a case of pride, couldn't it? China is doing a fantastic job. Given
> 
> "American politicians, he said, are short-sighed and will rather engage in political posturing seeking re-election, instead of actually working to fix problems. Unlike our politicians, the Asian ones are pragmatic, smart, and have been working sharply to develop their countries and to become the leading world region. He said that the Asian countries seem more flexible in adopting sensible regulations and engaging in sacrifices with a longer-term objective in mind, while we Americans are bloated and spoiled and will cling to privileges and won't work for a common goal." [Almaviva]
> 
> . . I know which country I'd prefer to be in control.


I'm not sure the Chinese will be any less imperialistic and any less cruel than we've been once they are in full control. Their track record with neighboring countries and their own regions is not that great. I actually think that one day people will regret the good old days of American leadership, as unlikely as this may sound to non-Americans these days.


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Your chandelier comment just about puts it nicely.


I know, but *my* finances are in order (unlike those of my country) - I have no credit card debt and no other debt except my mortgage which is under good control - so I can allow myself a little splurge here and there. But the tendency is for it all to get worse for me too, as inflation hits, education costs go up (one of my kids will be done with her education soon, but not the other one), health expenses escalate, and all. So I'm doing the home improvement while I can.


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy said:


> Problems for the U.S. began in 1971 when three things happened: U.S. oil production dropped because of peak oil, the U.S. moved away from the gold standard to create more credit to finance wars, and the same dollars were used to purchase resources (including oil) and various goods overseas. That's why the trade deficit started to increase and remained chronic since.
> 
> A decade later, the Reagan administration began to deregulate, offer tax cuts, and borrowed more to finance government services. The result was a growing government debt.
> 
> During the same period, corporations started to play casino capitalism. During the '70s, they had already started moving manufacturing to other countries because local wages were too high (and they had to be high because more citizens wanted the "American Dream," i.e., a house, car, appliances, college education for the children, a move away from manufacturing to higher-paying jobs in service industries), but now they started to move from Main Street to Wall Street to earn more money.
> 
> Citizens received high wages but they were not enough to pay for a middle class lifestyle, so banks began to offer more credit (which they would have done in any event as banks can only earn money by lending money). That with more deregulation during the Clinton administration led to casino capitalism for citizens: buying and selling houses whose prices had never gone down the last eighty years. Wall Street naturally played along, later packaging the toxic assets (i.e., when home prices started dropping because it turned out that the same citizens who borrowed money to buy houses that they couldn't afford were also the same who were supposed to buy the same houses that were taken over by banks) with other investments and offering them to foreigners. At the same time, various investors began to accumulate more debt based on debt (like citizens using houses purchased using loans as collateral to borrow more money and buy more goods), leading to U.S. banks exposed to something like $370 trillion in derivatives.
> 
> The results include government debt driven primarily by war costs and tax cuts, household debts at one point reaching 120 pct of disposable income, and a total debt of around $57 trillion cut across households, government, and corporations. In order to support a middle class lifestyle, the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world's population, has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production and similar percentages for various resources. And even as signs of deflation are appearing, increasing demand from emerging middle classes around the world, esp. China and India, is taking place.
> 
> Similar phenomena are taking place in other OECD countries, including Japan, and now China: essentially global capitalism driving increasing production and consumption of goods fueled by oil and other resources and financed by increasing credit, with some making more money by issuing more credit. What we are experiencing right now is the result of increasing credit: a credit crunch leading to economic instability. A resource crunch will follow, and that will make a credit crunch look like a walk in the park.


Can it be fixed?


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> I'm not sure the Chinese will be any less imperialistic and any less cruel than we've been once they are in full control. Their track record with neighboring countries and their own regions is not that great. I actually think that one day people will regret the good old days of American leadership, as unlikely as this may sound to non-Americans these days.


Most of China's neighbors are running to us. They want to trade with China, of course, but they want to be our friends.

For about the same reasons, South America and China are getting along really well.


----------



## science

I think a few quotes got buggy. I didn't write "I know which country I'd prefer to be in control" and the post I just did quotes Almaviva, not Legato.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Most of China's neighbors are running to us. They want to trade with China, of course, but they want to be our friends.
> 
> For about the same reasons, South America and China are getting along really well.


But we'll be experiencing military decline as well. What many people don't realize is that economic turmoil is a huge risk for national defense. Cutting the military budget is not popular but people don't realize that we can only have the military that we can afford. One of the things the economist said was that we need to rethink our commitments because not being the only superpower shifts things so significantly that we may need to withdraw and focus more on real defense and survival rather than on multiple commitments around the world to ensure the defense of our interests and those of our allies. Our interest these days should be, according to him, first and foremost taking care of our own house and repositioning ourselves in a much smaller way, because trying to continue to be on top by all means will only bring us even further down. It's like we need to downsize, like many businesses have done. He said that we are at the peak of military spending since WWII at a moment when we clearly can't afford it.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I have been amazed for years that the world has allowed the rise of China in this way. How did we 'allow' it? By buying their cheap goods and investing in business in the country. With 1.3 billion people (that's FOUR times that of the USA) and no democracy (whereby people can be put to work as the government chooses for very little money) it is easy for such a country to become economically powerful when other countries conveniently overlook the human rights abuses perpetrated by China and pay hard Dollars for their cheaply-produced goods.

China will soon be responsible for the majority of the pollution on this planet, with no apparent will to 'clean-up' (the arrogance is staggering) and we in the 'free world' will only have ourselves to blame.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Delicious Manager said:


> I have been amazed for years that the world has allowed the rise of China in this way. How did we 'allow' it? By buying their cheap goods and investing in business in the country.


I encourage you to take a look around at your surroundings to identify the goods you have decided to purchase that was "Made in China", before you get too "amazed" by the rest of the world's "approval" for the rise of China.



Delicious Manager said:


> China will soon be responsible for the majority of the pollution on this planet, with no apparent will to 'clean-up' (the arrogance is staggering) and we in the 'free world' will only have ourselves to blame.


Still having the hangover from the empire days, are we? Hint: The Industrial Revolution and its role.


----------



## Delicious Manager

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I encourage you to take a look around at your surroundings to identify the goods you have decided to purchase that was "Made in China", before you get too "amazed" by the rest of the world's "approval" for the rise of China.


I don't need to check. I don't buy anything with 'Made in China' on it. I try not to be a hypocrite.


----------



## Almaviva

Delicious Manager said:


> I don't need to check. I don't buy anything with 'Made in China' on it. I try not to be a hypocrite.


I don't know about the UK, but over here, in many sector of the economy in terms of manufactured goods, there just is no option any longer. Almost everything is made in China. Even in sectors with the last few American made products like automotive, many components inside supposedly American-made cars are still made in China. So easier said then done. Just as a recent example, I badly needed a large capacity air purifier with allergen-grade filter one of these days for a respiratory condition that was making me really sick and my doctor was urging me to get one ASAP. I went to Home Depot and ALL the available models were made in China. Should I just get sicker and sicker in order not to be a hypocrite?


----------



## Delicious Manager

Almaviva said:


> I don't know about the UK, but over here, in many sector of the economy in terms of manufactured goods, there just is no option any longer. Almost everything is made in China. Even in sectors with the last few American made products like automotive, many components inside supposedly American-made cars are still made in China. So easier said then done. Just as a recent example, I badly needed a large capacity air purifier with allergen-grade filter one of these days for a respiratory condition that was making me really sick and my doctor was urging me to get one ASAP. I went to Home Depot and ALL the available models were made in China. Should I just get sicker and sicker in order not to be a hypocrite?


I am luckier than you; I am not suffering from the kind of complaint you describe. If I were, perhaps I would find it more difficult to stick to my 'principles'. You have no (or very little) choice and I wouldn't criticise you for that. The real criticism is aimed at the infrastructure that causes there to be no alternative to a Chinese-made one.

Does anyone remember Tienanmen Square anymore?


----------



## tdc

Delicious Manager said:


> Does anyone remember Tienanmen Square anymore?


I guess a lot of people's beliefs on these types of issues will come down to whether or not they believe the picture the western mainstream media paints. ie - the west as freedom fighting good guys etc.

However, if one looks at other areas in which not all the dots are connecting for example why is the U.S. constantly fighting all over the world, and not seeming to cause any actual peace, happiness or freedom in these countries they are fighting in? Why does the U.S. allow corporate agendas constantly to prevail over human rights in other countries? Why does it look very much like 9/11 was an inside job? etc. If someone is brave enough to look past the spin in the media, and really look at what has been going on in the world in recent decades - and _who has been fighting_? Is it China? All things considered I can see why some might not be too quick to wag their fingers at China's 'human rights abuses'.


----------



## Almaviva

tdc said:


> _who has been fighting_? Is it China?


If you ask the question in Tibet, they'll say yes.


----------



## science

Whether the question is the USA's human rights abuses and violence, or China's human rights abuses and violence, the real question is not who is worse but what can we do about them. 

I don't have the answers, of course, but one thing that is not the answer is acting to keep people impoverished.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> If you ask the question in Tibet, they'll say yes.


I wonder why Xinjiang is never mentioned in this context.


----------



## Argus

Americans are fatter than Chinese people.

Nuff said.


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> Americans are fatter than Chinese people.
> 
> Nuff said.


It's just a matter of time until the Chinese get fat too.


----------



## graaf

After reading Almaviva's great post, I thought to throw a few thoughts of my own here...

tdc was one of the rare members here to directly try to burst the bubble of US as "beacon of freedom" and other US-centric fairy tales. Not to be misunderstood - every country paints itself as best in some way, but in this thread we're talking about US.

US has area of almost 4mil sq miles, 300mil people, vast resources, but the problem is, as always really, in the heads of the people. US population got too carried away by unbelievably high standard of living, whch was on borrowed money (and stolen resources). Working less and less, knowing less and less, and buying more than ever - the joyride had to end. I know almost no one sees their standard of living as luxury, but US people certainly had way of life many people didn't know was possible.

As someone noted, China also needs US for it's boost, but no for long - it's own market is developing, soon they will have their own consumers to run their economy. And with Brazil and India rising, and Russia recovering - I really think the time has come that the world won't have one (1990-2010) or two (1950-1990) superpowers, but truly multipolar world. I just hope US won't cling too strong on remaining their status, but kind of "let the chips fall where they may" approach.

_Does anyone remember Tienanmen Square anymore?_

Or Iraq war for that matter? Oh, wait. That was "freedom fighting"... Just like US war in Lybia is not a war, but "kinetic military action". I'm sure Chinese media had a nice name for Tienanmen event too... After all - "war is peace", right? 

_I actually think that one day people will regret the good old days of American leadership, as unlikely as this may sound to non-Americans these days._

If world turns even a bit multipolar - I doubt it.

_Can it be fixed?_

Don't think so. History has it's course, as Marx said it's all historical necessity. Or, as Robert Allen Zimmerman said: the times they are a-changin'.

_One of the things the economist said was that we need to rethink our commitments because not being the only superpower shifts things so significantly that we may need to withdraw and focus more on real defense and survival rather than on multiple commitments around the world to ensure the defense of our interests and those of our allies._

And at the same time, military power and presence is the only thing that keeps the dollar up at the moment. Just like Japan has it's 2nd decade called "lost decade" (1990s and 2000s) simply because they are not allowed to deploy military out of Japan, which is to say - build an empire - not saying that they should.

I don't think there is any way for US to change the course - the thing is to adopt and fix the country in terms of redistribution of wealth, decent healthcare and education for all, and all the other things Western Europe has had for ages. US has the capacity (unlike poor and desperate Serbia I live in), some kind of New Deal is needed, but I do not see new FDR on the way.


----------



## Almaviva

I agree with almost everything that you just said, graaf.
Just for clarification, I haven't implied here that we are a beacon of freedom.
I was merely talking about the economy.
This said, in other threads I've made known my opinion that we Americans get more maligned around the world than justified, for the simple fact that we were/are neither any better *nor* any worse than other empires that have ruled the world in the past. We've had our share of mistakes, but have also had our share of accomplishments, and alternatives like Nazi rule or Soviet rule in Europe were likely to be worse than what we have done during the time we were on top.
But now our time is clearly over, or if not over just yet, at the very least in steep decline, with an expiration date in sight.
As for what happens next, I don't know, and yes, I think there may be a time when people will look back to our stretch as the dominant power with regrets, depending on what comes ahead.
If Russia, India, China, Brazil, the European Union, another Asian bloc besides China and India including Korea, Singapore, Japan, Indonesia and others, plus Australia and others, etc, make of this world a multipolar entity with strong commerce and mutual support and civilized competition, fine.
But if we see next a completely unbalanced/unchecked growth of Chinese domination and imperialism (they do have a knack for that), plus growing tensions between Muslim nations and the West, plus a spectacular energy crisis and other shortages of resources (e.g. drinking water), and growing military tension among these blocs to ensure survival, then, yes, the world will look back at the relatively prosperous time of American domination with regret. 
Yes, the fact that the OPEC still trades in US dollars is in great measure a consequence of defense treaties and alliances between the US and countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and if we withdraw our military, we may lose the foothold on the currency battle and the stable flow of oil even more.
But then, it seems like we won't be able to hold on to these perks anyway... thanks to our huge debt and pitiful economic performance of late.
In this case, we might as well give up, let this reorganization happen, downsize, withdraw into ourselves, pull out of the commitments, and say to the world: OK, boys, you've been all very comfortable while we fulfilled the role of world police. It's over, we can't afford it any longer, we're in deep trouble, we're looking after ourselves now, and if you want to take over, be our guests, we're out.
What would happen, then? Would China jump to fill the void? Maybe not. They aren't that militarily prepared yet (so maybe the US should pull out sooner rather than later, allowing maybe the European Union rather than China to fill the void). Maybe radical Islam would jump up and ignite the world. Maybe nothing would happen as everybody would be afraid of igniting the world.

But the fact is, we Americans would be less of a target, would be less upsetting to the Islamic world, and would cut a huge portion of our deficit by focusing on streamlined, DEFENSIVE armed forces (we do have lots of nukes... we would continue to be well defended... but we'd stop being the attackers, I'd hope). Just by dismantling American military bases around the world, the savings would be huge.

We'd radically decrease foreign aid. It is quite ridiculous to borrow from the Chinese to give to dictators in the hope of maintaining world stability. Let the Chinese give directly to those folks, if they also care for stability.

Every multi-million dollar missile that an American craft fires at some Libyan compound would be enough to fund the education and healthcare of thousands of our own citizens.

We need to seriously and radically change our foreign policy and our economic priorities.

Will it happen? Nope. Like you said, we'll rather try to cling to power, with bad consequences for us and for the world.
These sensible measures are not popular here, and politicians here only care for what is popular in the short run so that they get re-elected. The rhetoric here is that we'll get over the crisis and recover like we always did. Psychologically we want to still feel that we're in command. Well, no, we won't get over the crisis like we always did. We won't remain in command. We should better face this reality and adapt to a new order.

Here, let me say something radical: maybe the only way for us to get out of this mess would be to pass a constitutional amendment making ALL terms in ALL political offices a one-time deal with no re-elections. This might put our politicians to work. But of course this is wishful thinking because the fox is taking care of the hens. We'd need politicians to vote for this constitutional amendment, and of course they wouldn't do it, because it would mean that they wouldn't be able to be re-elected, which is all that they care about.


----------



## graaf

_Just for clarification, I haven't implied here that we are a beacon of freedom._

I was replying to many members posting in this thread, so I wasn't targeting you with that phrase, just the atmosphere that I felt (maybe mistakenly) in this thread.

_neither any better *nor* any worse than other empires that have ruled the world in the past._

This might easily be the truth - I usualy think along those lines.

_alternatives like Nazi rule or Soviet rule in Europe were likely to be worse than what we have done during the time we were on top._

Sometimes I think that Germans are considered worse than Britons or French, for example, just because they were attacking the white people - which could easily be the proof for latent racism of all of us as observers of history. USA did their share of war crimes in Latin America - but those are "brown people". Belgians killed half of Congo population (quote: Over the time of Léopold's rule the population of the Congo has declined from an estimated 20-30 million to less than nine million) and had a nasty habbit of chopping off hands (the whole village would have one hand only), but they are black so once again no one cares. But Germans dared to make a mess around the Europe and to kill a lot of white people (Jewish, Russian, etc), just like Russians killed so many of their own population - whites again - and *that* might be their biggest crime.

This is going far too offtopic, so I would just agree that all empires are essentially the same, it's just our perception of the whole thing that's different.


----------



## Ravellian

At this point, with my current situation I can't dwell on this. I'm a young professional, graduating soon and looking desperately for a decent working position. And right now there are plenty of educated people like me in my same position, which is why I keep getting denied internships and job opportunities (even in the relatively high demand area of accounting, my major). As far as I'm concerned, there are too many qualified candidates like me, American and otherwise, and I could do with less competition.

And I'm not overly worried about China; they can't sustain a population that size with anywhere near America's accepted living conditions. They will have extreme internal problems related to overpopulation in the near-forseeable future.


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> Can it be fixed?


The problem cannot be fixed without major sacrifices. That is, U.S. citizens will have to accept much lower wages, factory work, and the demise of a middle class lifestyle. The government will have to accept the dismantling of the military and take command of the economy, focusing on exports and lowering imports. Corporations will have to accept drastic reductions in profits and focus on manufacturing. But because these sacrifices will likely not be made, the country will have no choice but to continue borrowing and spending until the economy collapses.

Other countries will experience the same as they move from manufacturing and saving to finance and spending. But the cycle can continue only as long as there are abundant resources, esp. oil, from which mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture are reliant. And oil production appears to have peaked five years ago and is set to drop soon.


----------



## Ralfy

Delicious Manager said:


> I have been amazed for years that the world has allowed the rise of China in this way. How did we 'allow' it? By buying their cheap goods and investing in business in the country. With 1.3 billion people (that's FOUR times that of the USA) and no democracy (whereby people can be put to work as the government chooses for very little money) it is easy for such a country to become economically powerful when other countries conveniently overlook the human rights abuses perpetrated by China and pay hard Dollars for their cheaply-produced goods.
> 
> China will soon be responsible for the majority of the pollution on this planet, with no apparent will to 'clean-up' (the arrogance is staggering) and we in the 'free world' will only have ourselves to blame.


We are likely looking at a cycle:

"A nation of outlaws"

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/


----------



## science

Folks, China has 4 times as many people as we do.

The only reason they haven't been the biggest economy all along is that they've been dirt poor. 

Anyway, China has so many problems! Don't worry! Their economy is going to stumble at some point; they've got too many elderly people and not enough youth; they've got too few women and too many men; they've got no strong allies; all their neighbors fear them. 

And India is coming.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> We are likely looking at a cycle:
> 
> "A nation of outlaws"
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/08/26/a_nation_of_outlaws/


Good article.


----------



## Air

science said:


> Folks, China has 4 times as many people as we do.
> 
> The only reason they haven't been the biggest economy all along is that they've been dirt poor.
> 
> Anyway, China has so many problems! Don't worry! Their economy is going to stumble at some point; they've got too many elderly people and not enough youth; they've got too few women and too many men; they've got no strong allies; all their neighbors fear them.
> 
> And India is coming.


India has even more problems than China does at this point.

I think the Chinese population will balance itself out and continue to grow reasonably over the next 50 years since the One-child policy has been considerably looser as of late. The gender ratio has also considerably improved, and is currently sitting quite nicely in the normal range.

Us Chinese-Americans hope that our language will be put to good use in the future. 

It's true that China has very few allies, but I don't think it's a huge concern since war isn't really on China's agenda. They certainly don't think of the world the same way as the US does, with the "new world order" and such. Of course, there's always Taiwan - the forever unsolved problem - that can raise a bit of tension.

Besides Taiwan, China's fall could be in the fact that much of its vast territory is not occupied by the main "Han" stock. Areas like Fujian have their own language, while Guanxi, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and many other provinces are home to specific national groups and already have autonomous rule. Manchuria too can be seen as a distinct region that is heavily influenced by Russia, Korea, and Mongolia.

At least this is not really a concern in the United States. Only where I live, in one of the most liberal areas of California, would you meet more than a few advocates for an independent state, though even these are negligible.


----------



## science

Air said:


> India has even more problems than China does at this point.


Other than Pakistan, religious fundamentalism, and some lingering caste consciousness, what do you have in mind?

India has a vibrant secular democracy, an economy already growing almost as fast as China, without nearly so much fraud, and a population that is growing even faster. In a generation, Pakistan's leaders won't be so paranoid, India will dominate trade on the Indian Ocean, and caste will be even weaker (urbanization is killing it); in the meantime China will either have to transition to democracy or it will continue to struggle with censorship and riots, and it will have to clean up its accounting - a lot of people are going to find out they don't have as much money as they thought, and that'll lead to some problems as well.

Can you show me stats on the gender-ratio? That's really good news if it's accurate.

We don't know how Chinese leaders see the world - but there is a lot of nationalism among the Chinese people.

Do you think North or South Korea has influence in Manchuria? I'm not aware of that at all. Neither seem to be in any position to make even the tiniest bit of trouble in China.

An interesting possibility that people are missing is that the US and China may be becoming allies. The fact that we owe them so much money makes mutual long-term stability in both of our interests. Morally, I think India ought to be our ally unless China transitions to democracy - but it appears more plausible that we will transition to oligarchy instead!


----------



## Air

science said:


> Can you show me stats on the gender-ratio? That's really good news if it's accurate.


Darn it, the statistics I read were for South Korea.  But I think the One-child policy is the main cause for this disparity and once that is rid of (which I'm hopeful is soon), things will probably get better.

By Korean influence in Manchuria I'm talking about cultural influence and identity. I have a few friends from Harbin in Heilongjiang province and most of them are only partially Han - with a lot of Korean and Mongolian blood mixed in. They consider themselves separate from the main Chinese stock that occupy the river valleys in Central China. Of course, the problem is much worse with Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Guanxi and also because of the fact that China is still a communist nation... instability-wise there's a lot of potential for/if things go wrong. Think Eastern Europe and Soviet Union, circa 1990.

I'm not sure if a growing population is a good thing for India, especially considering how poor the nation already is. There really isn't the same sort of urban middle class one finds in the large cities of China.


----------



## science

Yeah, the gender situation has improved a lot in South Korea. That's a good sign for the world. India has a "missing women" problem as well, but I'm hoping that economic development and education will work there just as quickly. In China, as far as I know, we have at least another decade or so to worry about the "bare branches." South Korea has been able to import women from Southeast Asia to make up some of the gap, but it's a small country so that was possible. In China... 

I'm interested in the ethnic diversity in China - but the question is, in what sense (outside of Tibet and Xinjiang) is it a problem? I think China can be a strong multi-ethnic state. In the distant future, I think there'll be a lot of multi-ethnic states. The nation-state is going to have to go the way of the aristocratic family.


----------



## Ralfy

When it comes to "allies," perhaps the term to consider is BRIC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

The problem is that large amounts of oil are needed to have "business as usual," and various reports now reveal that we may see a drop in oil production during the next few years. This in turn will lead to major dislocation in various economies, esp. those that are heavily dependent on oil. Chronic economic crises (e.g., what happened to the U.S. in 2008 will be repeated and will also take place in other emerging markets) and the effects of environmental damage (e.g., top soil destruction, fishing stocks down by around 40 pct, etc) and climate change (droughts and flood leading to crop destruction, the spread of various diseases, etc.) will heighten the effects of an oil shock. And even with a slowdown in population growth, population will still increase and, more important, resource demand per capita (i.e., given increasing numbers of people worldwide now entering the middle class and who are buying cars, appliances, etc.).


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy said:


> When it comes to "allies," perhaps the term to consider is BRIC:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC
> 
> The problem is that large amounts of oil are needed to have "business as usual," and various reports now reveal that we may see a drop in oil production during the next few years. This in turn will lead to major dislocation in various economies, esp. those that are heavily dependent on oil. Chronic economic crises (e.g., what happened to the U.S. in 2008 will be repeated and will also take place in other emerging markets) and the effects of environmental damage (e.g., top soil destruction, fishing stocks down by around 40 pct, etc) and climate change (droughts and flood leading to crop destruction, the spread of various diseases, etc.) will heighten the effects of an oil shock. And even with a slowdown in population growth, population will still increase and, more important, resource demand per capita (i.e., given increasing numbers of people worldwide now entering the middle class and who are buying cars, appliances, etc.).


Ralfy, your posts are incredibly insightful. I'm curious, are you a professional in this area or a student of it, like international business or sustained development, etc? I'm not being sarcastic (sometimes it is good to clarify it), I am indeed impressed with the depth of your knowledge of international affairs.


----------



## science

I agree that energy is the most pressing issue of our time - and I believe we are going to solve it through technology. Admittedly, this belief is something akin to faith, but it is not faith in the absence of evidence. We're getting closer every day. The next 30 years, I hope and suspect, are going to see the kind of revolutions in energy technology that the last 30 years saw in communication and information. 

The question is, will the US be at the forefront of this one? Maybe so, but it won't surprise me at all if this is going to be China's baby. And if so, then we can probably kiss goodbye to world leadership for at least a generation.


----------



## jurianbai

science said:


> I'm interested in the ethnic diversity in China - but the question is, in what sense (outside of Tibet and Xinjiang) is it a problem? I think China can be a strong multi-ethnic state. In the distant future, I think there'll be a lot of multi-ethnic states. The nation-state is going to have to go the way of the aristocratic family.


they have the 'official' 56 ethnics. muslims 'minorities': uighur (not much, only 8 millions) and hui ( 9 millions) is probably the only need to watch. China multi ethnics is not the same as in US with 'real' multi ethnic from around the world. China's is something like already established since thousand years ago.

btw, on topic, I offers view that US succesful in building a better partner in the world, one of them is China. We are now in information age where education is easier and less gap between rich country and developing country. This is one of factor where cheap labour outside rich country have more potential to become "partner" to big brother of US and Europe.

And I bet millions of China citizen still willing to do anything to become US citizen, that can give some information about differences between China and US living conditions.


----------



## Vaneyes

Can't we all just get along, as we dine with chopsticks.


----------



## science

Meanwhile, we have this: 




A "Teahad." He's not racist; he just thinks the government doesn't work because too many of its employees are black!

I see that some people are really, really uncomfortable with ethnic and religious diversity. Maybe it _will_ become a big problem for China eventually.


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> Ralfy, your posts are incredibly insightful. I'm curious, are you a professional in this area or a student of it, like international business or sustained development, etc? I'm not being sarcastic (sometimes it is good to clarify it), I am indeed impressed with the depth of your knowledge of international affairs.


Thanks very much! I'm only a student of the topic. I've been visiting various websites about peak oil, the economic crisis, climate change, and political issues, and discovered various reports and presentations from experts that are hardly mentioned in mainstream media.

From what I gathered, there is a possibility that global oil production may drop by 2015 and that it will be very difficult to replace oil due to the need for petrochemicals, the length of time needed to retool the manufacturing process, and possible shortages for other required resources (from fresh water to coal to phosphates to copper).

I also found out that our global capitalist system essentially rests on increasing production and consumption of goods financed through increasing money supply to facilitate continuous economic growth. Since some make money by lending money, then financial speculation and resulting economic collapses due to a credit crisis are inevitable: what is happening to the U.S. will also happen to China, etc.

Finally, combinations of resource depletion (e.g., global fish stocks dropping) and environmental damage (e.g., topsoil destruction) coupled with the long-term effects of climate change are making things worse. One good example is the current food crisis, where food prices are going up because of speculation, increasing demand, increasing prices of products such as oil, and crop destruction due to floods and droughts.


----------



## RErnesto

I don't buy the idea that America is just going to collapse and China will be the West's new overlord. America will definitely not retain the title as #1 forever, but it seems to be more of a case of China rising than America collapsing.

And there is plenty of reason to believe China's economy is not doing as well as commonly thought (not like an authoritarian government would fudge statistics to give themselves credibility). There 
are entire ghost cities and there is mounting evidence that China has its very own housing bubble and could suffer a "correction" that would make America's look utterly insignificant.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/14/chinas-scary-housing-bubble
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/135...-bubble-collapse-crash-beijing-government.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002767.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_housing_bubble

The future is just as uncertain for China as it is America.


----------



## RErnesto

science said:


> Meanwhile, we have this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "Teahad." He's not racist; he just thinks the government doesn't work because too many of its employees are black!
> 
> I see that some people are really, really uncomfortable with ethnic and religious diversity. Maybe it _will_ become a big problem for China eventually.


It already is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots


----------



## mmsbls

Ralfy said:


> From what I gathered, there is a possibility that global oil production may drop by 2015 and that it will be very difficult to replace oil due to the need for petrochemicals, the length of time needed to retool the manufacturing process, and possible shortages for other required resources (from fresh water to coal to phosphates to copper).


Peak oil is a rather interesting topic. From 1956 when Hubbert first predicted US peak oil production would occur in the late 1960s (and he was correct) to present estimates that vary significantly, it's a bit hard to know what to expect. The International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2010 prediction of world oil production can be seen here (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/key_graphs.pdf). They assume conventional oil has recently peaked, but they predict future oil production will increase due to natural gas to liquid (GTL) production (Fischer-Tropsch processes that can convert gas to hydrocarbons) and unconventional oil such as tar sands extraction.

Oil company executives state definitively that oil will not run out for hundreds of years. That's probably true, but the question is - What will the price per barrel be? Tar sand extraction is more expensive and emits more CO2 per gallon delivered to the vehicle. Fischer-Tropsch processes (whether from gas, coal, or biomass) could be much better for the environment, but I don't know the expected costs well. Five years ago I heard that these processes could produce synthetic oil at roughly $30/barrel. I don't believe that. It certainly will be an interesting next 10 years or so.


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> Peak oil is a rather interesting topic.


I believe that there are also lots of reserves that are not particularly economically viable right now (e.g. the huge pre-salt reserves recently found in Brazilian territorial waters, deep in the sea) but they may become economically viable once oil that is easier to extract dries out. Am I right about this?


----------



## science

RErnesto said:


> It already is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_Ürümqi_riots


We'd already acknowledged it in Xinjiang.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> I believe that there are also lots of reserves that are not particularly economically viable right now (e.g. the huge pre-salt reserves recently found in Brazilian territorial waters, deep in the sea) but they may become economically viable once oil that is easier to extract dries out. Am I right about this?


Yes. Basically oil companies will extract the cheapest oil available. The techniques will change as the "easy" oil dries up. We are drilling farther out to sea and exploring arctic oil reserves. Saudi Arabia now uses huge amounts of high pressure water to force oil out of their long existing wells that used to just flow naturally. There are GTL plants producing oil products. Since we can make synthetic hydrocarbons from natural gas, coal, and biomass, the amount of oil is virtually endless. The price will rise until different oil technologies become attractive, and we will start switching or utilizing them in addition to conventional oil. At some point society will switch to renewable energy in high volume. Oil will still be used for various products, but less and less of it will be used for transportation and other energy uses. The trillion $ question is when will the renewable sources constitute a high percentage of our energy usage.


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> Yes. Basically oil companies will extract the cheapest oil available. The techniques will change as the "easy" oil dries up. We are drilling farther out to sea and exploring arctic oil reserves. Saudi Arabia now uses huge amounts of high pressure water to force oil out of their long existing wells that used to just flow naturally. There are GTL plants producing oil products. Since we can make synthetic hydrocarbons from natural gas, coal, and biomass, the amount of oil is virtually endless. The price will rise until different oil technologies become attractive, and we will start switching or utilizing them in addition to conventional oil. At some point society will switch to renewable energy in high volume. Oil will still be used for various products, but less and less of it will be used for transportation and other energy uses. The trillion $ question is when will the renewable sources constitute a high percentage of our energy usage.


So what you're saying is that it is not as bad as it seems, and we're not about to see the collapse of civilization due to insufficient oil reserves? We'll just adapt (after a number of changes in price structure of oil and other commodities and products)?


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> So what you're saying is that it is not as bad as it seems, and we're not about to see the collapse of civilization due to insufficient oil reserves? We'll just adapt (after a number of changes in price structure of oil and other commodities and products)?


Roughly yes. Aside from technical issues, the big questions involve what roll government should play and how much money should it spend in helping the transition to alternative fuels. Another big issue of course is climate change. Transitioning from a carbon based energy economy to a non-carbon based one makes sense given the finite resources of oil and natural gas (coal as well, but these resources are much larger), but it is mandatory if society is going to limit the rise in atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Ralfy

According to the IEA chart, we will have a 9 pct increase in global energy production for the next three decades, but energy demand might increase by around 2 pct per annum.

Most sources of energy do not have high EROEIs, esp. renewable energy, and do not provide petrochemicals. In which case, transitioning will mean the destruction of a middle class lifestyle, i.e., cars, houses, appliances, supermarkets, and many other goods and services that are heavily dependent on high EROEIs and petrochemicals, which are needed for thousands of products, from plastics to solvents and lubricants. (Bioplastics can be used, but the EROEI for biofuels is low.)

The catch, then, is not money (we can create lots of it easily; we already have over $1.4 quadrillion in total money supply, much of it made up of unregulated derivatives) but energy returned from what is invested. To maintain business as usual, not only for the 20 pct of the world's population that is responsible for around 60 pct of personal consumption but the other 80 pct that want to copy them, we will need energy sources that offer a return of 20-to-1 or better. That means several Saudi Arabias, or in general more than one earth.

And that's for the current population (which will still increase, and with lower fertility rates probably only because more people are receiving basic needs which may also require some mass manufacturing and mechanized farming) and given the assumption that climate change will not create further resource damage and that we will not see shortages for other resources, such as fresh water and phosphates.

This looks like a "perfect storm" combining a resource crunch, resource damage due to pollution, increasing population or demand per capita, debt-driven economies, and possible events stemming from them, such as resource wars, the spread of disease, and more conflict due to social unrest, high food prices, lack of employment, etc.


----------



## mmsbls

Ralfy said:


> According to the IEA chart, we will have a 9 pct increase in global energy production for the next three decades, but energy demand might increase by around 2 pct per annum.


I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying energy demand will vastly outstrip production? I don't think energy analysts believe there is an energy problem. The amount of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewable sources is vastly more than needed in our lifetimes.



Ralfy said:


> Most sources of energy do not have high EROEIs, esp. renewable energy, and do not provide petrochemicals. In which case, transitioning will mean the destruction of a middle class lifestyle, i.e., cars, houses, appliances, supermarkets, and many other goods and services that are heavily dependent on high EROEIs and petrochemicals, which are needed for thousands of products, from plastics to solvents and lubricants. (Bioplastics can be used, but the EROEI for biofuels is low.)


Certainly oil products will shift away from transportation to other products (plastics, solvents, detergents, etc.). The key in transportation is to increase energy efficiency so that we use perhaps maybe a third or less of the energy now used per vehicle within say 50 years or so. That would involve a smooth transition to renewable fuels without too much CO2 released or requiring too much oil production.


----------



## Ralfy

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying energy demand will vastly outstrip production? I don't think energy analysts believe there is an energy problem. The amount of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and renewable sources is vastly more than needed in our lifetimes.


Sorry, I meant global oil production. The chart on p. 7 of the key graphs reveals at best a 9-pct increase for the next three decades, but demand will very likely go higher than that. That demand will seriously affect many other requirements, from mechanized agriculture to components needed for renewable energy itself.

On top of that, what is already not a sufficiently optimistic view has been questioned in this short presentation shown only a few days ago:






In particular, the portion of the graph for "fields yet to be found" is questionable.

Finally, as Fatih Birol points out, governments should have started dealing with such issues ten years ago:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm



> Certainly oil products will shift away from transportation to other products (plastics, solvents, detergents, etc.). The key in transportation is to increase energy efficiency so that we use perhaps maybe a third or less of the energy now used per vehicle within say 50 years or so. That would involve a smooth transition to renewable fuels without too much CO2 released or requiring too much oil production.


I don't think we have 50 years to spare, esp. given warnings from the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, Morgan Stanley, the IEA, and others of a drop in global oil production by 2015. Even with Manifa online, we will be forced to refine "heavy-sours," which lowers EROEI considerably.

Finally, what has been happening since 2008 are things that we should expect in the future and in the long term: the effects of climate change (and some scientists argue that we've reached tipping point, with continued effects for decades even with zero emissions), high oil and food prices (masked by financial speculation but ultimate driven by increasing demand from a growing global middle class from emerging economies), more credit crunches due to debt-driven economies, wars over resources (three examples now, with corporations profiting and war costs passed on to gullible citizens), social unrest (various protests, riots, civil strife, strikes, in various countries) due to combinations of high food and oil prices, chronic unemployment brought about by credit crunches, and more. In short, what I pointed out in the last part of my previous message.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Looks like a big dilemna to me, but one thing is certain; we will not be able to sustain our extravagant lifestyles.
One day humanity may look back on this as a golden age of prosperity, but unfortunately sacrifices are now necessary or else environmental devastation and resource-shortages are likely to hit us very hard.


----------



## Almaviva

This thread is depressing... I know that I'm the one who started it, but it is quite discouraging. It does look like the world will become an even tougher place in just a few years. I'm in the last third of my life and shouldn't be as affected, but I feel sorry for my children and future (hopefully) grandchildren.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Almaviva said:


> This thread is depressing... I know that I'm the one who started it, but it is quite discouraging. It does look like the world will become an even tougher place in just a few years. I'm in the last third of my life and shouldn't be as affected, but I feel sorry for my children and future (hopefully) grandchildren.


And to think your generation is (partially) responsible!


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> And to think your generation is (partially) responsible!


I'd say that human nature is responsible, and that it is the same accross generations. When my generation was your age, we all thought that we'd fix the world. We didn't, and yours won't either.


----------



## emiellucifuge

It was a partial joke first of all.

Yes Human nature is responsible for everything we do, but we can hardly give people living in the 15th century the direct cause. The fact is that the past three generations have seen the huge increase in consumption, habitat destruction and increase of emissions.
To say outright that we wont fix it is being cynical. Have a little hope.


----------



## science

It's funny. I can easily imagine the extinction of the human species (or maybe all mammalian life) taking place in the next few decades due to, say, nuclear and biological war over disappearing resources and fueled by religious and racial hatred. 

And I can easily imagine in the next few decades new energy technologies enabling us to live even more luxuriously than ever before, China peacefully transitioning to democracy, democracy spreading through the Middle East and sinking deeper roots in Africa and Southeast Asia, economic growth all over the world essentially ending true poverty, wealthier countries around the world striving to protect their environments (even if only for the sake of tourism), global awareness making nationalism seem as ridiculous as religious and racial hatreds now seem to most of us, new health care technologies enabling us to live longer and richer lives, population growth slowing and then leveling off as women around the world are given more control over their bodies and more opportunity to work. 

Probably we'll wind up somewhere between the two extremes - hopefully closer to the 2nd though! 

All we can do is fight the good fight.


----------



## Air

I think that throughout history, predictions of the future have always swung between pessimistic and optimistic extremes, neither of which are ever fully realized. It's healthy to know what may be in store for us, but at the same time one must have an adequate amount of skepticism knowing well that history is ultimately unpredictable.

During the second half of the cold war when the world was riddled with the oil crisis, economic troubles, failure of detente, and a rising misery index, many forecasters thought that it would be the end of civilization and that pollution would destroy the environment once and for all. On the other extreme, it seemed that hopes were high at the end of the cold war when President Bush talked about the establishment of a "new world order" and the role of the U.S. as a peacemaker for the world. After the 9-11 attacks, people again saw that this was not true - that there was still much to fear in the world today. And Eastern Europe and Russia, though optimistic in the first few years after the fall of communism, struggled to even meet the qualifications of entering the European Union. Ethnic conflict re-emerged in the Balkans, and suddenly, everything didn't seem so great.

I think a lot of the pessimistic forecasts we hear today are a result of the recent economic recession and that these predictions don't necessarily reflect what the future truly holds for us. But we should always be wary of issues at hand and do whatever we can to prevent such a fate.


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> It was a partial joke first of all.
> 
> Yes Human nature is responsible for everything we do, but we can hardly give people living in the 15th century the direct cause. The fact is that the past three generations have seen the huge increase in consumption, habitat destruction and increase of emissions.
> To say outright that we wont fix it is being cynical. Have a little hope.


It's not being cynical (at least, not in the bad sense), I'm just really feeling hopeless about all this. It really saddens me.


----------



## science

Well, one source of hope is energy technology, where small steps are being almost daily announced:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504103946.htm New Way to Control Conductivity

A few days earlier:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110506165312.htm "Swiss cheese" design enables thin film silicon solar cells with potential for higher efficiency

A day earlier:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110503133205.htm Using solar power to sterilize medical instruments

Same day:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110504091842.htm Evolutionary lessons for wind farm efficiency

Same day:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110505162938.htm A renewable twist on fossil fuels - this would be awesome, if it works

Same day:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110505124043.htm New online mechanism for electronic vehicle charging

And so on...

I remember being a kid in the 1980s reading about early fiber optics... and now we have the internet. But I think that's nothing to what renewable energy technology would be. Essentially infinite energy available cheaply everywhere on the planet, probably "green" energy as well. The prices of everything falling--manufacturing costs, shipping costs. No more geopolitical entanglement in the Middle East (at least not for oil).

We're going to achieve it, friend. (I think.)

Besides that, extreme poverty could be eliminated around 2030 - you could live to a time when there is no longer anybody on earth living on less than $2/day.

Medical technology and agricultural technology improve daily - and the rate of population growth is slowing. The Malthusian collapse will probably never happen.

Democratic ideals are spreading around the world: it is no longer restricted to Western Europe and North America, there are now genuinely democratic states in Sub-saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, East and Southeast Asia, South America - and it looks like democracy is coming to the Middle East.

There's so much good news if you think about it.

I'm not denying the bad news; my point is that it's not _all_ bad news.


----------



## Ralfy

The cost of using technology is high, as seen in the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production. China and India are now following suit, and in general a growing global middle class in emerging markets. In order to meet demand from such, we will need at least another earth.

Similar costs are seen in many other technologies but not quantified, such as around a thousand tons of water needed to produce one ton of grains, more resources needed to raise cattle and other livestock, etc. In general, the earth has a biocapacity of around 1.7 global hectares per capita but our current ave. usage rate is now 2.3 global hectares, which means we are now at overshoot. And that's for a global population that will still increase to up to 9 billion within forty years. Meanwhile, global fish stocks have dropped by up to 40 pct due to overfishing, and we face similar problems for other resources, ranging from availability of fresh water to phosphate supplies.

For some reason, whenever we employ technological fixes, we end up creating more problems for two reasons: greater efficiency makes us see the glass as half empty rather than half full, and we spend on other resources if not create more pollution, and neither is often quantified as a cost, so we think we are saving more resources and coming up with cheaper production means.

For example, when we make more efficient engines, we think to ourselves that we can now make the same trips using fewer resources. But it turns out we end up making more trips because it's now cheaper per trip and look for more ways to exploit lower costs. We usually wish that we did not have to do this, but in a global free market capitalist system, we have to due to competition. In addition, more want vehicles because trips are now cheaper, so we end up producing and consuming more resources, and in turn creating more pollution. In short, we have what is literally a runaway capitalist system that we cannot control. We have to produce and consume more resources for greater profits, leading to more money, economic volatility, pollution, and a faster resource crunch. And in order to forget all of these things, we tell ourselves that things can only get better. That's why much of the news is actually good news. Any bad news is "temporary" and we are encouraged to continue spending. The reason is obvious: the same mainstream media are dependent on corporate sponsorship.

Thus, the price of various goods is rising in terms of energy return and the cost on the environment, but we're not aware of that. Since we can create money easily (since much of our money is, essentially, debt: a total of $1.4 quadrillion worldwide), then prices drop or income levels rise, and because of that we continue to borrow and spend happily. In reality....


----------



## science

You're convinced that technological progress only creates more problems (for some reason or for two of them). 

I'm not. IMO life has gotten a lot better in the past 10 years for a lot of people, in the past 50 years, in the past 500 years. Progress is real.

But, after all, even if you're right and there's nothing we can do, I'd rather go down trying. I think we have a shot. Give me high-efficiency, cheap solar power and biofuel, and we'll put off this Malthusian crunch for quite a long time.


----------



## emiellucifuge

"We spend money we don’t have,on things we don’t need, to make impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about"


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> You're convinced that technological progress only creates more problems (for some reason or for two of them).
> 
> I'm not. IMO life has gotten a lot better in the past 10 years for a lot of people, in the past 50 years, in the past 500 years. Progress is real.
> 
> But, after all, even if you're right and there's nothing we can do, I'd rather go down trying. I think we have a shot. Give me high-efficiency, cheap solar power and biofuel, and we'll put off this Malthusian crunch for quite a long time.


What you mentioned is actually a good example of that: life has gotten a lot better, which is why population has shot up considerably. With lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancy, we've seen efficiency through mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture offset by a population boom. And in order to lower fertility rates to replacement levels, increasing consumption per capita has to take place, which means increasing resource consumption.

The main driver of both factors has been oil, which provides fuel and petrochemicals at energy returns far higher than what we've gotten from "high-efficiency" sources of energy which actually have much lower energy returns and provides much less petrochemicals. And oil production is set to drop soon.

To make matters worse, the same oil has led to climate change and environmental destruction which has lessened resource availability considerably, even as emerging markets now have growing middle classes that want to consume more. All these were explained in previous messages.

In the end, what we will have won't be a Malthusian crunch, as population will reach 9 billion and then decrease due to combinations of problems (lack of health care, fresh water due to climate change and pollution, food due to lack of phosphates or the need to use biofuels, etc.). What we will have, instead, is a resource crunch, for reasons given earlier. Solar energy and biofuels, for example, have very low energy returns, and in addition the latter eats up resources needed for food. That is, ironically, one of four reasons why food prices had been going up considerably.

Given that, we will certainly "have a shot," but it will involve the 20 pct of the global population (those who earn 10 to 20 dollars a day or more) responsible for 60 pct of personal consumption and who likely, through big business, military forces, and governments, control up to 75 pct of various global resources, incredible sacrifices so that the other 80 pct will survive, and this will take place for the next five decades.

A middle class lifestyle will disappear, which includes passenger cars, processed food, concrete houses, computers, etc. In place of that, everyone will have to use solar power, whatever they can afford for biofuels, plant their own food, and learn to live like most Cubans, who have an ecological footprint of less than 2.0. Military forces will have to be dismantled, and whatever governments remain will have to concentrate on regular rail and other forms of transport. Countries will certainly have to help each other, as most lack one or more resources.

Will the 20 pct of the global population, or even the elite, if not military forces and other groups, cooperate? Did they ever do that the last hundred years, which some writers described as one of the bloodiest centuries in history, with over 200 million dead amidst two world wars and something like 70 years of conflict?


----------



## science

The essence of our disagreement is that you're 100% confident that we will not find an alternative to fossil fuels, so we're screwed. We might as well start the destruction now. 

But I think we just might. 

If the future of humanity in 1965 had depended on us developing portable terabyte storage devices within a half century, there'd have been a lot of pessimists. We have, perhaps, an analogous situation now with energy technology. 

It's curious that when red turned green the eschatology changed so completely. Before it was the collapse of capitalism leading to a socialist paradise, but now it ends with the apocalypse tout court. 

You might be right this time, but I'm not giving up hope yet.


----------



## Vaneyes

Ralfy said:


> The cost of using technology is high, as seen in the U.S., which has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to 25 pct of world oil production. China and India are now following suit, and in general a growing global middle class in emerging markets. In order to meet demand from such, we will need at least another earth.
> ....


China carries the big stick. It can ignore human rights and global warming, and what is anybody going to do about it? Last I heard, US owes China $1.2 trillion. Obama holds his hands over his ears when he hears that sort of thing.


----------



## Ravellian

I've seen presentations on the earth's problems of overpopulation and resource depletion numerous times before (before the recession), and they really saddened me; I had previously gone under the assumption that humankind would continue technological innovations for millenia to come, and life would continue to get more and more advanced as we progressed. Now it seems as though there is going to be a major overpopulation/resource crisis in the very near future that will strip us of our potential. This outlook has nothing to do with the recession; it has only to do with the facts.

All I can do is be thankful that I was born during the years when humankind was at its intellectual and developmental peak, and not later, when things will be much worse... Unless, of course, we develop solar energy systems and space colonization within the next 100-200 years. That'd be neat.


----------



## Almaviva

Ravellian said:


> I've seen presentations on the earth's problems of overpopulation and resource depletion numerous times before (before the recession), and they really saddened me; I had previously gone under the assumption that humankind would continue technological innovations for millenia to come, and life would continue to get more and more advanced as we progressed. Now it seems as though there is going to be a major overpopulation/resource crisis in the very near future that will strip us of our potential. This outlook has nothing to do with the recession; it has only to do with the facts.
> 
> All I can do is be thankful that I was born during the years when humankind was at its intellectual and developmental peak, and not later, when things will be much worse... Unless, of course, we develop solar energy systems and space colonization within the next 100-200 years. That'd be neat.


Well, solar energy will need to be a lot better to yield any hope of solving the problem. Just today I was listening to the radio and some Japanese energy expert was saying that even if they covered the entire surface of the Tokyo metropolitan area with solar pannels, they would only achieve an output equivalent to one third of that of *one* of the three nuclear reactors that have been shut down in the plant damaged by the earthquake.


----------



## science

Of course there is no need to settle for covering a city with solar panels - which we ought to do, BTW. Think of the energy that is wasted every day as the sun beats down on our buildings, and not merely do we fail to harvest the energy, we run air conditioning!

But newer buildings are increasingly energy efficient - both in hot and cold climates. There's a lot of very good stuff going on toward that.

And then there are deserts and oceans. There is no reason for us not to have solar panel fields. It's a matter of time until the technology (and rising energy prices) renders it cost-effective - and it appears that will happen in China before it happens here. Barring some surprises, this is going to be the first field of technology that China beats us on. Not only do we have oil money dominating politics (especially the GOP), we also have so much anti-science pessimism on the left that there just isn't a will to push ourselves in this field. At least not yet. We may well have a Sputnik moment in the near future.

Solar panels will get more efficient with time as well, and cheaper. Like I posted before, practically every week some new development happens in that field.

Nuclear power is great, too. The fact that a set of reactors built in the 1970s can endure a major earthquake and then a tsunami with so little trouble - nothing like Chernobyl! - is a great sign. The new generation of reactors are even better, and now there is a political will to build them, if not here then at least in East Asia and probably in Europe.

Here is research just published on how "green" various biofuels are: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511134335.htm

It turns out some are worse than coal, but others are much better. This is not strictly relevant to energy efficiency, but it is still a step toward green energy and the energy of the future, and it is an example of ongoing research getting us there. It is the cover story on sciencedaily right now. (Look forward to the stooges of the oil industry misrepresenting this data wildly, of course.)

Anyway, guys, the pouting is going too far. If you're really, really so concerned about it - be active. Bother your local politicians until they pass laws that let you sell energy to the grid. That'd do a lot in every community. Put a solar panel on your house - it's the equivalent of a Commodore 64, but you (or your parents) bought one of those, didn't you? And the market will move. Stand up against the anti-nuclear nonsense on the left. (I mention that it's on the left to be fair - most of the anti-science nonsense is on the right these days. Aside from nuclear power, GM foods, and vaccinations, the left is currently on the correct side of most science issues.) Join campaigns against politicians that are obviously in the oil or coal industries' pockets (if they say there's no climate change, or that humans aren't contributing to it, that's them).

If you're as certain as Ralfy and the "overreach" guys that there is absolutely no way out of this but a global catastrophe sending us back to the Stone Age, well, then I guess at least you should stockpile canned food and weapons in your bunker! Probably the ones able to stay in their bunkers (and keep others out) for the longest time will inherit the post-apocalypse world.

But unless you actually make such preparations, you're either suffering from suicidal depression, or you're not actually as pessimistic as you say.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> The essence of our disagreement is that you're 100% confident that we will not find an alternative to fossil fuels, so we're screwed. We might as well start the destruction now.
> 
> But I think we just might.
> 
> If the future of humanity in 1965 had depended on us developing portable terabyte storage devices within a half century, there'd have been a lot of pessimists. We have, perhaps, an analogous situation now with energy technology.
> 
> It's curious that when red turned green the eschatology changed so completely. Before it was the collapse of capitalism leading to a socialist paradise, but now it ends with the apocalypse tout court.
> 
> You might be right this time, but I'm not giving up hope yet.


I don't deal with forecasts of the future through confidence but trends. Put simply, the problem isn't that we won't be able to find alternatives to oil but that we should have done so at least ten years ago, according to Fatih Birol. And Sadad al-Husseini argues that governments are not preparing for this problem. Meanwhile, the IEA has just admitted that oil production peaked in 2006 and is set to drop by 2013. Now, perhaps the Saudis might be able to put Manifa online, but that's "heavy-sour" oil, which means operating costs will be much higher.

The EROEI for oil is now probably down to 3, but we need 20 or better to keep the global capitalist system running. Otherwise, oil prices will go up, and with that the price of food and other goods.

The EROEI for nuclear reactors and other sources are no better, and we have, as Fred Pearce reveals, compounded problems including fresh water availability. In addition, we face problems concerning top soil, fish stocks, etc. And then there's one study that points out that it will take several decades to retool the manufacturing process to use less petrochemicals or to obtain them from other sources, again which have lower EROEIs.

Meanwhile, ave. global temp continues to rise together with CO2 levels, now at rates higher than the last 650,000 years. We have no idea what's going to happen next. For example, it was stated hat ice caps won't start melting and methane won't be released for the next few decades, but they are taking place right now. More scientists, probably those that issued warnings more than a decade ago, now believe that we are facing "runaway" climate change, where human activity is now amplified by effects of nature on climate. This does not mean, though, that we should "start the destruction now," since we won't be able to do even that if we have less oil to burn. Or may the destruction has already started. Can we still reverse the effects, i.e., given 20 pct of the global population that want to hold on to a middle class lifestyle heavily dependent on oil (for reasons given earlier) and the other 80 pct wanting the same lifestyle?

Finally, I'm not "red" or argue that a "socialist paradise" will take place, because even that will require an abundance of resources. In the end, there is no "apocalypse tout court," just physics, specifically limited resources being used by people who want continuous economic growth.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> Of course there is no need to settle for covering a city with solar panels - which we ought to do, BTW. Think of the energy that is wasted every day as the sun beats down on our buildings, and not merely do we fail to harvest the energy, we run air conditioning!
> 
> But newer buildings are increasingly energy efficient - both in hot and cold climates. There's a lot of very good stuff going on toward that.
> 
> And then there are deserts and oceans. There is no reason for us not to have solar panel fields. It's a matter of time until the technology (and rising energy prices) renders it cost-effective - and it appears that will happen in China before it happens here. Barring some surprises, this is going to be the first field of technology that China beats us on. Not only do we have oil money dominating politics (especially the GOP), we also have so much anti-science pessimism on the left that there just isn't a will to push ourselves in this field. At least not yet. We may well have a Sputnik moment in the near future.
> 
> Solar panels will get more efficient with time as well, and cheaper. Like I posted before, practically every week some new development happens in that field.
> 
> Nuclear power is great, too. The fact that a set of reactors built in the 1970s can endure a major earthquake and then a tsunami with so little trouble - nothing like Chernobyl! - is a great sign. The new generation of reactors are even better, and now there is a political will to build them, if not here then at least in East Asia and probably in Europe.
> 
> Here is research just published on how "green" various biofuels are: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511134335.htm
> 
> It turns out some are worse than coal, but others are much better. This is not strictly relevant to energy efficiency, but it is still a step toward green energy and the energy of the future, and it is an example of ongoing research getting us there. It is the cover story on sciencedaily right now. (Look forward to the stooges of the oil industry misrepresenting this data wildly, of course.)
> 
> Anyway, guys, the pouting is going too far. If you're really, really so concerned about it - be active. Bother your local politicians until they pass laws that let you sell energy to the grid. That'd do a lot in every community. Put a solar panel on your house - it's the equivalent of a Commodore 64, but you (or your parents) bought one of those, didn't you? And the market will move. Stand up against the anti-nuclear nonsense on the left. (I mention that it's on the left to be fair - most of the anti-science nonsense is on the right these days. Aside from nuclear power, GM foods, and vaccinations, the left is currently on the correct side of most science issues.) Join campaigns against politicians that are obviously in the oil or coal industries' pockets (if they say there's no climate change, or that humans aren't contributing to it, that's them).
> 
> If you're as certain as Ralfy and the "overreach" guys that there is absolutely no way out of this but a global catastrophe sending us back to the Stone Age, well, then I guess at least you should stockpile canned food and weapons in your bunker! Probably the ones able to stay in their bunkers (and keep others out) for the longest time will inherit the post-apocalypse world.
> 
> But unless you actually make such preparations, you're either suffering from suicidal depression, or you're not actually as pessimistic as you say.


A "global catastrophe" won't be "the way out of this" but the result of combinations of problems, including peak oil, climate change, a debt-driven global capitalist system, and military powers engaged in _realpolitik_. And the irony is that the same groups, including large corporations and governments (both national and local), that are supposed to solve these problems are ignoring them, if not denying them or even contributing to them. That is why there is almost no news from most of them regarding peak oil, and governments backed by corporate lobbyists continue to debate over climate change even though more science groups, including the NAS, issue more warnings. Meanwhile, both human population and resource consumption per capita continue to rise, with something like 20 pct of the global population responsible for over 60 pct of personal consumption, and the other 80 pct wanting to consume at the same rate, as seen in increased sales for cars, appliances, and other goods in emerging markets and increasing energy demand from countries such as China and India (around 10 pct last year). As Fatih Birol and other state, in order to maintain this system, we will have to find several Saudi Arabias within the next few years, whether to use more oil or to switch to renewables, which require oil and other resources.

Also, we are already at "overreach." We have a biocapacity of only around 1.7 global hectares per capita but our ave. consumption rate is now at 2.6. And that's just to meet the middle class demands of a global minority. When the majority begin to have the same demands....

Finally, stockpiling will only help for a limited time. In order to prepare for long-term sustainable living, we will have to employ renewable energy, permaculture, localization, etc. Much of it will likely take place on a community level, as there won't be enough resources to ship most goods (except for necessities) across lengthy distances.


----------



## Almaviva

OK, so now I know what to do.
1. Tell my kids that they shouldn't have kids of their own.
2. Make lots of love to my wife, enjoy her boobs
3. Drink good wine
4. Eat gourmet food
5. Visit the most beautiful/romantic places on Earth with my wife
6. Listen to good opera
7. Read good literature
8. Watch exciting sports
9. Stop all charity contributions, they won't make any difference anyway, we're all doomed. Use the money for items 3-8 above.
10. Stop contributing to retirement accounts and the such. Use the money for more of items 3-8 above.
11. Make sure to use all possible tax loopholes, use the money for more of the first 3-8 items above. Giving money to the government won't solve any problems anyway.
12. Stop worrying about recycling, carbon footprint, the whales, the dolphins (OK, I don't really worry about the last two), because my action won't change anything anyway.
13. Overspend, run into credit card debt (in a controlled way, not to crash before the end of society as we know it) in order to pay for more of items 3-8 above. Once things get really bad, banks themselves will crash, whether or not I have credit card debt won't make any difference
14. Stop wasting time with participation in the political process. Whether the left or the right is in power won't make any difference. Use the time to engage in items 3-8 above.
15. Stop spending money on health treatments, medications, etc. Use extra money for more of items 3-8. If I pass away from a heart attack or something, it will be probably better than to survive and face the meltdown of Western society as we know it.

In summary, live grand and large, live the good life while it is still possible, and adopt an attitude of the kind "screw the planet" - Like I said, who cares? We're doomed anyway, so it's just a question of having the most fun before the inevitable end.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Almaviva said:


> OK, so now I know what to do.
> 1. Tell my kids that they shouldn't have kids of their own.
> 2. Make lots of love to my wife, enjoy her boobs
> 3. Drink good wine
> 4. Eat gourmet food
> 5. Visit the most beautiful/romantic places on Earth with my wife
> 6. Listen to good opera
> 7. Read good literature
> 8. Watch exciting sports
> 9. Stop all charity contributions, they won't make any difference anyway, we're all doomed. Use the money for items 3-8 above.
> 10. Stop contributing to retirement accounts and the such. Use the money for more of items 3-8 above.
> 11. Make sure to use all possible tax loopholes, use the money for more of the first 3-8 items above. Giving money to the government won't solve any problems anyway.
> 12. Stop worrying about recycling, carbon footprint, the whales, the dolphins (OK, I don't really worry about the last two), because my action won't change anything anyway.
> 13. Overspend, run into credit card debt (in a controlled way, not to crash before the end of society as we know it) in order to pay for more of the first 8 items above. Once things get really bad, banks themselves will crash, whether or not I have credit card debt won't make any difference
> 14. Stop wasting time with participation in the political process. Whether the left or the right is in power won't make any difference. Use the time to engage in items 3-8 above.
> 15. Stop spending money on health treatments, medications, etc. Use extra money for more of items 3-8. If I pass away from a heart attack or something, it will be probably bettar than to survive and face the meltdown of Western society as we know it.
> 
> In summary, live grand and large, live the good life while it is still possible, and adopt an attitude of the kind "screw the planet" - Like I said, who cares? We're doomed anyway, so it's just a question of having the most fun before the inevitable end.


If more people were to do that, then there would be no opportunity for people such as myself to enjoy our lives.

While it may seem futile, maybe even funny to you. The people of my generation are fighting a battle for our very future. We may be the first generation who inherits a broken earth.
So no I wont give up, and neither should you.


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> maybe even funny to you.


I'm not saying this to make fun of anything. I don't think it's funny. I have tried hard for five decades. I'm ready to throw the towel.


----------



## Vaneyes

A hefty right-on to #14...

14. Stop wasting time with participation in the political process. Whether the left or the right is in power won't make any difference. Use the time to engage in items 3-8 above.


----------



## science

More good news: an advance in our ability to store very high levels of energy and access them quickly: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512150731.htm



> Super Energy Storage: Activated Graphene Makes Superior Supercapacitors for Energy Storage
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 12, 2011) - Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have helped to uncover the nanoscale structure of a novel form of carbon, contributing to an explanation of why this new material acts like a super-absorbent sponge when it comes to soaking up electric charge. The material, which was recently created at The University of Texas -- Austin, can be incorporated into "supercapacitor" energy-storage devices with remarkably high storage capacity while retaining other attractive attributes such as superfast energy release, quick recharge time, and a lifetime of at least 10,000 charge/discharge cycles.
> 
> "Those properties make this new form of carbon particularly attractive for meeting electrical energy storage needs that also require a quick release of energy -- for instance, in electric vehicles or to smooth out power availability from intermittent energy sources, such as wind and solar power," said Brookhaven materials scientist Eric Stach, a co-author on a paper describing the material published in Science on May 12, 2011.


There's more, but that's enough for now.

Earlier in the thread I related how, as a child, I read in _Popular Science_ magazine about fiberoptics when that technology was first being developed. I read all the ridiculous things the scientists hoped it would do. And now... we have the internet.

I sincerely believe (and hope) we're in that stage of the development of energy technologies that will transform our lives.

This new thing is probably only a very small piece of that transformation - but it _may be _a small piece!


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> More good news: an advance in our ability to store very high levels of energy and access them quickly: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512150731.htm


Wow, I never thought that there would be posts on TC related directly to my area of expertise. I study supercapacitors (often called ultracapacitors) along with advanced batteries in my lab. Ultracapacitors do a great job of storing small amounts of energy extremely efficiency. The problem is that they store _small_ amounts of energy. They could be very useful in hybrid applications (vehicles, cell phones, etc.) along with engines or batteries.

We actually have a proposal pending with other groups to develop ultracapacitors with high energy density. If successful, that project would change thinking on vehicle technology. Unfortunately the *vast* majority of such projects do not produce results anywhere close to projections. Real world devices are much, much harder to actualize than theoretical or small scale lab results.

The interesting activity in vehicle technology surrounds lithium ion batteries for electric and hybrid (or plug-in hybrid - hybrids with a large battery pack) vehicles. Almost all car manufacturers have released a commercial electric or plug-in hybrid in the past year. I'm amazed by this because I'm not at all convinced that the economics make sense now (i.e. I worry that car manufacturers will not be able to make money on these vehicles within several years). I'd love to see these vehicles pan out economically. Certainly they are superior from a technical standpoint (acceleration, smoothness, noise).

People in my field debate the future of vehicle technology. Some favor fuel cell vehicles, others battery electrics, most look to a suite of technologies which include hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cells, battery electrics, and biofuels. The car manufacturers have a very difficult problem now - determining which technology to fund and push to commercialization. While most people don't like the increased gas prices, most of those in my field feel the price increase is by far the best way to stimulate the other technologies to commercialization. Since I drive very little, I actually prefer gas above $4/gallon (and higher) to cheaper gas.


----------



## Almaviva

Yep, our community is amazing, isn't it? Classical music lovers most likely tend to be better educated than most of the population, so, it is likely that we'll find in our community many who are advanced experts in various fields.

Sure, these developments in energy are encouraging, but if I understand you guys correctly (I'm really waaaay outside my area of expertise here) the main problem with peak oil is that we depend on oil for much more than energy, i.e., petrochemicals that are components of mostly everything that we use in our modern society. Sure, factories can run on electricity from nuclear reactors, mass transit can run on alternative energies, but what do we do with the petrochemicals? And food? And drinking water? This is why I feel rather doomed these days, after this discussion.


----------



## Vaneyes

Air said:


> I think a lot of the pessimistic forecasts we hear today are a result of the recent economic recession and that these predictions don't necessarily reflect what the future truly holds for us. But we should always be wary of issues at hand and do whatever we can to prevent such a fate.


The pessimism is warranted. The Gordon Gekkos and Greeners have largely stripped the country of its balls, and the War Mongers have taken advantage of the people who actually have to work...too tired to reason and fight stupidity.

The fight for survival has begun. Things will get nasty. This "recent recession," as you call it, is a walk-in-the-park compared to what's ahead.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> Sure, these developments in energy are encouraging, but if I understand you guys correctly (I'm really waaaay outside my area of expertise here) the main problem with peak oil is that we depend on oil for much more than energy, i.e., petrochemicals that are components of mostly everything that we use in our modern society.


In the US roughly 2/3 of oil is used in transportation. The rest of the world uses much more oil in heating and power production. The goal is to wean industrialized countries off oil usage for transportation. There would then be plenty of oil available for industrial uses.

The technology clearly exists to begin significant reductions of oil in transportation. The economics also look reasonable with high volume sales (the lifecycle cost estimates look favorable when sales of vehicles are high). The question is how to get to high volume sales of fuel cells, battery electric vehicle, or plug-in hybrids. Unless the gas price keeps rising, government will likely have to support the technologies through subsidies or other regulation.


----------



## science

I love materials tech. I tell my students that since about 1850, materials has been the fundamental technology. I realize that's an exagerration, but I believe it's a pedagogically useful one. Somehow it's not so sexy in itself. Someone needs to be the Carl Sagan of materials tech. Look around you right now - other than the paper and maybe the glass and maybe the fibers, do you really know what any of the stuff around you is made of? Like, what is your cell phone screen made of? What is the dye on the Starbucks cup made of? What _is_ fomica? What is the sticky stuff that seals the cereal bag? What is playdough?

It's a form of alienation. One hundred fifty years ago, people basically knew what their world was made of. Many of them didn't merely know that wood was wood, they knew pine from oak from cedar. But today, much of the "wood" around us is fake; the metals are alloys that we can't begin to describe (what is stainless steel?) or even if they're simple elements, we don't know where they come from or how they're extracted (even steel - many of us have heard of the Bessamer process but for this thread we really ought to know about "basic oxygen" process, since that's how the USA lost the steel industry - let alone titanium or aluminium). Rayon? Dacron?

I don't know much about any of it either, but it's fascinating to me that we move almost unconscious through a world of alien materials.


----------



## Vaneyes

Drill baby, drill...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/politics/15address.html?_r=1&hp


----------



## UniverseInfinite

"doom" will be to china first... then usa.. usa will be last or almost last to "doom"...

mark "old UI's" words...

see UI's 2010 post here, 
http://www.talkclassical.com/9603-jesus-christ-has-your.html,

╭(╯3╰)╮。。。


----------



## Ralfy

mmsbls said:


> In the US roughly 2/3 of oil is used in transportation. The rest of the world uses much more oil in heating and power production. The goal is to wean industrialized countries off oil usage for transportation. There would then be plenty of oil available for industrial uses.
> 
> The technology clearly exists to begin significant reductions of oil in transportation. The economics also look reasonable with high volume sales (the lifecycle cost estimates look favorable when sales of vehicles are high). The question is how to get to high volume sales of fuel cells, battery electric vehicle, or plug-in hybrids. Unless the gas price keeps rising, government will likely have to support the technologies through subsidies or other regulation.


Unfortunately, the other 80 pct of the global population now want to live like the 20 pct which has been responsible for at least 60 pct of personal consumption. In short, they want to own cars, houses, and appliances, too. That's why car and appliance sales have been growing considerably in emerging markets, which have very large populations and increasing money supply.

In addition, there is a lag time for retooling the manufacturing process and even mechanized agriculture to use less oil. One study argues that it make take up to 131 years to accomplish that, but we may only have a few years before energy demand starts increasing. For example, energy demand from China and India went up by 10 pct last year, and they and other countries now need not only more oil but more coal, rare-earth elements, and other resources to maintain economic growth.

Clearly, then, volume sales will not be a problem, because in order to provide the same middle class benefits to most of the world, we may need at least one more earth. The problem is that we will likely not be able to accomplish that. In which case, we will probably be lucky if we arrive at a sustainable lifestyle where basic needs are met, like that of Cuba. Many of the luxuries of a middle class lifestyle, from passenger vehicles (whether using petrol or electricity) to thousands of products which require solvents, plastics, lubricants, and many other products derived from petrochemicals, will hardly be available.

Finally, history as shown, through various wars (esp. one world war which may have begun not in 1939 but earlier, when Japan attacked China a few years after a drop in its oil production), attacks against other countries over resources, food rationing and hardships when oil shortages take place (as seen during two oil shocks and what took place in countries such as Cuba and North Korea), and so on, that conflict over resources become a particularly nasty result of such problems. In the past, of course, we were able to recover thanks to new discoveries, but with a far larger human population, more environmental damage, the long-term effects of climate change take place, and increasing resource demand due to greater complexity in terms of our needs....


----------



## Vaneyes

Ralfy said:


> Unfortunately, the other 80 pct of the global population now want to live like the 20 pct which has been responsible for at least 60 pct of personal consumption. In short, they want to own cars, houses, and appliances, too. That's why car and appliance sales have been growing considerably in emerging markets, which have very large populations and increasing money supply.
> 
> In addition, there is a lag time for retooling the manufacturing process and even mechanized agriculture to use less oil. One study argues that it make take up to 131 years to accomplish that, but we may only have a few years before energy demand starts increasing. For example, energy demand from China and India went up by 10 pct last year, and they and other countries now need not only more oil but more coal, rare-earth elements, and other resources to maintain economic growth.
> 
> Clearly, then, volume sales will not be a problem, because in order to provide the same middle class benefits to most of the world, we may need at least one more earth. The problem is that we will likely not be able to accomplish that. In which case, we will probably be lucky if we arrive at a sustainable lifestyle where basic needs are met, like that of Cuba. Many of the luxuries of a middle class lifestyle, from passenger vehicles (whether using petrol or electricity) to thousands of products which require solvents, plastics, lubricants, and many other products derived from petrochemicals, will hardly be available.
> 
> Finally, history as shown, through various wars (esp. one world war which may have begun not in 1939 but earlier, when Japan attacked China a few years after a drop in its oil production), attacks against other countries over resources, food rationing and hardships when oil shortages take place (as seen during two oil shocks and what took place in countries such as Cuba and North Korea), and so on, that conflict over resources become a particularly nasty result of such problems. In the past, of course, we were able to recover thanks to new discoveries, but with a far larger human population, more environmental damage, the long-term effects of climate change take place, and increasing resource demand due to greater complexity in terms of our needs....


Concerning numbers...

1950 World Population - 2,556,000,053

2010 World Population - 6,848,932,929*

2050 World Population - 9,346,399,468*

Projected*

Yes, there still are sufficient numbers of fat cats to keep this broken business model running for an undetermined period.

A lot of "communal" changes have to happen as Globalization gets reworked, but unfortunately most probably won't until death and struggle for survival is at the fat cats doorsteps. Then, it may be too late for preventive maintenance.

The Road may not be that far off.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3501917209/


----------



## science

Vaneyes said:


> The Road may not be that far off.


Maybe not, but other than stocking up on canned food and small arms, whaddaya gonna do?

Meanwhile, in a different field another potential energy is brewing (obscure pun intended):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110513132527.htm



> Same Fungus, Different Strains: A Comparative Genomics Approach for Improved 'Green' Chemical Production
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 15, 2011) - Fungi play key roles in nature and are valued for their great importance in industry. Consider citric acid, a key additive in several foods and pharmaceuticals produced on a large-scale basis for decades with the help of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus niger. While A. niger is an integral player in the carbon cycle, it possesses an arsenal of enzymes that can be deployed in breaking down plant cell walls to free up sugars that can then be fermented and distilled into biofuel, a process being optimized by U.S. Department of Energy researchers.
> 
> ...
> 
> As more than a million tons of citric acid are produced annually, the production process involving A. niger is a well understood fungal fermentation process that could inform the development of a biorefinery where organic compounds replace the chemical building blocks normally derived from petroleum. Learning more about the genetic bases of the behaviors and abilities of these two industrially relevant fungal strains, wrote senior author Baker and his colleagues in the paper, will allow researchers to exploit their genomes towards the more efficient production of organic acids and other compounds, including biofuels.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of the 47 authors on this paper, 30 are from Europe. "This is an excellent example of international collaboration...
> 
> ...
> 
> As of 2007, the global market for citric acid was estimated to be approximately $1.2 billion with more than 500,000 tons produced annually by fermentation. "Having the genetic blueprint for a citric acid-producing fungus will increase our understanding of the organism's metabolic pathways that can be fine-tuned to enhance productivity or alter its metabolism to generate other green chemicals and fuels from renewable and sustainable plant-derived sugars," said Randy Berka...


Imagine a future with huge fungi farms floating off shore, producing not just fuels but other chemicals....


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy, how much longer do you think the developed Western societies have - be precise please, in number of years - before we start to see widespread violence, riots, civil unrest, class warfare, hunger, looting, countries invading others for resources? Again, since posts don't convey body language and tone of voice, I clarify that I'm not being sarcastic, I really do want to know your opinion since you seem to be a student of these questions. How much longer? 15 years? 25? 40?


----------



## science

I think that's a good question, Almaviva.


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> Ralfy, how much longer do you think the developed Western societies have - be precise please, in number of years - before we start to see widespread violence, riots, civil unrest, class warfare, hunger, looting, countries invading others for resources? Again, since posts don't convey body language and tone of voice, I clarify that I'm not being sarcastic, I really do want to know your opinion since you seem to be a student of these questions. How much longer? 15 years? 25? 40?


These problems are already taking place, as seen in social unrest in countries such as Greece, Iceland, and even France. In general, the PIIGS are already affected, and others may follow. In developing countries, we are seeing similar problems in various countries, from China to Egypt to Libya and others, from strikes to civil revolts, brought about by oil and food prices (some of the highest in the last three decades) and in turn caused by combinations of problems: increasing demand for resources from emerging markets and the effects of climate change (including massive floods and droughts in Pakistan, Australia, and other places).

In Iraq and Afghanistan, devastating invasions based on false flags and ultimately the drive to control natural resources (large oil reserves in Iraq and minerals in Afghanistan as well as potential oil reserves in the Afghan-Kazhakstan region) has now led to millions of civilians suffering and dying, many of them children.

All these took place only during the last ten years, and before that a century of two world wars and over 70 years of continuous warfare (including a Cold War based on false flags and millions dead in countries that were turned into pawns by military powers), leading to over 200 million dead and probably one of the bloodiest centuries in human history. Given that, I do not think that the next few years, or even the next hundred years, will be different, esp. given the possibility that we are looking at economic "recovery" based on increasing debt to solve problems caused by increasing debt, oil production remaining flat since 2006, the threat of even a drop in coal production soon, businesses and governments unmindful of issues like climate change or even peak oil (and likely several of them even wanting more wars over resources), rising populations and demand per capita, and significant damage to natural resources and ecological systems (e.g., significant levels of top soil destroyed, fish stocks dropping by up to 40 pct).

Five years ago, the IEA argued that peak oil would not take place. Now, they are admitting the opposite:






Even the U.S. military

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

Lloyd's of London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/peak-oil-energy-disruption

and other organizations warn of a drop in global oil production by 2015. According to data released by Morgan Stanley, spare capacity will drop by 2012:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-spare-capcity-drops-morgan-stanley-says.html

and there are more studies, from groups ranging from the New Zealand Parliament to the Australian federal government.

The situation will be tight, esp. if we have to resort to using oil from Manifa, which is "heavy-sour" and thus entails even higher processing costs. Perhaps that alone will be barely enough to cover increasing demand from emerging markets, esp. China and India, where energy demand increased by 10 pct last year.

How about coal, which we need for around 40 pct of electricity and more than 60 pct of steel production? A new study mentioned here:

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/05/peak-coal-this-year.html

is now warning of a possible drop in coal production as well, esp. if oil supply remains tight.

Ultimately, we can probably use other sources of energy, even renewable sources, to at least maintain basic needs, but I do not think a middle class lifestyle (e.g., houses, passenger cars, appliances, and other amenities) will be sustainable. If, by some miracle, countries and businesses start working with each other (although Fatih Birol stated in the video linked above that they should have done so ten years ago) then those basic needs will be ensured, but given what has happened the last ten years or even the century before that, I am not sure if that will happen.

We are not aware of this, but when we usually say "we" we refer to developed countries or at least only 20 pct of the global population that make up the middle class, i.e., that earn between 10 and 20 dollars a day or more:

http://www.globalrichlist.com

and that is responsible for over 60 pct of personal consumption and control of around three-quarters of various natural resources worldwide. And in various ways, big business and governments work with us, as many of their officials and managers are part of the same 20 pct. Thus, we never had worries about lack of resources because we (i.e., the top 20 pct) dominated the planet. However, more from the 80 pct are joining the middle class, and we are now seeing resource depletion due to pollution, increasing complexity which requires even more resources (e.g., cell phones, handheld computers, flat-screen TVs, etc.), and natural depletion. We have difficulty replacing one resource with another because both require other resources (e.g., fresh water for nuclear power and food production, petrochemicals for solar panels and food production, etc.) and the most powerful governments working with businesses tend to obtain these resources through wars, cooperation with despots, etc. In general, just to maintain economic growth in China, we will need at least one more Saudi Arabia. To meet resource demand from emerging markets, several Saudi Arabias and in general at least one more earth. And that's just for the current global population, and assuming that no more resources will be damaged due to pollution and the effects of climate change.

In summary, we face at least three problems: a credit crunch (with more in the future), a resource crunch (coupled with increasing demand), and climate change (long term). The first we already experienced in 2008, and more will take place in the future because of financial speculation; for example, will Quantitative Easing Part 3 succeed during the next few months? The second is already taking place as seen in some factors leading to food prices, and oil production has remained flat since 2006, with warnings of a drop by 2015. More info on the third can be seen in various studies, especially from the NAS, and even warnings given by groups like the Pentagon back in 2004.


----------



## Almaviva

Ralph, you didn't answer my question. You've repeated what you had said before.

How much time?

I know it's happening in some countries.

I mean, here in America, or in developed European countries, when will we start to see a complete breakdown, in your opinion? How many years or decades?


----------



## Ralfy

As I pointed out in my post, we are already seeing the start of a "complete breakdown." It is a slow crash not just for the U.S. but for the middle class worldwide (i.e., those who belong to the upper 20 pct of the global population), i.e., inflation for necessities like food, chronic unemployment with available jobs offering lower income, a drop in government services, more bankruptcy filings, and increasing debt. Meanwhile, the rich will continue with financial speculation and earn more. In short, we will see a continuation of what is currently happening kept in check only through more credit pumped into the system (ironically, the same cause of our problems) for several years.

If oil production drops after 2012, we may see the decline of various non-necessities, from appliances to passenger cars, in addition to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. This will be very difficult for the middle class, which is heavily reliant on oil for passenger cars, gadgets such as cell phones and computers, appliances and other conveniences, etc.

Finally, the long-term effects of climate change plus other problems (like what is happening to Japan) may make the situation worse and are impossible to predict. The same goes for conflict between countries. Unfortunately, these problems may lead to various flash points, like sudden shortages for particular products (such as wheat or rice), oil production stoppage, lack of parts needed for various products (because we have a just-in-time global manufacturing system where parts from, say, Japan are needed with other parts from, say, Brazil, to make products manufactured in China).


----------



## Ravellian

... I'm not sure what to say. Thanks for the information, at least I'm getting warned about all this before it actually happens..


----------



## Vaneyes

Doomsday is near...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/21/rapture-2011-end-of-the-world-may-21-live-blog_n_864893.html


----------



## Almaviva

Ralfy said:


> As I pointed out in my post, we are already seeing the start of a "complete breakdown." It is a slow crash not just for the U.S. but for the middle class worldwide (i.e., those who belong to the upper 20 pct of the global population), i.e., inflation for necessities like food, chronic unemployment with available jobs offering lower income, a drop in government services, more bankruptcy filings, and increasing debt. Meanwhile, the rich will continue with financial speculation and earn more. In short, we will see a continuation of what is currently happening kept in check only through more credit pumped into the system (ironically, the same cause of our problems) for several years.
> 
> If oil production drops after 2012, we may see the decline of various non-necessities, from appliances to passenger cars, in addition to what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. This will be very difficult for the middle class, which is heavily reliant on oil for passenger cars, gadgets such as cell phones and computers, appliances and other conveniences, etc.
> 
> Finally, the long-term effects of climate change plus other problems (like what is happening to Japan) may make the situation worse and are impossible to predict. The same goes for conflict between countries. Unfortunately, these problems may lead to various flash points, like sudden shortages for particular products (such as wheat or rice), oil production stoppage, lack of parts needed for various products (because we have a just-in-time global manufacturing system where parts from, say, Japan are needed with other parts from, say, Brazil, to make products manufactured in China).


I understand all that. I guess I was fishing for a more specific prediction, such as "in 15 years it will be the time to build that underground bunker in a remote rural area and buy several shotguns, lots of ammunition, and huge amounts of non-perishable food and bottled water."


----------



## Ralfy

Almaviva said:


> I understand all that. I guess I was fishing for a more specific prediction, such as "in 15 years it will be the time to build that underground bunker in a remote rural area and buy several shotguns, lots of ammunition, and huge amounts of non-perishable food and bottled water."


I'm more concerned with the problems that take place during those 15 years, e.g., unemployment, high food and oil prices, more social unrest due to these two problems (not just strikes or food riots but also higher crime rates), lack of non-perishable food, medicine, and other provisions because of high oil prices, businesses closing, etc., a decline in various government services (including pay for police officers, fire personnel, medical emergency crews and lack of funds for public hospitals and clinics), blackouts and interruption in water services, etc. Some of these problems are already taking place in the U.S., e.g. most U.S. states close to bankruptcy, more citizens receiving low-income jobs, various institutions having to cut down on costs or close due to lack of funds, etc. Several points are enumerated here:

"50 Things Every American Should Know About The Collapse Of The Economy"

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...should-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-economy

In general, we're looking at an economy that has over $57 trillion in debt, has gone through nearly four decades of trade deficits, with around 70 pct of its economy based on consumer spending, U.S. banks exposed to over $370 trillion in unregulated derivatives (basically, debts backed by debts and not reported to government, part of a global derivatives market of around $1.2 quadrillion), around 40 pct of its military operations now funded through foreign debt (from which the interest alone will keep the country tied up for decades), an infrastructure and a middle class lifestyle that is heavily dependent on the use of oil and cheap imported goods, most citizens receiving high wages and easy credit in service industries, and an elite that is not only profiting heavily from financial speculation (by playing in what is now essentially a rigged stock market driven by high frequency trading and speculating in international commodity markets) but now sending their wealth to other countries to avoid paying taxes.

Given that, I cannot imagine economic "recovery" reported by the government except by fudging more numbers and increasing debt.

Meanwhile, China has been putting commodity lockups on various resources, from uranium to nickel, and striking deals with countries in many parts of the world using more than a trillion dollars in forex reserves, while working with deals with the rest of BRIC, including plans to use special drawing rights in place of the dollar.


----------



## Almaviva

Time to move to one of the BRIC countries.


----------



## Vaneyes

Doomsday is doomed?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/21/doomsday/index.html?hpt=P1&iref=NS1

Top Ten

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072683_2072697,00.html


----------



## science

Almaviva, unless I've confused you with another poster (which happens to me all the time), you're near retirement, right? 

Moving to a country where you can stretch the retirement $s further makes a lot of sense. You can pretty much pick your climate, and with modern tech (skype and e-books and so on) you won't miss as much as you might fear. In a tiny way, your spending will help the country of your choice develop and help the US exchange rate fall, helping US manufacturing and debtors. 

It's a thing I encourage people to consider. 

If you decide to stay in your home country, a move to a rural area has some of the same advantages.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Almaviva, unless I've confused you with another poster (which happens to me all the time), you're near retirement, right?
> 
> Moving to a country where you can stretch the retirement $s further makes a lot of sense. You can pretty much pick your climate, and with modern tech (skype and e-books and so on) you won't miss as much as you might fear. In a tiny way, your spending will help the country of your choice develop and help the US exchange rate fall, helping US manufacturing and debtors.
> 
> It's a thing I encourage people to consider.
> 
> If you decide to stay in your home country, a move to a rural area has some of the same advantages.


Not as near as I'd like to be, science (although I do love my job). I'm 54, and still have a few years ahead of me. I have mentioned that I see myself in pre-retirement, meaning that I've been doing a lot less cutting edge and advanced work, have moved from a major metropolitan area and a major university to calmer and humbler grounds, and have focused more on administration and mentoring than on being out in the trenches, all in the name of better quality of life, smaller cost of living, and more time for family and hobbies (such as opera and Talk Classical). But I shall stay where I am for at least another decade, if not one and a half, before I think of true retirement, which probably wouldn't be a complete one anyway (I'd probably just slow down even more but wouldn't completely abandon my field). But moving to another country *is* a consideration for me - to be decided after I'm older than 65. I think the two front-runners for me are Italy and Brazil given that I'm very familiar with both and have family and friends in both.


----------



## science

Yes, the family and friends are a big part of quality of life.


----------



## Vaneyes

Recent articles...

"Too soon to call time on China's economic boom"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/us-china-economy-outlook-idUSTRE74M3DS20110523

"US must adapt to China's new patterns of growth"

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8946/u-s-must-adapt-to-chinas-new-patterns-of-growth


----------



## daspianist

This may (or may not) surprise you, but Im actually a poster from China ::gasp!!::

My sincere opinion is that our economy is driven by a vast web of financial deception, corruption, and government under dealings. Modification of financial figures are practiced from the provincial governments all the way to Central Statistical Bureau, and this culture of deception has created a host of problems for the ordinary people. 

Inside mainland, there is a growing sentiment that sky high valuations of real estate and assets are contributing to an asset bubble magnitudes larger than the Dubai bubble from 2 years ago. While there is at least some level of financial transparency in the middle east, it is nearly nonexistent in the China (unless you count the unreliable and frequently revised "numbers" that firms publish). Furthermore, the stock market in mainland are disturbingly speculative, with those profiting the most from them relying on insider information. And since there is no Chinese SEC, insider trading is perfectly legitimate in many circles. This, and a plethora of other issues, are only likely to grow larger in the years ahead for my country.

And now to take a friendly jab at my peers, the Chinese youth, whom I sincerely believe are tools. In China, there is a fervent nationalist sentiment amongst my peers about how western nations are exploiting China, and that as the vanguard of the Party, the youth must remain strong and vigilant against the foreign imperialists. My peers often passionately proclaim their love for the motherland, and their hatred for US, Japan, Europe, etc. However, the Chinese youth are also the biggest consumers Western exports - everything from Starbucks coffee to LV bags to Nike shoes. Their sense of national pride simply does not translate to action, where Chinese made and design items (such as the Li-ning brand of sportswear) are shunned as second rate and "lower class". Just the other day, my friend insisted on meeting me in a Starbucks rather than a traditional tea house that I purposed, and we each spent over 35RMB ($6) per drink. Chinese youth are exploited left and right, by the western corporations () and by the Party, and tragically they have no mind of their own to make decisions with.

And there is my rant. If you fear for my safety, please do not worry... Im behind 7 boxxies!


----------



## Vaneyes

daspianist said:


> My sincere opinion is that our economy is driven by a vast web of financial deception, corruption, and government under dealings.


Well, I certainly would think so.


----------



## Almaviva

Vaneyes said:


> Recent articles...
> 
> "Too soon to call time on China's economic boom"
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/23/us-china-economy-outlook-idUSTRE74M3DS20110523
> 
> "US must adapt to China's new patterns of growth"
> 
> http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8946/u-s-must-adapt-to-chinas-new-patterns-of-growth


Vaneyes, you and your links are getting to be a really valuable source of information. You've been posting some very interesting articles, and I thank you for it!:tiphat:


----------



## haydnguy

Ones going to be going up over the next 15 years or so and the other is going to be going nowhere. Guess which?


----------



## science

haydnguy said:


> Ones going to be going up over the next 15 years or so and the other is going to be going nowhere. Guess which?


I remember a lot of comments along these lines in 1990 about Japan.

We just have to wait and see. Wouldn't surprise me at all if China has a big crash.


----------



## Vaneyes

"China ranks first among 22 emerging Asian economies as the country most likely to maintain steady and rapid growth over the next five years...."

China's no surprise, but a fast-rising Vietnam should be.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-most-likely-to-maintain-economic-growth.html


----------



## Ralfy

According to Fatih Birol of the IEA, we will need at least one more Saudi Arabia just to maintain current economic growth for China for the next few years. For the rest of BRIC and emerging markets, probably more. In general, we will need one more earth just to maintain current economic growth for much of the world. For most to achieve a middle class lifestyle like those in OECD countries, probably more.


----------



## science

In those estimations, what allowance is made for increasing energy efficiency and the growth of renewable energy production?


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> In those estimations, what allowance is made for increasing energy efficiency and the growth of renewable energy production?


As much as is allowed after a good return to oil execs and shareholders.


----------



## Ralfy

science said:


> In those estimations, what allowance is made for increasing energy efficiency and the growth of renewable energy production?


I think energy efficiency will be offset by the Jevons paradox, esp. given global free market capitalism. The catch, then, will be the EROEI from renewable energy. From what I know, at best, it will be only around 3, which may be enough to support basic needs but not a middle class lifestyle.

In general, then, we may see efforts to sustain basic needs, but many aspects of a middle class lifestyle (e.g., passenger vehicles, houses for each household, supermarkets and processed food, most white-collar jobs) will not be sustainable.


----------



## Ralfy

Vaneyes said:


> As much as is allowed after a good return to oil execs and shareholders.


On the other hand, oil companies have not been able to capitalize on increasing prices and demand, as oil production has remained within a 5-pct band since 2006. The closest breach to the band took place last month, when Saudi Arabia had claimed that it could hit a 12.5-mbd increase, but could barely reach 9 before dropping again. My guess is that the super light oil is being depleted.


----------



## jurianbai

i wonder why North Korea government did not follow China's way to reach economy growth at this pace.


----------



## science

They've tried, but their government is more oppressive so they really can't do it. 

Interestingly, some of the products made in North Korea are taken to China, where they get the "made in China" label.


----------



## science

Ralfy said:


> I think energy efficiency will be offset by the Jevons paradox, esp. given global free market capitalism. The catch, then, will be the EROEI from renewable energy. From what I know, at best, it will be only around 3, which may be enough to support basic needs but not a middle class lifestyle.
> 
> In general, then, we may see efforts to sustain basic needs, but many aspects of a middle class lifestyle (e.g., passenger vehicles, houses for each household, supermarkets and processed food, most white-collar jobs) will not be sustainable.


Essentially, "given global free market capitalism" betrays the nature of your analysis. So far capitalism (with its sister institutions: science/technology, republican government, and the press) has solved a lot more problems than it's caused - which is really impressive when you consider the seriousness of the problems it's caused. Your thesis is really just Malthus with energy rather than food. But with capitalism we've beaten Malthus: the global population is probably going to max out at around 9 billion, so if that pattern holds and barring other catastrophes we'll be able to feed ourselves. I see no reason to conclude that we won't be able to do it with energy.

That's not to say that lifestyles won't change, because of course they will, as energy becomes more expensive. But it seems to me you've retreated a long way from the doomsday scenarios. Urban apartments, public transportation, and less meat in our diets wouldn't be revolutionary change.

But revolutionary changes _will_ be made with energy technology. The world of 2025 will have a lot more solar and wind and geothermal and nuclear power than today. More things will be electric, and electric things will be more efficient. Maybe our quality of life won't increase much, maybe it will even decrease, but I don't see that we'll have to abandon modernity.

Anyway, that's a wide angle view response, and I was more interested in the details of the estimates you cited earlier.


----------



## Vaneyes

China gets tough on food safety.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/30/china.food.violations/


----------



## Vaneyes

"10 reasons not to bet against China's rise"

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/10-reasons-not-to-bet-against-chinas-rise/


----------



## Ralfy

WSWS has a some new articles about China playing hardball in SE Asia:

"Chinese patrol boats confront Vietnamese oil exploration ship in South China Sea"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/chin-m31.shtml

"Tensions escalate over the South China Sea"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/phil-m03.shtml

There's even a Stratfor article about China, Kazakhstan, Shell and others:

"Shell's oil field withdrawal will chill China"

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...gan-oil-energy-Eni-ExxonMobi-pd20110530-HC48G

Perhaps one should see this in light of Fatih Birol's argument that China and the rest of BRIC and various emerging markets will need more resources, including several Saudi Arabias, to maintain economic growth. One wonders where China, for example, will obtain more oil besides bullying neighboring countries. This article tries to answer that question:

"Where will China find the oil to power its economy?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-the-oil-to-power-its-economy/article2010203/

Combine that with ongoing tensions not only in the Middle East but also in Europe (esp. given PIIGS)....


----------



## Vaneyes

Ralfy said:


> WSWS has a some new articles about China playing hardball in SE Asia:
> 
> "Chinese patrol boats confront Vietnamese oil exploration ship in South China Sea"
> 
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/chin-m31.shtml
> 
> "Tensions escalate over the South China Sea"
> 
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/phil-m03.shtml


Thanks for these. Furthermore...

http://www.smh.com.au/world/vietnam-accuses-china-of-sabotage-20110601-1fgec.html


----------



## Vaneyes

"States pour money into Medicaid"--Survival vs Education.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/02/news/economy/state_revenues_nga/index.htm


----------



## science

So Vietnam is the USA's newest ally.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> So Vietnam is the USA's newest ally.


Not as long as Americanism vs Communism is alive and well. America is #1 trading partner for Vietnam, that's all. Though this attempted trade restriction isn't very neighborly...and wondering if China's behind it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ietnam-market-access-representatives-say.html


----------



## science

Vietnam is about as communist as China - and, geopolitically speaking, they're a natural ally for us going forward, if China keeps antagonizing them. 

Anyway, I love Vietnam and the Vietnamese people, and I hope that letter is ignored!


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> Vietnam is about as communist as China - and, geopolitically speaking, they're a natural ally for us going forward, if China keeps antagonizing them.
> 
> Anyway, I love Vietnam and the Vietnamese people, and I hope that letter is ignored!


Some re-branding, but still Communist.

Re allies, though I respect your relationships and hopes, nothing from the US State Dept. points to that.

Rightly so. Considering their track record in recent times for "choosing friends", I would like the State Dept. to maintain their present course in this region.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MF04Ae01.html


----------



## science

Vaneyes said:


> Some re-branding, but still Communist.
> 
> Re allies, though I respect your relationships and hopes, nothing from the US State Dept. points to that.
> 
> Rightly so. Considering their track record in recent times for "choosing friends", I would like the State Dept. to maintain their present course in this region.
> 
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MF04Ae01.html


What kind of communist country has a stock market? Sounds like more than rebranding to me. It's on the same path as China.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> What kind of communist country has a stock market? Sounds like more than rebranding to me. It's on the same path as China.


Whatever path you like. They're still Communist.


----------



## science

Well, then I suppose we disagree about how to define "communist." It's best not to wrangle over semantics. Where I see increasingly open markets, wealth increasingly concentrating in the hands of capitalists, nascent labor movements, sophisticated central bankers attempting to manage the economies, and eagerness to participate in global markets, you see highly regulated finance, many corporations and most utilities wholly or partially owned by the state, active central planning, all saturated by Soviet-model propaganda. 

So there's points on both sides. 

But if you contrast it to what I would consider a "real" communist country - say, Burma or North Korea - the difference is obvious. 

Perhaps we're looking at a new type of hybrid economy. Of course all capitalist economies have always been hybrid, the free market has largely been a myth, but there is no denying that so far at least China (and Vietnam) have retained many elements of centralized planning and state ownership, while making capitalism-inspired reforms in many other areas. 

Sorry for the jargon-y bureaucra-tone. I'm in a dry mood (unrelated to this thread) and not expressing myself well. All I mean is, I can see why you might insist on calling them "communist," but there are good reasons to seek a new label for those economies as well.


----------



## Vaneyes

"China calls for US action on debt crisis"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5inkBfeZuS3zDZfqh3c-KTaZGLkpg?docId=CNG.a6fea320c245308f70a705f34c9150fd.481


----------



## Vaneyes

"China sees yuan becoming third global currency"

https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20110604/RBCHINAYUANMACKINNONATL


----------



## Almaviva

Well, there is some hint of fighting back from the United States:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110611/pl_nm/us_clinton_africa


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> Well, there is some hint of fighting back from the United States:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110611/pl_nm/us_clinton_africa


I'd say it's closer to meaningless lecturing--"There are more lessons to learn from the United States and democracies." Anyway, I hear Hillary's got her eye on another job.

Meanwhile, poor China's knees must similarly be quivering over Vietnam's navy flexing its muscle.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvKWMcZN3XRwXHcoo7R4HQ1d-uiA?docId=df751e48ed924ff1975dc4b0c2ee3961


----------



## science

I don't believe China and Vietnam are going to go to war over the sea; Vietnam will back down. Perhaps a few ships will be destroyed. 

But let's do the hypothetical - if they were to go to war, how would the world change?


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I don't believe China and Vietnam are going to go to war over the sea; Vietnam will back down. Perhaps a few ships will be destroyed.
> 
> But let's do the hypothetical - if they were to go to war, how would the world change?


The world wouldn't change. It would be a regional conflict with a quick resolution (a war between a mouse and a rhino). Nobody would be able to intervene because the Chinese have nukes. So that would be it, VietNam would have to back down, give up the disputed waters, and everything would go back to normal. The only notable consequence is that other countries would grow more concerned about China. That's what I think would happen.


----------



## science

If Vietnam put up a fight, I could imagine things getting interesting. I don't believe China would nuke them; China would prefer to (try to) demonstrate material superiority to send a message to the world. 

But if it were at all difficult for China, it could add to their domestic discontent. Tibet and the Uighers could seize the moment, if any inflation happened with consumer goods there could be more riots, etc....


----------



## science

Trouble in Inner Mongolia: http://www.economist.com/node/18775303


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> Trouble in Inner Mongolia: http://www.economist.com/node/18775303


The troublesome internet again...it's everywhere! ****-disturbers around the world have embraced the frugality of, rather than being in just one place and getting your head battered.


----------



## science

I believe the Tianenmen Square protests about 20 years ago were put down by troops from Inner Mongolia - the government did not trust Han Chinese soldiers to fire on Han Chinese protestors.


----------



## Vaneyes

"China is the new dot.com"

http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonchang/2011/06/12/is-sino-forest-a-sino-fraud/


----------



## science

I couldn't find that article through your link. Is this the same one? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576372943261984356.html


----------



## science

Here's one on some of the unrest in China: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1290666515926.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> I couldn't find that article through your link. Is this the same one? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576372943261984356.html


Gordon C. Chang is the Forbes author, but the referencing is similar.


----------



## science

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...142907232726.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Asia

Here I read: "Social unrest has been rising steadily in recent years: In 2007, China had more than 80,000 "mass incidents," up from above 60,000 in 2006, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, although many involved no more than a few dozen people protesting against local officials. No authoritative estimates have been released since then, though analysts citing leaked official figures put such incidents at 127,000 in 2008."


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> Here's one on some of the unrest in China: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...1290666515926.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read


Yes, out of a 1.3B pop., there must be more than a few disgruntled.


----------



## science

Vaneyes said:


> Yes, out of a 1.3B pop., there must be more than a few disgruntled.


I did the math, and it's 1 "incident" for every 10,000 people.

But it'd be nice to have independent verification of the numbers, to know what counts as a "mass incident," and so on.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

science said:


> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...142907232726.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Asia
> 
> Here I read: "Social unrest has been rising steadily in recent years: In 2007, China had more than 80,000 "mass incidents," up from above 60,000 in 2006, according to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, although many involved no more than a few dozen people protesting against local officials. No authoritative estimates have been released since then, though analysts citing leaked official figures put such incidents at 127,000 in 2008."


It's the lack of woman, I'm telling you! There's a disproportion in the population because of abortion and abandonment of female babies since the beginning of the 1 child policy. Married men are known to have more stable lives. More single, idle men means more unrest/crime, regardless of political issues, although that could be a reason too.


----------



## science

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It's the lack of woman, I'm telling you! There's a disproportion in the population because of abortion and abandonment of female babies since the beginning of the 1 child policy. Married men are known to have more stable lives. More single, idle men means more unrest/crime, regardless of political issues, although that could be a reason too.


Yeah, we were talking about that before. That probably is part of the problem.

I wonder how stable a country like China could possibly be: without electoral politics to drain off a bit of the discontent, huge and rapid change, huge disparities in wealth, etc.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> Yeah, we were talking about that before. That probably is part of the problem.
> 
> I wonder how stable a country like China could possibly be: without electoral politics to drain off a bit of the discontent, huge and rapid change, huge disparities in wealth, etc.


"Nurses" from Russia and Vietnam are imported to guard against a chatastrophic blue-balls outbreak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China


----------



## science

That's interesting. The part about North Korean women is really sad. 

I just read recently about Chinese women being trafficked to Dubai. South Korea also seems to be importing women from Russia - very popular with the businessmen. Also Vietnam and the Philippines in the form of maids and mail-order brides. 

Someone should research up and make one of those trade flow maps, but instead of water or oil, smuggled women.


----------



## Vaneyes

Navyless Philippines can breathe easier.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/4224/palace-relieved-by-china%E2%80%99s-vow-not-to-use-force-in-spratlys


----------



## science

Wow, I'd've lost money on a bet that Philippines didn't even have one warship. How can a nation of islands not have a navy? 

Anyway, they should probably consider doing something about this in the future.


----------



## Vaneyes

Correction, the Philippines does have a warship.










http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/16409/on-sending-philippine-navy’s-biggest-warship-to-spratlys


----------



## Vaneyes

China & Libya

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/China-Libyan-Rebels-Hold-More-Talks--124275129.html

China's aircraft industry

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...or-200-plus-c919-jets-from-china-s-comac.html


----------



## Almaviva

I knew it. I said we'd still have the edge on a few fields like aerospatial, medical equipment, stuff like this - jet turbines, MRI machines, etc. - but it was just a matter of time before China would move into these markets as well.

We're doomed... The decline of the American empire is upon us.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> We're doomed... The decline of the American empire is upon us.


I don't view the decline of the American empire as being doomed. The fact that we may someday not have troops in every foreign country or send troops to every region of the world where people are doing something we don't like gives me hope. We should still have an economy that keeps us as one of the richest countries in the world if not number 1 or in the top 10. That would be fine especially if we manage to reduce the disparity in wealth we now have (not clear we'll do anything of the sort, of course).


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> I knew it. I said we'd still have the edge on a few fields like aerospatial, medical equipment, stuff like this - jet turbines, MRI machines, etc. - but it was just a matter of time before China would move into these markets as well.
> 
> We're doomed... The decline of the American empire is upon us.


I don't know whether you're being sarcastic. You've been making a lot of these really pessimistic posts, and I wonder whether you're exagerrating.

Our unipolar dominance since 1991 couldn't last, but it will be a long, long time before we have to worry about any other country dominating us. China has to keep itself together for a few years before it passes us economically, and then it has to keep itself together in order to secure its position. But then we'll be #2, and there'll be a huge gap between #2 and #3.

Actually, if the EU counts, we're #2 already.

Probably someday - within our lifetimes even - India will also catch up and pass us, and we'll be #3, or #4 if the EU is still around.

I personally feel it's not so bad. The only way to keep China and India poorer than we are is to keep about two billion people in extreme poverty. Thinking of the fifteen thousand or so people in Asia who turned on a light bulb in their home for the first time _today_ puts it in perspective for me.


----------



## Almaviva

I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just being pessimistic.
I've been feeling really discouraged about the economy, politics, and the way our country is going.
This morning during the commute to work I was thinking that I'll stop voting. There is no point. Nothing gets solved, ever. One party tries something, the other undoes it, and the deadlock continues. Meanwhile everything is deteriorating.
My personal life is great, I'm in no financial trouble myself, I have a secure, highly paid job.
But I worry about my kids and my potential grand-kids.
Sure, it is great that poverty around the world is declining. I was very focused on all of this up to a few years ago. Now that I'm getting older, I've been worrying more about my loved ones than about the poor in China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc. It is selfish, I know, but it happens to older people.
Is it exaggerated? Probably.
A couple of weekends ago I was in New York City and I entered one of the newer shopping centers at Columbus Circle, full of high end boutiques and restaurants. I thought, "this surely doesn't look like a country in deep economic turmoil - it will be a while before we're really down."
Yes, we'll be (or are already) #2, then #3, then #4 for a while, and probably we won't see that much trouble (as compared to the Third World) within my lifetime.
But it is the feeling of decline and decadence that bothers me, if you get what I mean.


----------



## Vaneyes

To US, no official cyber warfare by China.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/china-cyber-attacks-us-not-directed-government-_n_882035.html


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just being pessimistic.
> I've been feeling really discouraged about the economy, politics, and the way our country is going.
> This morning during the commute to work I was thinking that I'll stop voting. There is no point. Nothing gets solved, ever. One party tries something, the other undoes it, and the deadlock continues. Meanwhile everything is deteriorating.
> My personal life is great, I'm in no financial trouble myself, I have a secure, highly paid job.
> But I worry about my kids and my potential grand-kids.
> Sure, it is great that poverty around the world is declining. I was very focused on all of this up to a few years ago. Now that I'm getting older, I've been worrying more about my loved ones than about the poor in China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc. It is selfish, I know, but it happens to older people.
> Is it exaggerated? Probably.
> A couple of weekends ago I was in New York City and I entered one of the newer shopping centers at Columbus Circle, full of high end boutiques and restaurants. I thought, "this surely doesn't look like a country in deep economic turmoil - it will be a while before we're really down."
> Yes, we'll be (or are already) #2, then #3, then #4 for a while, and probably we won't see that much trouble (as compared to the Third World) within my lifetime.
> But it is the feeling of decline and decadence that bothers me, if you get what I mean.


Blacks leaving New York for the South in large numbers might be one sign that things aren't too good. Irony indeed, returning to the old plantation. Well, not exactly. Hotlanta's been progressive for a few decades now.

http://atlantapost.com/2011/06/22/are-blacks-over-living-in-new-york/


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just being pessimistic.
> I've been feeling really discouraged about the economy, politics, and the way our country is going.
> This morning during the commute to work I was thinking that I'll stop voting. There is no point. Nothing gets solved, ever. One party tries something, the other undoes it, and the deadlock continues. Meanwhile everything is deteriorating.
> My personal life is great, I'm in no financial trouble myself, I have a secure, highly paid job.
> But I worry about my kids and my potential grand-kids.
> Sure, it is great that poverty around the world is declining. I was very focused on all of this up to a few years ago. Now that I'm getting older, I've been worrying more about my loved ones than about the poor in China, India, Africa, Latin America, etc. It is selfish, I know, but it happens to older people.
> Is it exaggerated? Probably.
> A couple of weekends ago I was in New York City and I entered one of the newer shopping centers at Columbus Circle, full of high end boutiques and restaurants. I thought, "this surely doesn't look like a country in deep economic turmoil - it will be a while before we're really down."
> Yes, we'll be (or are already) #2, then #3, then #4 for a while, and probably we won't see that much trouble (as compared to the Third World) within my lifetime.
> But it is the feeling of decline and decadence that bothers me, if you get what I mean.


I'm sorry to hear that man. I worry about the political state of the US, but not so much about the economy. The people who really run the country don't want to ruin the economy if they can help it.

Right now we're in a strange political situation. If I give my opinion of it the thread might degenerate, so I'll hold off, but I'll say that I think we're about 5-6 years away from a progressive backlash really taking force. Things will get better.

Well, I believe they will. One never knows.


----------



## Ralfy

Likely, around 40 pct of U.S. war costs are now being funded through foreign loans, and the interest alone on those loans will be a burden:






And together with tax cuts, war costs is one of the main drivers of government debt:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6

which are being passed on to citizens while corporations (not just those in the U.S. but in China and other countries) profit from attacks against weaker countries.

Similar problems are taking place in China, the rest of BRIC, and various OECD countries: increasing debt across the board needed to pay for increasing military and other costs as well as meet consumer spending, in turn built on resources that are now being strained.

Here's a recent article from _The Economist_ about the latest BP report:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption

As admitted only recently by the IEA and seen in warnings from groups ranging from the U.S. military to Lloyd's of London, energy consumption has been exceeding oil production the past five years or so, with oil production relatively flat. Apparently, other sources of energy are being used to meet increasing demand, leading to increasing prices for food and for these other resources. This might also explain why China has been very keen not only on trying to buy as many resources as it could since '09 but also on claiming control of various parts of Asia, much of it way beyond its EEZ. Meanwhile, various multinational companies are also trying to bid on extracting oil from the same sources, with their governments becoming increasingly wary of China's military activities. And this is the same China that probably might not need military force to contend with the U.S.:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/146702/how_china_holds_the_american_economy_by_the_balls

and, with various emerging markets, will require one or more Saudi Arabias to maintain economic growth:


----------



## Vaneyes

Ralfy said:


> Likely, around 40 pct of U.S. war costs are now being funded through foreign loans, and the interest alone on those loans will be a burden:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And together with tax cuts, war costs is one of the main drivers of government debt:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
> 
> which are being passed on to citizens while corporations (not just those in the U.S. but in China and other countries) profit from attacks against weaker countries.
> 
> Similar problems are taking place in China, the rest of BRIC, and various OECD countries: increasing debt across the board needed to pay for increasing military and other costs as well as meet consumer spending, in turn built on resources that are now being strained.
> 
> Here's a recent article from _The Economist_ about the latest BP report:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption
> 
> As admitted only recently by the IEA and seen in warnings from groups ranging from the U.S. military to Lloyd's of London, energy consumption has been exceeding oil production the past five years or so, with oil production relatively flat. Apparently, other sources of energy are being used to meet increasing demand, leading to increasing prices for food and for these other resources. This might also explain why China has been very keen not only on trying to buy as many resources as it could since '09 but also on claiming control of various parts of Asia, much of it way beyond its EEZ. Meanwhile, various multinational companies are also trying to bid on extracting oil from the same sources, with their governments becoming increasingly wary of China's military activities. And this is the same China that probably might not need military force to contend with the U.S.:
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/economy/146702/how_china_holds_the_american_economy_by_the_balls
> 
> and, with various emerging markets, will require one or more Saudi Arabias to maintain economic growth:


Some help is on the way. It better be. After nearly three years of following the continuing rot of Cheney/Bush policies, troop withdrawals are announced by Obama admin. It's a start, but I think the damage is done and irreversible...certainly in our lifetimes. Jobs have been eliminated through bad economy, technological advancement, outsourcing, greeners, etc., etc. The Road may be on the horizon. 20, 30, 40 years?


----------



## Vaneyes

US & Vietnam naval activities...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hzd5aSCsADeL91v5kHP1oLPnvvzQ?docId=CNG.24c01f7b9ff53959e522b5434198c816.7d1


----------



## Vaneyes

"What The World Needs Now"

-Burt Bacharach

What the world needs now is love sweet love,
its the only thing that there's just too little of.
what the world needs now is love sweet love,
no not just for some but for everyone.

Lord we dont need another mountain, 
there are mountains and hillsides enough to climb,
there are oceans and rivers enough to cross
enough to last until the end of time

what the world needs now is love sweet love,
its the only thing that theres just too little of,
what the world needs now is love sweet love,
no not just for some but for everyone

Lord, we dont need another meadow,
there are corn fields and wheat fields enough to grow,
there are sunbeams and moonbeams enough to shine,
oh listen Lord, if you want to know

What the world needs now is love sweet love,
its the only thing that theres just too little of.
what the world needs now is love sweet love,
no not just for some, oh but just for every every everyone.

what the world (whoa whoa) needs now, 
is love (is love) sweet love 
what the world ( oh oh) needs now 
is love (is love) sweet love 
what the world (whoa whoa) needs now 
is love (is love) sweet love


----------



## science

I might've sung, "What the world... needs now... is renewable energy... sweet renewable energy." 

In my best Aaron Neville voice of course.


----------



## Vaneyes

science said:


> I might've sung, "What the world... needs now... is renewable energy... sweet renewable energy."
> 
> In my best Aaron Neville voice of course.


That'll come, that'll come...but first, love.


----------



## Almaviva

I was talking today to a distinguished researcher in my field, a guy who commands major grants and is at the cutting edge of research.
He was making some predictions about the trends in our field.
I asked him - sure, very exciting, but who will pay for it? Don't you think that the funds will dry out, with all the trouble we're going through with our economy?

His answer:

"The science will be just fine. But it won't be us. We're going down. I mean, we're in a country of people who don't believe in evolution in this day and age! America is the past. We have lost the leadership. Nowadays the Chinese are educating their scientists and they have their eyes focused on the right priorities. Singapore is basically a country-enterprise managed by scientists. Asia is the future. We got into this medieval kind of thinking, we're worried about gay marriage, while the world is happening outside of our borders. We're done. You need to learn Mandarin if you want to stay on top of the developments in our field."


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> "The science will be just fine. But it won't be us. We're going down. I mean, we're in a country of people who don't believe in evolution in this day and age! America is the past. We have lost the leadership. Nowadays the Chinese are educating their scientists and they have their eyes focused on the right priorities. Singapore is basically a country-enterprise managed by scientists. Asia is the future. We got into this medieval kind of thinking, we're worried about gay marriage, while the world is happening outside of our borders. We're done. You need to learn Mandarin if you want to stay on top of the developments in our field."


I think he's correct that we have lost the leadership. We still have great universities. Everyone wants to come her to learn, but we simply do not value research enough. I'm not surprised that politicians don't understand this, but I am quite surprised that industry doesn't push the federal government harder to make more money available for generic research. I suppose they might think that corporations are global now so what does it matter if they go somewhere else to establish research centers. The problem is that it's hard for US companies to work in China.


----------



## Almaviva

Yes, he talked about our universities as well. He said (and this is absolutely true, I've seen it over and over) that the Chinese come and enroll (40% of students in advanced degrees in our universities now are Chinese), graduate, and then go back to Mother China, instead of trying to stay here like it used to happen. And now, according to him, some Chinese aspiring scientists are just staying put and learning their science over there, from the ones we've educated for them and went back to teach.

What amazes me is how we look at this situation and do NOTHING to reverse it. We always think in the short term. "OK, so these Chinese students are paying full tuition, great! Let them come!" Soon enough their universities will be as good (and then, later, better) than ours, and we'll be out of business.


----------



## Vaneyes

Almaviva said:


> I was talking today to a distinguished researcher in my field, a guy who commands major grants and is at the cutting edge of research.
> He was making some predictions about the trends in our field.
> I asked him - sure, very exciting, but who will pay for it? Don't you think that the funds will dry out, with all the trouble we're going through with our economy?
> 
> His answer:
> 
> "The science will be just fine. But it won't be us. We're going down. I mean, we're in a country of people who don't believe in evolution in this day and age! America is the past. We have lost the leadership. Nowadays the Chinese are educating their scientists and they have their eyes focused on the right priorities. Singapore is basically a country-enterprise managed by scientists. Asia is the future. We got into this medieval kind of thinking, we're worried about gay marriage, while the world is happening outside of our borders. We're done. You need to learn Mandarin if you want to stay on top of the developments in our field."


Questions regarding large numbers of Chinese students to US (link), no scientists in the mix? The best kept at home? Numbers of scientists who stay or return home?

http://laowaiblog.com/more-than-a-brain-drain/


----------



## mmsbls

Vaneyes said:


> Questions regarding large numbers of Chinese students to US (link), no scientists in the mix? The best kept at home? Numbers of scientists who stay or return home?


I can say that in the University of California where I work, a large number of students are Asian and especially Chinese. My field is science related and many of our grad students are Chinese. In fact many more would be, except that we have limited research funds so we have to turn many down.

To my knowledge the vast majority of these students return home after graduating.


----------



## science

I wonder whether people think things are actually going to collapse around us, or just that we won't be #1 anymore?

I'd guess we're in a position analogous to Great Britain's in the nineteenth century rather than to Rome's in the fourth century.

But our immigration policy and anti-expert fury will definitely bite us. We've allowed religious fundamentalists and their allies the oil companies to intimidate us out of teaching or even talking honestly about science, and we will eventually get what we deserve.

We shouldn't overestimate anyone else though. China has loads and loads of problems, so for at least another decade I'd rather be in our position than theirs. Wait till that economy coughs a bit and see how things go.

Who I think I really might like to be, if I couldn't be the USA, is Indonesia. Incredible resources, great location for trade _with everyone_, already an increasingly vibrant democracy, soon to be the dominant member of ASEAN which will itself soon be one of the world's more important organizations, cultural ties to both East and South Asia.


----------



## Ralfy

According to Niall Ferguson, the main driver of conflict during the previous century was not religion but _realpolitik_ in various forms: ethnic strife, nationalism, or simply policies that give military powers economic advantages, leading to resource wars. In fact, the major sources of conflict were military powers with secular governments and capitalist (state or free market) economies, with the latter half consisting of proxy wars, i.e., weaker countries used as pawns by stronger ones.

Likely, more will take place during the next few years, as more resources are extracted in order to meet increasing demand per capita, esp. in the Asia Pacific region, and as more oil is needed to process and use these resources.

Yesterday, the IEA just announced that strategic reserves for various oil-importing countries will be released to keep the price of oil down, perhaps anticipating greater demand during the summer. The problem is that strategic reserves are used only for emergencies.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Has anything changed?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Yes, Trump got elected. He is a tough on trade, with us Canucks also. He also stopped kept Ford manufacturing within the US. He’s like a tough medicine to swallow, but does some good where it counts.


----------

