casamurphy

 
   Posted by at  1 Response »

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: No More Washington or America #59881
    casamurphy
    Participant

    @Huskynut You stated your opinion of what the letter said and my comment addressed that so I showed respect to you. What you gave me in return is judgment and jumping to conclusions. Do you have no appreciation for the efforts of others? Your judgment of whether or not I read the letter is not only meaningless but also rude unless you state your reasons for that claim. Cite a passage from the article here and build your case, but oops, unfortunately, you won’t be able to do that in a way that our public can appreciate since the hosts of that article apparently thought about as much of the article as I did your description of its value: This page has been removed!
    This page is no longer available. It has either expired, been removed by its creator, or removed by one of the Pastebin staff.

    in reply to: No More Washington or America #59876
    casamurphy
    Participant

    @Huskynut Yeah, “You’re just playing the victim, lots of other people’s houses burn down all the time!” My argument stands. White racist USA citizens will do almost anything to deflect and disregard the suppression of blacks. Those of us that want the suppression to be addressed don’t ask for that improvement because we disregard the value of all lives or the virtue of taking responsibility for one’s state in life. To accuse us of such disregard simply highlights the disregard our accusers have for equal rights in our society. Indeed, we simply are asking all our fellow citizens to not only accept responsibility for their state in life but to also accept their responsibility to uphold the ideals of a just society.

    in reply to: No More Washington or America #59875
    casamurphy
    Participant

    JFK’s speech to the nation following the Alabama National Guard protecting the admission of the first black students to the state’s public university is very poignant when juxtaposed to the rantings of Mr. Trump.

    in reply to: No More Washington or America #59871
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Black Lives Matter protests are large because USA society continually strives to disregard the continual suppression of blacks. Saying, “Well All Lives Matter” is just more disregard. It’s as if your house is burning and when you call the fire department to complain about how long it is taking them to arrive they tell you, but lots of other people’s house burn all the time. That’s being told your house doesn’t matter. And as to where to “draw the line” about dismantling honorific public memorials…in the USA it is simple and clear: With Confederate symbols. The Confederate rebellion aimed to destroy the United States and to maintain slavery. Those f**king traitors who caused over 600000 war dead then raised monuments to their lost cause in order to terrorize blacks after the war and they deserve no public honor. Any good old boy who will boycott Nascar now that they have banned the Confederate flag at their events can simply make sure the door doesn’t hit their whiny-ass on the way out of the respectable house of civil society. Such losers may try to rewrite history, but no, the winners get to write history. You do not see Nazi monuments in Germany, so all you USA white supremacists need to just get over it.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 27 2019 #48244
    casamurphy
    Participant

    All national currencies are derivatives of the dollar. The dollar is a fiat currency ultimately based upon a growing economy with true productivity which is necessary to pay the interest on the debt used to produce the money (for those unschooled in how money is created — it is created by banks when debts are created). With the end of cheap oil, the economy can no longer grow sufficiently to support a debt-based fiat currency. Only Gold and Silver are money without counter-party risk (debt-based fiat). Gold bonds which pay interest in ounces of gold and tech-based schemes which allow more efficient gold holding and exchange by the masses will be what brings all this monetary madness to an end. An interested example of a tech-based gold holding system is Kinesis ( https://kinesis.money/en/ ) which has major corporate and national players involved such as the Indonesian postal system, one of the largest public bank type operations in the world. Libra would ultimately destroy all national currencies except the dollar which would also mean the dollar’s value would be reduced by its last 2% since 1913 to -0-. Then ultimately Libra would be valued against Gold and Silver anyway. Why give FB and other current large corporations such power during the phase out of dollar? Instead just let the people go directly to Gold and Silver as foundation money and let any National fiat remain currency, but efficiently valued against the metal. This way individuals, like nations can protect themselves against the vagaries of national trade imbalances the proven traditional way: Gold and Silver.

    in reply to: Gold Yuan Crypto #42145
    casamurphy
    Participant

    @ zerosum

    https://www.animated-teeth.com/dental_crowns/t-sell-scrap-dental-gold.htm
    “Since most gold crowns are more along the line of 16 karat (67%), an average one could be expected to bring around $56.95.
    $56.95 = $1000(spot price) X .1(weight factor) X .85(refining fee) X .67(karat adjustment)”

    So at $22000 spot price the amount would be 22 X 56.95 = $ 1252.90

    in reply to: Gold Yuan Crypto #42141
    casamurphy
    Participant

    the analysis in this link http://www.zerothposition.com/2017/04/17/supply-objection-gold-standard/ posits a necessary gold price of around $13,000. I believe that Keith Weiner at Monetary Metals accurately describes the reason gold won’t be very meaningful until it can efficiently flow again AND that in order to flow we need to widely re-establish gold bonds that will allow people to earn a yield payable in gold on gold:

    The Great Gold Upgrade, Report 15 July 2018


    and

    The Benefits of Issuing Gold Bonds

    There is legislation currently pending in Nevada which would direct the Nevada government to issue gold bonds backed by its levy on gold mining production. For an interesting discussion of this go here:

    in reply to: Debt Rattle July 26 2018 #41975
    casamurphy
    Participant

    V. Arnold
    Gold has value, yes. But enough to back a currency? Not likely.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://www.zerothposition.com/2017/04/17/supply-objection-gold-standard/ explains:

    “Perhaps critics of restoring sound money mean to say that the gold standard could not be reintroduced at current gold prices. In this, they are correct; at the time of this writing, gold trades at $1,284 per troy ounce. Multiplied by the 186,700 metric tons of gold available, this gives $7.707 trillion of gold-backed currency, which is not enough for the United States economy, let alone the entire world. The solution, then, is to devalue fiat currencies to fit the available gold supply. According to the CIA World Factbook, the gross world product in 2015 was $75.73 trillion. Covering this with the available gold gives a gold price of $12,616.75 per troy ounce, which is an order of magnitude above current prices, but not outlandish.”

    BTW, I’m having fun using a gold crypto currency right now: https://quintric.com/ it is based upon US legal tender gold coins and blockchained down to 1/1000th of a $50 Gold buffalo coin or in other words 5 gold “cents”.

    in reply to: Treason? Get A Life! #41856
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Trump has no style or finesse. He can’t do anything correctly. He is basically an idiot. He could start shitting gold bricks a mile a minute into the US Treasury and I would still hate his guts. I applaud anyone anywhere who helps feed the unrelenting criticism of anything about him. Please! All I yearn for at this point is a president who speaks in coherent sentences and has at least a 5th grade vocabulary! Even though I basically agree with Caitlin Johnstone about the need to change USA’s foreign policy, I resent the bumbling chaos, corruption, and incompetence spewing forth from Trump’s core. He is the proverbial broken clock and I will never give him credit for ever being right about anything.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle May 8 2018 #40526
    casamurphy
    Participant

    PREMISE:
    Medical service providers are just that, service providers. In that regard, doctors are no different in the market than automobile mechanics. Automobile mechanic income depends on the average income of car owners. Doctor income depends on the average income of patients. Every country, though, has figured out some way to pay medical service providers more than automobile mechanics so that the poor get some access to the care only the rich can afford and to minimize public health risks affecting all classes. Calls in the USA for market-based reforms to the health care affordability problem conveniently overlook this basic fact. This is not surprising considering the oligarchic trends within the US economy since health insurance became popular after WWII.

    Instead of floundering in our traditional economic cynicism we could instead, like every other developed country in the world, undertake simple reforms to keep health care spending down to a reasonably low percentage of GDP . No constitutional roadblocks exist.

    SUGGESTED REFORMS:
    1. Lower the Medicare start age to 55. This would most efficiently remove the most difficult to insure group from the suggested reform process that will be undertaken by each individual state (as suggested at item #4 below).
    2. Simplify the Medicare benefit structure so that there is one simple annual deductible for all parts of Medicare (A,B,and D) based upon a progressive income and asset test; and re-structure the Medicare Part B premium so that it is also based upon a progressive income and asset test.
    2.1 Make Health Savings Accounts (HSA) available to anyone on Medicare who still has active employment income regardless of the size of their new Medicare annual deductible and also regardless of the structure of any employer benefits. People will be able to draw on tax-free HSA accounts to pay these deductible amounts.
    2.2 A unified income and asset based Medicare deductible would eliminate the need for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Prescription Drug plans; saving the government and consumers hundreds of billions year in and year out. This would also stop the national torture due to complexity perpetrated upon our seniors.
    2.3 Some percentage of current insurance workers could be leased by current insurance companies to the government during a transition phase, while those losing their jobs would get unemployment assistance.
    3. Make Medicare the primary payor when coordinating with large employer group plans as it is for retiree plans and small groups today so that large employers would feel encouraged and justified to offer an option to employees to forgo actual coverage in exchange to a company contribution to a HSA.
    4. For everyone through age 54 each state individually or in concert with other states could adopt some form of the proven models provided by other developed countries. Large states, who have larger populations and economies than many model countries, have the tax base and economies of scale to easily set up such model systems. If smaller states run into difficulty they can join together with other states, whether regionally proximate or not, to adopt models that work best for them as a group.

    POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS:
    I believe these reforms could be politically viable because they feed into hot button issues of both the right and left. I know “Medicare at 55” is not as powerful a political phrase as “Medicare for all”, but the Medicare for All placards usually also have the catch phrases “Love it” and “Improve it”. But Medicare at 55 could be an attractive compromise since almost no right wingers would suggest doing away with Medicare so implicitly they approve of it and thus extending that approval down to age 55 to preserve the “free market” of healthcare ideas at the state level is a position right wingers could support. The left would be thrilled by the income and asset based unified Medicare deductible so they would feel like they got some extras in terms of love and improvement for Medicare. Right wingers in red states would like the individual state control aspect and enjoy pushing for a return to a cash-based system for the poor and concierge plans for the wealthy; while socialists in blue states will enjoy pushing for public options. Large employers will like having most of the claims of the over 55 group removed from their plans. They will like it even more when the wide establishment of public state plans makes it unnecessary for them to bother to provide health insurance at all. Leveraging the benefits that large business will enjoy into the reforms makes it easier to build political consensus since big businesses are large political donors. Ultimately the state plans that best satisfy consumers, medical service providers, and taxpayers will also best compete for doctors and businesses. Red, blue, or purple then; each state should be able to build an adequate plan.

    Though insurance companies would be able to offer policies that would cover or lower the unified Medicare deductible, most people would find it simpler and more cost effective to just save most of the premium instead in an HSA . Most middle-income people would have relatively small deductibles and thus would be willing to devote some savings to such an emergency fund. I could imagine most banks/insurance/brokerage companies offering HSA accounts that pay higher than market returns simply as an inducement to use the other services of the company.

    Even though big health insurance companies would probably have an advantage over smaller firms as they find a way to profitably downsize to basic employee leasing enterprises that provide administration services to Medicare and the state model plans; they, like all companies in the healthcare market, would be faced with the need to either adapt or die. I believe the big companies seeing the writing on the wall would actually support the reform process since they would be in the best position to morph into profitable survivors of the process.

    Big Pharma…well big pharma would take a hit, but so be it…they will just have to deal with bulk discounted sales to Medicare and the state plans who in turn can just have the discounted drugs fulfilled through the existing pharmacy outlets.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle March 31 2018 #39726
    casamurphy
    Participant

    The sure way for the dollar to lose reserve status would be for the rest of the world to be unable to obtain the dollars they need by undercutting US producers. If the rest of the world can’t obtain dollars by selling into the US market, then eventually the dollar will not be able to fulfill its reserve status. If increasingly impoverished US citizens become unable to support large trade imbalances then the world will need a substitute reserve currency. If the Fed and US Treasury artificially increase the dollar supply to try to compensate that could trigger a death spiral of dollar weakness. Things could still drag out, though, for decades to come.

    in reply to: The Automatic Earth for Athens Fund – Christmas and 2018 #37924
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Had to mail a check…couldn’t get PayPal to work. The first time I clicked just on Donate without any amount and that got me going, but then accidentally logged in to PayPay using the wrong account. When I logged out to use the right account and tried again I got the “…recipient does not accept payments denominated in USD.” error message. Maybe if I re-booted things would have worked, but I just mailed a check instead.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle November 3 2017 #36856
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Tthis article offers interesting insight into the Hillary “takeover” of the DNC:

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-hillary-clinton-didnt-take-over-the-dnc-but-barack-obama-did-let-it-languish

    I supported Bernie over Clinton, but the real problem exposed here (how the DNC was so in debt they needed Clinton’s money) has to do with the inherent weakness of the US political party structure. In the past (early 20th century) when progressive populist party cadre from precinct chair upward welded real power, the little guy’s involvement made a difference because the local pols he supported ultimately elected the nominees to higher office. Now both parties are completely dependent on big donors. Ironically the lack of grassroots power is a viscous cycle. The more the little guy realizes that the party is weak, the more difficult it is for him to justify the investment of time in the party. The GOP gets around this by pandering to religious conservatives who run and fund the grassroots of the party as a religious duty, while the GOP elite make sure the important policy decisions favor their big donors (thus the common refrain about GOP rank and file consistently voting against their economic interests).

    in reply to: Globalization is Poverty #36558
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Raúl,

    Thank you for such a well written and insightful article.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 26 2017 #35650
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Diablo,

    You obviously know nothing know little about how medicare works. Part A of medicare which pays for hospitalization has a $1316 deductible after which no further out of pocket payments are required until the 61st day of hospitalization. Part B which pays for out-patient care has an annual deductible of $183 after which, basically, there is an 80% / 20% split with medicare paying 80% and the individual paying 20%. My Medicare supplement policy has an annual deductible of $2300 after which any outstanding Part A or Part B deductibles or co-pays are paid 100% by the insurance company. Therefore withdrawals of tax-free income from my HSA will go a reasonably good distance in terms of covering my out-of-pocket exposures.

    I was simply stating the facts as they current apply to my situation so as to point out that for many people the Fidelity study was scare mongering.

    You may apologize to me now for casting undue and factually incorrect aspersions my way.

    By the way, just for the sake of full disclosure, I will post below my suggested reforms of the medical cost financing system:

    PREMISE:
    Medical service providers are just that, service providers; and in that regard are no different in the market than automobile mechanics whose average income depends on the average income in the workers (their clients) in their society. Every country, though, has figured out some way to pay medical service providers more than car mechanics. That way the poor get some access to the care that only the rich can afford. Calls in the USA for market-based reforms to the health care affordability problem conveniently overlook this basic fact which is not surprising considering the long oligarchic traditions of the USA.

    Instead of floundering in our traditional economic cynicism we could undertake simple and effective governmental reforms in order to keep health care spending down to a reasonably low percentage of GDP like every other developed country in the world. No constitutional roadblocks would have to be overcome. Government established systems don’t need to unconstitutionally block medical service providers from contracting with patients in whatever way they wish. Well-structured public systems will just make it unnecessary and uneconomical for them to do so. As the reforms listed below are read, please reserve judgement as to their political viability until you get to the end.

    REFORMS:
    1. Lower Medicare age to 55. This would most efficiently remove the most difficult to insure group from the reform process faced (as suggested at item #3 below) by the individual states.
    2. Simplify the Medicare benefit structure so that there is one simple annual deductible for all parts of Medicare (A,B,and D) based upon a progressive income and asset test; and also re-set the Medicare Part B premium so that it is also based upon a progressive income and asset test based.
    2.1 This would make the need for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Prescription Drug plans obsolete; saving the government and consumers hundreds of billions year in and year out.
    2.2 Some percentage of current insurance workers could be leased by current insurance companies to the government during a transition phase, while those losing their jobs could get direct transition assistance.
    3. For everyone through age 54 each state individually or in concert with other states could adopt some form of the proven models provided by other developed countries. Large states, who have larger populations and economies than many model countries, have the tax base and economies of scale which should make it easier to establish such model systems compared to smaller states. Therefore, if smaller states run into difficulty they should be allowed to join together with other small states, whether regionally proximate or not, to adopt models that work best for them as a group.

    FACTORS:
    I believe these reforms could be politically viable because they feed into hot button issues of both the right and left. Right wingers in red states would like the individual state control aspect and burn themselves out on pushing for a return to a cash-based system for the poor and concierge plans for the highly paid employees and wealthy individuals which will ultimately prove economically and politically unsustainable compared to the socialistic systems established in the blue states. Left wingers in blue states will jump at the chance to bring forth successful plans and thus help the blue brand and motivate blue voters nationwide. Big health insurance companies would continue to have an advantage over smaller firms as they find a way to profitably downsize to basic employee leasing enterprises that provide administration services to Medicare and the state model plans. They, like all the companies in the healthcare market, would be faced with the need to either adapt or die. I believe the big companies seeing the writing on the wall would actually support the reform process since they would be in the best position to morph into profitable survivors of the process. Big Pharma…well big pharma would take a hit, but so be it…they will just have to deal with bulk discounted sales to Medicare and the state plans who in turn can just have the discounted drugs fulfilled through the existing pharmacy outlets.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle August 26 2017 #35648
    casamurphy
    Participant

    I went and used the AARP calculator mentioned in the Fidelity retiree medical cost article and it projected only a $30,000 “shortfall” for my wife and I as a couple after factoring in the value of our High Deductible Plan F Medicare Supplement policies. If you keep weight in check and eat right you can stick with the cheapest drug plan available in your area and that, along with the HD Plan F provides very comprehensive and affordable coverage. I have almost $20,000 in that HSA, so things look OK.

    The article doesn’t reveal the assumptions used. My wife and I are 70 and I projected death for both at 90. Also, the AARP calculator provides very different results for people with higher BMIs (fat/total weight ratio). I suppose Fidelity probably used from age 65 to 95 and more average BMIs than what we enjoy, not being overweight at all. Also, I bet they used more comprehensive Medicare Supplement plans like regular F or G as opposed to HD plan F. If your above average health and savings level allows the use of a High Deductible Medicare plan, your premium savings compared to deductible amount paid plus the premium for more comprehensive Medicare Supplement plans can be very significant.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 27 2017 #34772
    casamurphy
    Participant

    At the bottom of the https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232164 link you posted the author provides a linkto his other solutions and one (“Wholesale drug pricing in the United States must be on a “most-favored nation” basis”) echos what I’m saying about drugs.

    The https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232164 link suggests the reform that jurisdictions make this law:

    “Notwithstanding any other provision in state or federal law, a person who presents themselves while uninsured to any provider of a medical good or service shall not be charged a price greater than that which Medicare pays for the same drug, device, service or combination thereof.”

    Nothing I suggested would limit your ability in your state to make that suggested law a reality.

    Also, anyone today can enforce the same rule. When I had to take my wife to a hospital emergency room years ago on a Saturday because her face was swelling up with large red blotches, the in-take clerk told me that only the business office could give me an estimate of charges up-front and then I made the clerk sit with me while I continuously called the business office to no avail. Finally I just inserted an amendment to the payment clause of the in-take form limiting my my agreement to pay no more than $500 in aggregate from any and all providers be they direct employees of the hospital or independent contractors. The doctor looked at my wife’s face, prescribed a strong cortisone ointment and told us to see a dermatologist Monday. Later when the bills came in totaling $2000, I prorated every bill against the $500 limit and sent payment along with my copy of the in-take form. Only the hospital balked. I told their collectors to call my attorney. After my attorney and the hospital attorney discussed the amended in-take form the hospital accepted my limited payment in full and that was the end of that. My attorney said she had so much fun on that one, she didn’t even charge me.

    in reply to: Debt Rattle June 27 2017 #34770
    casamurphy
    Participant

    @Dr Diablo:

    Instead of floundering in cynicism we could undertake simple and effective reforms. No constitutional roadblocks would have to be overcome. Government established systems don’t need to unconstitutionally block doctors and hospital from contracting with patient in whatever way they wish. A well-structured public system will just make it unnecessary and uneconomical for them to do so. Here are the reforms:

    1. Lower Medicare age to 55. This would most efficiently remove the most difficult to insure group from the reform process faced by the individual states.
    2. Simplify the Medicare benefit structure so that there is one simple annual deductible for all parts of Medicare (A,B,and D) based upon an income and asset test; and also re-set the Medicare Part B premium so that it is also income and asset test based.
    2.1 This would make the need for Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement, and Medicare Prescription Drug plans obsolete; saving the government and consumers hundreds of billions.
    2.2 Some percentage of current insurance workers could be leased by current insurance companies to the government during a transition phase, while those losing their jobs could get direct transition assistance.
    3. For everyone through age 54 each state individually or in concert with other states could adopt some proven model such as the Singapore model, the Taiwanese model, the Swiss model, etc. Large states who have larger populations and economies than many model countries will have no problem establishing systems. If smaller states run into difficulty they will can join together with other small states to adopt models that work best for them (regional proximity would not be required).

    What I suggest could work. Right wingers in red states would like the individual state control aspect and burn themselves out on pushing for a return to a cash-based system for the poor and boutique plans for the highly paid employees and wealthy individuals which will ultimately prove unsustainable compared to the socialistic systems established in the blue states. Left wingers in blue states will jump at the chance to bring forth successful plans and thus help the blue brand and motivate blue voters nationwide. Big health insurance companies would find a way to profitably shift to providing administration services to Medicare and the states. Big Pharma…well big pharma would be screwed…they would most likely have to deal with bulk discounted sales to Medicare and the state plans who in turn would have the discounted drugs fulfilled through the existing pharmacy outlets.

    in reply to: What is this ‘Crisis’ of Modernity? #32315
    casamurphy
    Participant

    I think the best we can hope for is a descent long enough to make the inevitable decline in population manageable. By manageable I mean allowing for the preservation in society of a humane culture.

    I no longer make the effort to warn people of what is ahead. I reason, “Why unsettle their proud enjoyment of their remaining time on their Titanic deck chair?” Politicians are unwilling to be Cassandras as well.

    The masses still fanatically believe our over-arching societal myth: that human progress will always continue unabated. Perhaps politicians intrinsically know that to abruptly shatter such a myth is to invite unmanageable population decline and loss of humane culture.

    casamurphy
    Participant

    @ FF @ sinabl

    Lots of variables all changing at the same time.

    If your mortgage is at a low interest rate (below 4%) which many are nowadays, it probably is not such a bad thing compared to rent. At least you have title and can’t be evicted on a landlord’s whim. But, of course, you can be foreclosed upon if you can’t keep up the mortgage payments. In a deflationary spiral keeping up with mortgage payment can become more and more difficult. Other factors come into play, though.

    A debt jubilee could be instituted by the sovereign by which in the name of economic stability all debts are absolved and the debt-money-monopoly undergoes a “reset” of sorts. In such a jubilee, those with no debt should receive cash grants in order to creat a more level paying field between whose who then would own debt-free assets versus people who have no assets, but at least also had not debt. In such a jubilee, those with mortgages MIGHT come out ahead of renters since the formula for a cash grant to renters can be less than the effect of a forgiven mortgage; and those with forgiven mortgages also get the added benefit of staying in their own home.

    Another factor that could come into play is the increasing power of savings. If while paying down a low interest mortgage one was also able to accumulate some savings, then he or she would be in the position to offer the bank something less than the nominal payout in order to end the mortgage. In a deflationary spiral with no debt jubilee, even Banks will be hungry for cash or other assets that are holding their value. With a low mortgage interest rate, a buyer who could have paid cash, but who took the mortgage anyway, and kept the cash in their mattress would very likely be in a position to pay off the mortgage for far less than its nominal pay-out and therefore perhaps gain a significant financial advantage because of the mortgage.

    Renters who had saved will also be in a better position to buy a house if housing prices have collapsed, but it is less likely they will be in the position to offer to buy the house they particularly like and have customized to their tastes over the years.

    in reply to: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space – Part 4 #23287
    casamurphy
    Participant

    Maybe we’ll be lucky and not even notice a relatively quick die-off.

    How many people personally known to you died this year? Most people answer 0 or 1 or rarely 2 to that question. If you answered 2, would your experience of life have changed dramatically if that number was 16 instead of 2? Probably not, especially if those who died were elderly or deemed diseased. Some level of normalcy could continue, and over time more frequent deaths due to disease and conditions of old age that used to be medically treated, would become the new normal. If annual worldwide deaths increased 8 fold, most people would eventually take that increase in stride. Even people living in higher than “normal” death rate areas who would feel a more significant impact would adapt and over a short time horizon not see things as catastrophic, but simply moving towards a new, lower level of stability.

    An 8 fold increase in the number of people dying every year would create a net population decreasing of about 3% per year even if current birthrates continued unabated. At a 3% rate of decrease, world population would shrink from 7.4 billion to 1 billion in about 65 years.

    Within 3 short generations society could be back to living an early-industrial, if not pre-industrial life-style.

    Continued resource scarcity and unwinding of complexity could easily bring a tipping point towards significant population reduction over a relatively short period of time; while ironically, at the same time, allowing most people a somewhat normal life not not characterized by constant war or famine; but instead simply defined by higher general mortality rates which are perceived as a new normal.

    in reply to: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space – Part 3 #23276
    casamurphy
    Participant

    I believe that TAE and Gail Tverberg’s https://ourfiniteworld.com/ blog compliment each other nicely. In one of her recent comments, Gail shared a study that presents well the trends related to decreasing EROEI: https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/pnas-2015-schramski-1508353112.pdf

    Then there is this blogger named Tom who at https://bountifulenergy.blogspot.com/2015/05/six-errors-in-eroei-calculations.html?m=1 presents the argument that the EROEI for tar sands really isn’t low because tar burned on site to loosen other tar is obtained with little capital investment since it is already “there”. Extrapolating to other low grade sources such as coal, he posits that we have plenty of energy and that EROEI critiques are bogus.

    I don’t agree with him. To me he represents the extent to which people will do anything to close their ears and eyes and scream “la la la la la” when confronted with anything that challenges what Greer (https://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/) has so well described as our society’s Myth of Progress.

    in reply to: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space – Part 3 #23275
    casamurphy
    Participant

    a couple more little typos:

    Paragraph 4, 1st Sentence
    “…society’s functions and our ability [ to (missing word)] maintain what we have built.”

    Paragraph 12, 2nd Sentence
    “… of production, or [ or (repeated word)] energy returned on energy invested (EROEI).”

    in reply to: Automatic Earth Fund for Athens Makes First Donation #22248
    casamurphy
    Participant

    For those who crave more specific instructions:

    In the left column of this site, towards the top of the page, there is a section for making donations. If you would like to donate to the Greek Clinic use this section…BUT MAKE SURE YOUR DONATION AMOUNT ENDS WITH .99. Donations ending with any other decimal values will go to the AE site itself.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)