Jeff Rubin and Oil Prices Revisited

 

Home Forums The Automatic Earth Forum Jeff Rubin and Oil Prices Revisited

This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Nicole Foss 8 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 41 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4767

    William said:

    “Is it a credit crisis or is it an oil crisis? Really if you look carefully it is much like a chicken and the egg concept. Banks lent out more than should based on plentiful oil.”

    Sorry William, but that’s very simply very inaccurate. It’s also a very typical mistake made by those – overly – focusing on energy.

    The financial crisis was not caused by oil prices. That’s not how it works. We always give the example of the Great Depression, when there was plenty of energy, resources, labor, but one thing was missing: money/credit.

    Financial crises have their own inner dynamics, boom and bust. These develop independently of any external factors. We have had the greatest credit boom in history, and that will inevitably be followed by the greatest bust.

    This boom and bust will have enormous consequences for energy availability, not the other way around.

    It’s simply not true that if we had more oil, we could keep up the economic growth rates based on the biggest credit bubble in history. It makes no sense to presume that more oil would somehow automatically allow us to leverage our economy from 100-1 to 200-1.

    #4770

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    ashvin post=4417 wrote: I disagree. They may have been instrumental in creating the system, but they can’t simply change the most basic rules without changing the entire system.

    My entire point is that they could change the entire system should they simply decide to do so. You’ve erected an arbitrary constraint on them that need not exist and doesn’t exist. They’ve already changed the entire system in which we operate several times over. if you think about it, I bet you can make a list of how the system was fundamentally changed since 2008.

    “Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope.”
    ~Charlie Munger

    ashvin post=4417 wrote: That means they are being forced in a certain direction in order to maintain their grip, i.e. more centralization/consolidation of wealth, more intervention/regulation of markets, more explicit handouts to the elite class, more extraction of wealth from workers/taxpayers and mid-level owners of assets, more police state repression, etc., basically – more complexity to maintain complexity. I believe that forced path will eventually lead them to a steep cliff somewhere, with nowhere left to go but down… way down.

    That’s where our paradigms part ways – they simply choose the system and the system forces certain actions… When it suits their needs, they change the system. They’ve already done it multiple times – TBTF, selective legalized securities fraud, Presidential assassination powers with zero oversight, government reaching inside your pants, etc…

    ashvin post=4417 wrote: We’ve been over this too many times before… you are assuming that no one else knows about it because we don’t write about it every chance we get. That’s not true. We have written about it several times in the past

    Please post a link where I can find the TAE article that exposes the Federal Reserve as black letter law criminally breaking Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act. I want to send that link out to everyone on my mailing list.

    We are going to get that link, right? 😉 For the record, I don’t think that link exists, Ash – but I’m pretty darn excited about being proven wrong.

    As to your point that different people have different goals and different ways to achieve them – I totally agree and respect everyone’s wisdom and right to do as they see fit. I obviously enjoy TAE’s overall approach immensely, hence, my participation here.

    Sorry for ranting a bit on the main thread and taking too much space. Ilargi, thanks for the reminder to be more concise.

    #4777

    ashvin
    Participant

    TheTrivium4TW post=4435 wrote: My entire point is that they could change the entire system should they simply decide to do so. You’ve erected an arbitrary constraint on them that need not exist and doesn’t exist. They’ve already changed the entire system in which we operate several times over. if you think about it, I bet you can make a list of how the system was fundamentally changed since 2008.

    That’s where our paradigms part ways – they simply choose the system and the system forces certain actions… When it suits their needs, they change the system. They’ve already done it multiple times – TBTF, selective legalized securities fraud, Presidential assassination powers with zero oversight, government reaching inside your pants, etc…

    But think about how the system is changed by them… it HAS to be towards more centralization of wealth, more consolidation of authority and more explicit repression. So, yes, they can change the system, but that change comes out of a necessity to maintain their grip on the levers of power, and it can only go in one general direction. For ex., Nixon unilaterally taking the US off of the international gold standard established by Breton Woods is a great example of elites changing the monetary system, but they really had no choice if their goal is to maintain socioeconomic complexity as well has their privileged roles in society (which it is). It’s not like they could have switched to a silver standard, or back to a domestic gold standard, or anything they wanted to do.

    I believe this general direction of centralization sows the seeds of its own destruction over time. That conclusion is based on a lot of factors, but I think a good way to think about it is in terms of natural ecosystems that go through similar adaptive cycles, i.e. phases of birth, growth, conservation and collapse.

    https://theautomaticearth.com/Finance/fractal-adaptive-cycles-in-natural-and-human-systems.html

    Please post a link where I can find the TAE article that exposes the Federal Reserve as black letter law criminally breaking Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act. I want to send that link out to everyone on my mailing list.

    We are going to get that link, right? 😉 For the record, I don’t think that link exists, Ash – but I’m pretty darn excited about being proven wrong.

    How about taking it one step further, and saying the FRA itself breaks the black letter law of the US Constitution, allegedly the most supreme law of the land:

    Plutocracy Now

    We could write stacks of books on the prevalence of money in politics and the swarms of lobbyists who descend on Washington every single week, and many people have, but it’s simpler to just focus on the most egregious example of corruption. The most powerful, influential economic policy-making institution in the country, the Federal Reserve (“Fed”), is an unelected body that is completely unaccountable to the people. Well, let’s back up and start with the fact that this institution’s very existence is most likely unconstitutional. Here’s why:

    In terms of general debt-dollar and Fed tyranny across the world, though, I can also provide you with a boat load of links to articles I have written about that.

    As to your point that different people have different goals and different ways to achieve them – I totally agree and respect everyone’s wisdom and right to do as they see fit. I obviously enjoy TAE’s overall approach immensely, hence, my participation here.

    Sorry for ranting a bit on the main thread and taking too much space. Ilargi, thanks for the reminder to be more concise.

    And it’s great to have you here! At the end of the day, we are basically on the same page, just focusing on it from slightly different angles. Even between I, S and me, we take different approaches to the same issues, and then of course the differing backgrounds/perspectives of all the commenters, which I believe is a very good way to go about constructing the biggest possible picture.

    #4783

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    Hi Ash,

    Again, I’d argue they can do what they want, but their self interest is to consolidate and control – so of course that’s what they do.

    I’m 100% aligned with the TAE view of where this all goes (loss of liberty, societal asset stripping, be prepared to feed and drink yourself, the government won’t help you, etc…).

    The distinction I make is that it need not go that way out of necessity, but that it will go that way because the oligarchs want it to go that way. Basically, it is an academic discussion because the results we expect are basically identical.

    The oligarchs have conditioned the people to believe that anyone who actually believes in the Constitution is a quack… if not a dangerous extremist. 99% of what we observe out of government is unConstitutional. A good portion of that is King Georgian. Come to think of it, was King George really that bad compared to what we have today – including the end game that cometh?

    I guess I’m the weird guy for thinking that the people who control the money supply have criminally broken their own penalty-free law (it isn’t even a law, got equal justice?) and lied about it for 25 years is news worthy of an article – or even a mention in the comments!

    Especially when that is the ROOT CAUSE of the economic depression and collapse that awaits us.

Viewing 4 posts - 41 through 44 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.