Diogenes Shrugged
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Pipefit:
You wrote, “At some point, I’m guessing below $10/gal gasoline, the system will fall apart. Places like NYC, with excellent public transportation, will be o.k.”
Everybody abandoning the highways and going to the subway sounds crowded to me. My guess is that no place will be okay except for places where gasoline isn’t an issue, like deep in the Amazon rainforest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami
TAE has extensively addressed the building of a lifeboat, but wIth $10 gasoline, building a rickshaw might also be useful.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=how+to+build+a+rickshaw&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
And if you’re into growth, two rickshaws and a rickshaw boy. That frees up the wife to do the plowing.
Don’t laugh.
Raleigh – Yesterday you asked, “Copper, aluminum, iron ore, steel. And what about gold? I remember everybody saying China was buying all the gold. Hmmm, could it just be they were doing the same thing with gold?”
Indeed they were:
Quoting from the middle of the article: “In other words, the only limit on the amount of leverage, aka rehypothecation of copper, was limited only by letter of credit logistics (i.e. corrupt bank back office administrator efficiency), as there was absolutely no regulatory oversight and limitation on how many times the underlying commodity can be recirculated in a CCFD…. And gold is orders of magnitude higher!”
The ZH analysis, though, describes a different possible price consequence for gold than for all the other involved commodities if the shadowy Chinese Commodity Funding Deals are forced to unwind. But even as the CCFD’s unwind, it sounds like the price of gold will still be determined by the futures (paper) market that China participates heavily in. (I hope I said that right – – technical finance is well above my pay grade.)
Another factor affecting copper stockpiles:
Mining is not an easy business. Too often it moves up and down like the fast end of a bull whip. It’s “eureka” one year and lay-offs the next, then “eureka” again the next. Metals prices determine ore grade cut-offs. With higher prices, lower grade ores are profitable to mine and process, also resulting in higher stated reserves. With lower prices, only higher grade ores are profitable, resulting in a smaller calculated reserve base. When low grade ores are re-classified as waste due to falling prices, they’ll probably remain as waste for perpetuity because of peak oil and increasing energy costs. That has an impact on what’s called stewardship of a nation’s resources. Falling prices mean poor stewardship because deposits yield less of the contained resource.
This closely resembles how TAE has assessed remaining petroleum resources.
Sometimes, when metals prices are low for a sustained period, it becomes uneconomic to wait for better times. Open pits and underground mines are allowed to flood, experienced workers move away, and when prices finally rise again, the mines remain abandoned.
Most of the time I lament growing old, but occasionally I thank my lucky stars that I’m not young like my kids. It’s possible that the pieces are going to be just incredibly hard to pick up after this world economy gets done shattering.
I promised myself I wouldn’t comment again while drinking, but that leaves a such a small time window. So here I am commenting again while drinking! That confession means I have a drinking problem? Nope. That confession means my credibility is in doubt? Nope. Is your credibility in doubt when you drink? Anyway, I have another point to make. If you disagree, resurrect prohibition. Maybe the war on alcohol wasn’t vigorous enough the first time. Go ahead, break a leg. As for me, fuck the institution of government. Fuck it to hell. That written thought should put cops through my front door at 3 am soon enough. Are you listening, NSA? (That was a rhetorical question.)
Among Ilargi’s final thoughts: “Will we really only react when we have nothing left at all? It’s starting to look that way.”
With all due apologies, I’m gonna throw ice water on that one.
When “we” have nothing left at all, the clueless will remain steadfastly clueless. Knowledge takes time to accumulate, and most people neither have the time nor the inclination. When we have nothing left at all, there will be no reaction other that the one we might expect from a two-year-old who lost his nipple. That being, for us ‘adults,’ “Why doesn’t the government do something?”
This species is facing an earthshaking disaster without any conceivable solution. The people who kindly brought you to this point deserve your thanks.
When you find yourselves faced with the opportunity to give thanks, please consider for a moment how you can do that with the greatest possible effect. If that sounds like more than you’re willing to handle, then please just realize. Please just realize the you’re just another two-year-old who lost his nipple.
Think I’m being harsh? You’re about to witness several orders of magnitude worse than harsh. The real world is about to get REALLY fucking real. For a change.
Just the alcohol talking? Hopefully. HOPE, dimwit! (If I’m not talking to you, then don’t take it personally.)
rapier,
You wrote, “In a nutshell Bernanke said policy is all about keeping markets liquid.” Yes, but I wonder if the actual Fed mantra isn’t “policy is all about keeping low-level inflation intact,” which would of course generate both volatility and liquidity (and bankster bonuses). They’ve been explicitly running away from deflation from the beginning. I think every time Ilargi, et. al. says the d-word, those Fed people struggle a little with incontinence. They hear that name “Ilargi” and see a mental image of the Grim Reaper.Boogaloo and davidpetraitis,
Yep, agreed, and this is where we find rational forecasting of how collapse might be expected to transpire, and what might work as a survival plan. But even the weather is hard to predict, and sometimes comes as a complete surprise. Ilargi says, “If you’re young and feel invincible, why not down 20 shots of tequila in an hour or jump off a cliff?” I think we’ll be seeing more of both from people of all ages, including some who feel invincible, but I have to confess, I do maintain an impressive stash of tequila myself. You never know.davidpetraitis,
Upon re-reading your post, I realize you’re observing, not advocating. So I apologize for the tone of my misguided reaction. -D.S.
davidpetraitis,
If private property isn’t a natural law, nothing is. And that has interesting implications if I ever discover where you live, because I’ll just bet you have some nice stuff that nobody owns. Maybe even a wife or daughter that’s up for grabs (pun not intended).
The way to prevent gaming of markets is to enforce the laws. As Bill Black has pointed out so often and so convincingly, that is what’s been missing throughout this economic disaster-in-the-making – – law enforcement. And the laws were written to defend property rights.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-25/bill-black-robbing-banks-inside-weapon-choice-accounting
How would you propose to determine prices for goods and services absent a free market? By regal dictum?
I’m not exaggerating here. Those last two sentences point to the thing that frustrates me most about this species.
“I am certain there are people inside the Fed who have read,
and understood, Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis.
What kind of light does that shine on them, as they continue
to be accessories to current policies?”There are people who will report their colleagues for minor infractions like arriving five minutes late or phoning their spouse during work hours. People like that aren’t often liked much. An extreme case of that sort of intolerant, authoritarian mentality is witnessed in cops who put people in the hospital for small infractions like back-talk. Or worse, Presidents who send drones to murder Americans overseas, along with everybody unlucky enough to be in the vicinity at the time, as a blatant act of terrorism. Zero tolerance policies never lack for willing enforcers.
The supreme irony is that these same people will tolerate almost anything from one of their own. Cops rigorously defend fellow cops who lie to, steal from, and maim or murder defenseless innocents. It’s so widely practiced and expected that they actually have a term for it: “the blue code of silence.” It’s time-honored orthodoxy. Democrats defend dishonest Democrats, Republicans defend derelict Republicans, child molesters get a pass from the other priests and Popes.
Sure, nobody wants to pound pavement looking for another job after the criminals discover who the rat was. And sometimes a rat faces rat poison if he’s discovered. But the alternative is sitting quietly – – sitting cowardly – – while criminal gangs ravage everybody else.
There is a scene in the movie “Lonesome Dove” where Texas Rangers discover one of their colleagues has been riding with a murderous gang of marauders. The colleague, named Jake Spoon, feared he’d be killed if he didn’t ride along, and remained a non-participating member of the group while they made their way toward what was also his own geographical destination. Nonetheless, the Rangers hanged him once they captured the gang.
Gus McCrae: You know how it goes, Jake. You ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. Sorry you crossed the line.
Jake Spoon: I never seen no line, Gus. I was just trying to get through the territory without gettin’ scalped.
Gus McCrae: I don’t doubt that’s true, Jake.
Jake Spoon: “Well, hell, boys, damn sight rather be hung by my friends than by a bunch of damn strangers.”
That clip from the movie was available on YouTube for years, but was removed quite some time ago. I’ve always wondered why they removed it. Maybe it’s a copyright issue, or maybe somebody objected to popularizing the Texas Ranger code of justice. If so, might that somebody have been an accessory to crimes himself?
I see things done by crooks in D.C. and N.Y.C. that should have brought long prison terms, but not only are the perpetrators still walking free, but often still committing crimes. I want to scream to everybody living within a hundred miles of those towns, “You mean it’s up to me to drop what I’m doing and travel the better part of two thousand miles across the United States to do what you people close to the matter should have done long ago?” No matter their response, they’re not worth the effort.
So I have no choice but to conclude that much of this species is totally hosed. Financially, economically, mentally and morally hosed. Criminality reigns, and cowardice is his side-kick. Except for some fancy architecture and a few clever gadgets, civilization is a mirage.
koso_man:
Regarding GDP, it’s worse than we’re told.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228987@ Gravity:
Consider using a text editor to write your comments, and then copy them over to TAE. Take your time, then post your final draft and live with the results. I suggest this because I’ve so often embarrassed myself writing comments directly.
@ Variable81:
It’s too difficult and long-winded to conjure clever rejoinders to all your comments, so I hope this will suffice.
Let’s play a thought game. Can you think of a single genetic trait that is the same for all human beings? No variation allowed. Everybody identical in that particular regard.
No?
Now, in an enormous population, would you suppose that there are environmental pressures that might affect how often certain traits get passed on?
Yes?
Can you imagine the genetic changes that might occur in a population over a span of hundreds of millions of generations?
Yes?
Then you embrace “evolution by means of natural selection” as THE explanation for your existence, right?
Don’t get me wrong here. I’d “fight to the last ditch” to prevent anybody, especially government, from persecuting you for your answer, whatever it is. But if you don’t embrace natural selection as the explanation for your presence here on Earth, then you mustn’t ever lecture me on topics having to do with being informed.
I saw a video recently where a famous MSM guy (can’t recall his name) was interviewing G.W. Bush. He asked Georgie whether he thought Christians, Jews and Muslims worshipped the same god. Georgie-boy said he thought they did, but that the Taliban worshipped a “false god.” What utter, unbelievable horse shit. It’s effectively the same as asking, “Do you think the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus both love you?” Georgie-boy: “Yes, I do. But I think Frankenstein’s monster loves the Taliban.”
Those of us who understand will have to handle this (the world situation) or it won’t get handled, that’s all. Change will not come democratically. It makes no difference at all whether a majority of people understands things. No difference at all. Sorry. I hope we can live up to the challenge in some meaningful way, but I’m really quite uncertain at this point.
Anyway, now that you’ve shown yourself to be an evolutionary biologist and atheist, don’t you wish everybody else would embrace the available information explaining things – – especially things as fundamental as the glorious improbability of their very existence? After all, religion has always been about the torture and killing of non-believers, not some kind of insipid “love” fantasy. Or maybe I should say it’s been about both.
You are my friend, and I was speaking to some general, faceless person here, as I know nothing about you personally. Just lamely trying to make a point or two within the severe limitations of an Internet comment. Which makes me wonder why anybody Tweets. But that gets back to my statement about retarded people.
@ TheTrivium4TW:
I agree with your posts; just picking a fight with Al Einstein is all. Shows what afternoon tequila on a hot day can do. I was for the most part just venting.I’m retired and spend over eight hours every day on the Internet, and have for well over a decade now. I send friends and family members select articles and videos, and do so sparingly (one link every few days). I receive no feedback except an occasional brief comment from just one recipient. Yesterday I was told outright that nobody has the time for my links.
I’m surrounded by “useful idiots,” but so is nearly everybody else. Employed people tend to want to find a little happiness and meaning in their lives during the little bit of free time they’ve earned. Choosing to remain aware of all the alarmism and drama in the alternative media takes a lot of time, and they’re not happy with the opportunity costs associated with that. We all know that living in a republic with a Constitution means they shouldn’t have to spend eight hours a day on the Internet, otherwise what standard would you set for those people trying to stay informed before 1990? Back then it was MSM or nothing.
We can blame everything the Fed does, for example, on people who “choose” to remain unaware, but I really don’t think that’s fair. Those of us who have the time to attempt to discover what’s really happening in the world should handle the Fed problem, and thus my comment on vigilantism. As long as those of us who KNOW fail to hang the thieving, psychopathic parasites from lamp posts (or similar recourse), we have no business bitching at those who don’t yet understand the gravity of the situation. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS BY VILIFYING RETARDED PEOPLE. I put that in all cap’s so I wouldn’t have to repeat it.
> Ignorance is bliss.
> Ignorance is dangerous.For years, I sent money to get Ron Paul re-elected to the House in Texas. Then I spent heavily on his Presidential campaigns. I figure I’m out something north of twenty thousand dollars with not a single thing to show for it except a baseball cap. Before that, it was Harry Browne. My god, how I loved Harry Browne. Short of driving all the way to D.C. with something that will leave me in prison for the rest of my life, I’m not sure I can be of any help any more. I’m frustrated that I can’t talk about anything that matters to anybody (because they won’t know what I’m talking about). So I comment (happily, without edit) here, after TAE articles, to feel sorry for myself, I guess. ZeroHedge isn’t as consistently good as TAE, but that’s just my opinion.
I expect everybody reading this TAE website is pretty much aware of things. But then, I’ve over-estimated bright people in the past. You all know nobody died at Sandy Hook, right? Nobody lost his legs in the Boston Marathon, right? You all know why, right? You all know about chemtrails and HAARP, that CO2 has NOTHING AT ALL to do with climate change, right? Considering that we don’t all agree on those issues, what does “remaining aware” mean? If you don’t already know those things for FACTS, I can’t possibly regard you as being aware. That puts you right back in the camp of “unaware,” or even worse. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.
Please don’t come back with something along the lines of, “you don’t know everything.” No, I’m a long way from that, and I have all too often formulated assessments of things that are entirely, and nearly unforgivably, wrong.
Anyway, I HOPE Ellen Brown gets into office in California, and I HOPE that brings a lot of positive changes, but I’m afraid she’ll actually be BLAMED for the big deflation that’s bound to happen during her term. So I’m not donating, and neither are the teeming millions who never even heard her name, much less read her articles. And how about you?
You wrote, “Your view is that people are powerless observers… if true, they would have no power or responsibility.” Actually, I don’t think most people qualify as observers at all. And as to responsibility, I’ll tell you specifically what I think some other time, because this has already gotten too long. But you are my friend and I do sincerely thank you for your observations.
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on [in rationalized denial] and do nothing [about the root cause of the problem].” ~ Albert Einstein
Sorry, Albert, but until vigilantism becomes an accepted way to “solve problems,” there is no way to transfer the accountability for evil from “those who do evil” to “those who look on.” No way. Blame Hitler’s mother for the Reichstadt fire why don’t you. Besides, most people don’t even have the time to “look on,” much less do something about it.
And that assumes we’re able to “look on” in the first place. There is such a lack of information and so much misinformation that the vast majority of people are running completely blind even when they try to pay attention (which appears to be rarely). Even where there is a will, there isn’t enough time and money, much less a method, for a way.
A chief problem in life is figuring out how to correctly gauge the reliability and veracity of your sources. How do you know a seemingly ridiculous article on the cover of National Enquirer is wrong? How do you know an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal is right? Will you place all of your retirement funds on that bet? The vast majority of people on this planet will lose that bet because their trusted sources misled them.
The best we can hope for is a deflationary depression of such epic proportions that the entire elitist / government / corporatist / Rothschild / military edifice crumbles completely to the ground with the rest of us. We’re nearly six years overdue. Bring this motherfucker on already for Christ’s sake.
That said, please don’t take anything I’ve said here seriously, Mr. NSA, Mr. IRS, Mr. Soetoro, Mr. FBI, Mr. CIA, Mr. MSM, Mr. MIC, Ms. Yellen, Mr. Eric Holder, Mr. Mainstream Media. I was just kidding. Nothing personal. Please keep robbing me, lying to me, spying on me, concealing the truth from me and sending your criminal cops to spray, beat and shoot me. Standing still for my gang rape is the least I can do for my country. You guys are such winners. I’m such a loser. That is, right up to the point that changes.
And it will. I just hope I’m not too old by then to enjoy it.
Koso_man:
You asked, “… does this mean that when the next correction comes, central banks will hop back on the QE train? In other words the FED will go back to buying 85 billion a month (maybe even more).”I’m not an economist either, but if you ask me, QE will continue as long as there are Wall Street banks to bail out. Lose one of the big five and the rest will collapse behind it, so keep doing the only thing that appeared to work in the past. I’m probably wrong, but I suspect that a collapse of GM would have led to at least one bank collapse.
Boogaloo:
I guess I need some clarification. You say, “That’s where I see the Federal Reserve buying all of that failing debt for cash, 100 cents on the dollar, the currency be damned.”
Fed purchase of non-performing debt would make the current holders of those failing “assets” whole, but would further redden what is rumored to be an already bankrupt Fed balance sheet. I’m afraid you’re speaking above my head because I’m unable to think through the consequences at that point. Would the debt be written off somehow by the Fed, thus effecting a jubilee? If debtors are still required to pay off their debts, would they send their monthly payments to the Fed? Would that actually accomplish anything more than changing the name on the monthly payment envelopes?
You say, “That will be seen as the best way to alleviate the social unrest, and the banks will be happy because they will be the first in line to receive all that newly minted cash.” Would the floundering banks, now made whole, suddenly feel inclined to issue huge amounts of new debt? Wouldn’t the market demand for that debt be identical to the market demand for debt right now? I’m still unable to figure out who the borrowers of vast quantities of new debt money would be. Answer that, and I might change my mind and come to agree with you.
One more sticking point: Fed purchase of non-performing debt is effectively a bank bailout, and previous bailout funds have not flowed into new loans. Instead, as I understand it, those funds have been largely applied toward new derivatives contracts – – a dead end for liquidity when the economy falters like it’s presently doing. Besides, bailouts are not cash gifts, they’re loans. “Money out of thin air” is owed back to thin air because it’s debt from the moment of its creation. If I borrow a hundred-trillion dollars in cash from a bank, bury it beneath my basement floor and then die, that wouldn’t be inflationary, right?
Hopefully you can tell me what I’m missing in a sentence or two without having to address each of the separate questions I’ve asked here. Thanks.
Boogaloo:
A slightly different analysis here. Sorry, but I don’t have a lot of time for details or links, etc.A nation’s money supply can come into existence in one of two ways. One way is for the government to print it. Examples: Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe. Too much printing brings about inflation or hyperinflation.
The other way, as you pointed out, is for money to be borrowed into existence from banks (at interest). Too much borrowing gives rise to too much money in circulation, and that’s inflationary. Example: the United States. Binge borrowing for the last several decades was inflationary, but now, with the exception of borrowing for bailouts and student loans, other forms of borrowing have finally crested. Borrowers now struggle to make payments, so additional borrowing is either curtailed or ends entirely. Money for bank bailouts does not make it into circulation because it’s being applied to additional derivatives games. In tandem with this, banks have become increasingly reluctant to lend (people maxed-out with debt are no longer a good credit risk). There is no place from which additional floods of money can come. There is no way to hyper-inflate a debt money supply when the end of a debt cycle is reached and the only remaining borrower is government.
Zero interest rates are destroying the economy, not helping it, so issuing additional debt is speeding us toward debt collapse, not delaying it.
You’re right to say that TPTB will “go to the mat” to make sure a deflationary collapse is averted – – for them. But in the mean time, their policies bankrupt the middle and lower classes. Rich and powerful people will weather the coming deflationary collapse in style, but the vast majority of the population will suffer terribly. What we can anticipate is a long trend toward decreasing money velocity, decreasing liquidity, and increasingly restive masses. That is why TPTB have stockpiled military ordnance and troops right here in the “homeland” – – to quell civil unrest with lethal force when the time comes for revolution. That is why martial law and war are being discussed more and more, just about everywhere.
Decreasing liquidity and decreasing velocity are deflationary, and short of helicopter drops of sacks of money – – BIG sacks of money – – on people like you and me, there is no way that deflation can be averted.
babble |ˈbabəl|
verb [ intrans. ]
talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way
noun [in sing. ]
the sound of people talking quickly and in a way that is difficult or impossible to understand“The first article” was not a propaganda piece, it was Ilargi’s commentary prior to the first article. Your paragraph was the propaganda piece.
You wrote, “Working with liars just encourages them.” Well, why are you working with liars, then? To encourage them?
You also wrote, “Become energy independent.” That’s like my saying to you, “Grow a brain.” What, snap your fingers and suddenly it happens? Fat chance.
I’d call you an ideologue, but why assign such a big word to a lowly troll?
“Military men are ‘dumb, stupid animals to be used’ as pawns for foreign policy.”
– Henry KissingerI felt pretty upset after first reading that quote, but I’ve since come to realize the truth of it. Too bad for everybody that military men haven’t discovered the truth of it, too.
Supergravity – – An enjoyable and imaginative post. Five stars for use of the term “command economy.” You must have seen “The Commanding Heights” years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ms2WOZi74
Variable81 – – Very nicely done. I have a feeling that next time we see a photo of Ilargi, he’ll be sporting a six-shooter on his hip. He has to defend himself against the two of us somehow.
Ilargi, thanks for the replies to my questions. Please allow me to add some of my own thoughts as well.
Firearms would likely be the weapon of choice for marauders, and an earthship would provide an attractive target, especially if the marauders are hungry and desperate. The odds are usually against those people wielding bats and knives when their opponents have guns. So I was thinking of firearms ownership as a defensive measure rather than a means of shooting one’s neighbor. Since a sign on the outskirts of an earthship proclaiming it to be a “gun free zone” would be ill-advised for obvious reasons, the opposite message might have greater success keeping marauders at bay:
The reason I asked the question is because I expect crime to become a much greater problem when times get tougher, and many people will lose what they can’t defend. A sign like that by itself might save you, but only insofar as it deceives marauders into thinking you’re armed. If they ignore the sign, I fear you’ll deeply wish you had more than that to deter them.
There is a saying I’ve heard stated different ways, but the gist is something like, “God created man and woman, and Sam Colt made them equal.” This refers to the fact that only firearms are capable of leveling the playing field between huge, beefy thugs and frail old women. I’m assuming there will be frail old women on earthships. My own personal philosophy dictates that failure to stop a marauder (whether you have the means to do so or not) is tantamount to releasing that marauder on your neighbor – – or wherever else he might be headed next. In other words, you have a personal responsibility and moral obligation to stop bad guys if you find yourself facing that opportunity.
Gold and Bitcoin are both thinly traded compared with cars or grains or textiles, and I suppose the big banks and maybe some rich private individuals might always be able to manipulate those markets without going to much expense. I don’t think the Bitcoin protocol is manipulable, but the price of Bitcoin certainly is. My research leads me to regard the Bitcoin protocol to be perhaps the greatest invention of man, as it eliminates so many of the worst aspects of other systems of exchange (e.g. barter, money & banking). But that vaunted estimation will come true only if Bitcoin can eventually be used easily and safely by everybody – – and strides are indeed being made in that direction. Nearly all of the other crypto-currencies, I suspect, will eventually disappear, never to have served any useful function, and therefore only amounting to inadvertent Ponzi schemes while they were still alive. But I do agree with you that more development and acceptance are necessary before investing heavily in Bitcoin.
“What comes next is a scary thing to ponder.”
Ilargi, one more request. When the music stops and large numbers of people find themselves without a chair, some people will inevitably become aggressive. What do you and Nicole recommend to defend against that possibility? I know private firearms aren’t legal for self defense in some countries.
Ilargi, I’ve often wondered how you and Nicole view Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies. Anything you might have to say on that topic would be very much appreciated. Thanks.
Two interesting charts, at least by appearance:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-23/tick-tick-tick
https://investmentwatchblog.com/sp-500-peaked-in-2000-2007-when-margin-debt-did-this/
These charts show conclusively that happy days are here again, that interest rates have no chance of rising during Bernanke’s lifetime, and that the future forever belongs to the price riggers. Because, as the last six years’ experience shows, the future can remain irrational longer than rational people can remain solvent.
dkopriva, you wrote, “Maybe someone can explain the modern obsession of ” moving up” when it comes to houses. it wasn’t too long ago when families lived in a 1200 sq.ft bungalow for 30 years and then retired in that same home for another 10-15 years. Am I missing something or had the culture gone that far off the rails?”
Might you have been forgetting ‘wives?’
Indirectly related:
I purchased and watched a DVD recently that pretty much blew my mind in spite of my extensive, first-hand familiarity with the subject.
So many imminent disasters, so little time, so little awareness. Add that to the growing list.With the title, the photograph, and all the talk in the first paragraph about being underwater, I was sure this article must be about global warming. But then I realized it was referring to mortgages (huge sigh of relief).
Nobody renting an apartment for thirty years expects to be awarded with full title to the place. An underwater mortgage is akin to a rental agreement if the buyer assumes he’ll never pay it off, and expects to be walking away someday. If the house provides a much better lifestyle than an apartment would, and if apartment rental payments are roughly comparable to full-in house payments, then why not “rent” from the bank? After all, the chances of hitting the lottery so you can pay the mortgage off are probably about the same as the chances that inflated home prices will come roaring back, so there’s still an itty-bitty, teensy-weensy reason for optimism.
Ilargi, in your response to Cory you wrote, “Do you yourself see a way available to our ‘leaders’ to lead ‘us’ out of the gutter? Assuming even that they would want to?”
An alarmingly large number of pundits have been warning for a long time now that our ‘leaders’ intend to wage a world war. They’re also accused of laying plans for radical reductions in our populations via vaccines, GMOs, plagues, and surreptitious geo-engineering that promises to extend polar ice sheets to the equator in places. There is also talk about guillotines, FEMA camps, fields of stacked coffins, billions of hollow-point cartridges, armies of foreign soldiers on American military bases, gun confiscation and genocide. No way to predict with certainty what all this means, but it suggests that our ‘leaders’ MIGHT already have longstanding, well-developed plans to lead ‘themselves’ out of the gutter. To whatever extent that’s true, ‘we’ probably don’t figure into the outcome of those plans. Not something TAE should address, but just sayin’.
Long post here. Could use some cleaning-up, but it’s only a comment after an article, not a Master’s thesis.
Say what you will about Milton Friedman, and I do agree with you concerning Allende, but at least Friedman understood the importance of free markets to the prosperity of mankind. Anybody who states, “Freedom is my God” can’t be entirely misguided.
The hallmark and holy grail of “free markets” isn’t growth. It’s unregulated price discovery. Price discovery gives rise to economy.
Without price discovery, free markets don’t exist. Without free markets, labor and resources become grossly misallocated. Without price discovery, prices are set by people in power. This isn’t merely inimical to economy, it is sheer absence of economy.
Thieves love disruptions to price discovery (or absence of price discovery) because it enables them to steal from honest people. This is because rigged prices are dishonest, and thieves name OUR prices. The biggest thieves of all, by many orders of magnitude, are those who abuse positions of political and financial power to rig prices.
Economic systems are not all the same. The drawbacks to any economic system are directly proportional to the amount of price rigging going on. Human beings are free only in an environment where unfettered price discovery takes place, and are enslaved when prices are set by authorities. The reason the USSR was not free, and the reason it eventually collapsed is because prices were set by the government. Labor (much of it resembling slave labor) and scarce resources were utilized and developed inefficiently, favoring those at the top of the political structure and those who stole from the public, all at the expense of the public.
You see, prices are supposed to reflect a consensus on the value of things. When prices are rigged, they bear no relationship to any value other than the one conferred by some pompous authority. It doesn’t take huge variations from the free-market price to cause destructive, accretive misallocations of wealth in the economy.
What we witness today are myriad institutionalized VIOLATIONS of price discovery in what were formerly known as “free nations.” These are criminal violations of human freedom itself. Examples abound: refusal to “mark to market,” interest rate rigging, precious metals price rigging, no-bid government contracts, high frequency trading, bank issuance (from thin air) of the nation’s money at interest, off-budget government expenditures, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, socialized medicine, socialized public schools, a drug war that serves ONLY to provide outrageous price supports, and pretty much every single thing government spends money on, including salaries. NONE of those things (the list was by no means exhaustive) reflect prices that were discovered through free market bid-and-ask negotiation. All of those things reflect prices that are imposed by people with political authority.
The U.S. is racing toward a similar cliff-edge as the U.S.S.R. was in the late 1980s. Many of the details are different, but the hell that an absence of economy has wrought on the citizenry is much the same – – especially the vanishing middle class. There is no way out from this mess other than various forms of widespread suffering and strife. The price-riggers are depending on their heavily militarized Homeland Security department, militarized USDA, militarized FBI, militarized CIA, militarized IRS, militarized BLM, militarized Forest Service, militarized NASA, militarized Border Patrol, militarized police departments, militarized NSA, and countless other militarized agencies of government to protect them from the impoverished masses when the U.S. suffers its own Soviet-style collapse. Do what you can to ensure that their confidence in these bloodthirsty agencies is misplaced.
If you don’t want colossal financial crimes to be perpetrated on humanity again and again every thirty to sixty years for perpetuity, then advocate bringing the price-riggers to justice every chance you get – – and note that extreme vigilante justice (like their cops increasingly mete out) will make the memory of this historic period endure.
The Second Amendment should have been the First. The First should have been second. And the third should have enshrined free market price discovery and severe penalties for anybody trying to circumvent that indispensable underpinning to all commerce. But maybe that’s a moot point because the Constitution and Bill of Rights don’t have teeth. If they did, if infringements against free market price discovery were promptly and severely punished, we would still have a burgeoning middle class and fluctuating, free market interest rates. (Hat tip to Bill Black for being America’s greatest advocate for criminal prosecutions of the price riggers.)
Ilargi,
You wrote, “It’s not possible to have an actual conversation with someone who says even 10,000 ppm CO2 levels wouldn’t matter because the stuff is ‘clear and colorless’, or that the tides alone make sea levels shift more than CO2 ever could.”
Not to imply that you thought otherwise, but CO2 is indeed clear and colorless. This can be verified by buying a little dry ice from the local grocery. Due to the latent heat of vaporization, the CO2 gas subliming from the dry ice is extremely cold, with a temperature well below the dew point of water. The “fog” you see is indeed fog – – from condensed water vapor. Absent water vapor, CO2 can be readily “observed” to not be observable at all – – because it’s clear and colorless.
I never said those were the properties responsible for rendering 10,000 ppm CO2 inconsequential to the climate. There are buffer systems on Earth that attenuate any effects from fluctuations in CO2, the chief buffer involving water (and water vapor).
You wrote, “And I’m still waiting for you to tell me who has been paying all those thousands of scientists to keep lying about their findings for all these years. And why.”
I never said anybody was paying scientists to lie. I said their funding is predicated on their support for the political presumption that global warming is both real and a dire threat.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece#commentsStart
Scientists didn’t make “deniers” pariahs, politicians did. Some scientists have political objectives (follow the money) that trump their scientific integrity.
I’m trying to get you and your readers to take a fresh look at what’s happened with the science. Scientists have started incorporating the changing sun into their models. They’re discovering that CO2 is a bit player in climate change. Take it or leave it. Thought I was doing you all a favor. Here it is again if you missed it yesterday:
I wish I could write like you, Ilargi. I wish I could write like Dalrymple, Will Grigg, Arthur Sibler, or even George Will. Good writing like this, especially when it’s this clever and entertaining, is a joy. That you do this day after day is impressive.
Now that I’ve buttered you up, here’s the fly in the ointment again. Your last article shows a graph claiming a twenty inch rise in sea level by 2100 (do the arithmetic yourself). Sea level varies considerably more than this due to the tides alone, and past climate change projections have been shown to be completely misguided, but let’s assume it’s accurate somehow. Let’s assume somebody actually has a crystal ball and Tarot cards that work. If that graph turns out in eighty-six years to be spot on, it will be because of the sun, not CO2.
Please watch that half-hour speech, because it’s true and verifiable, and you really need to reverse your CO2 doomer porn immediately. Global warming should not be part of your rap unless you’re stumping for the other side of the argument. There are abundant reasons for this that go entirely beyond the climate change controversy, but I’ll have to save that for another time.
I think this quote from Richard Dawkins is germane:
“But it is true that scientists, more than, say, lawyers, doctors or politicians, gain prestige among their peers by publicly admitting their mistakes. One of the formative experiences of my Oxford undergraduate years occurred when a visiting lecturer from America presented evidence that conclusively disproved the pet theory of a deeply respected elder statesman of our zoology department, the theory that we had all been brought up on. At the end of the lecture, the old man rose, strode to the front of the hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared, in ringing emotional tones, “‘my dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.’ We clapped our hands red. Is any other profession so generous towards its admitted mistakes? Science progresses by correcting its mistakes, and makes no secret of what it still does not understand.”
Variable81:
Good comments. You’re right about Stoneleigh’s timeline.This is the only “lightning bolt” talk I could find, and I have not yet listened to it:
https://fromalpha2omega.podomatic.com/entry/2013-07-12T16_35_32-07_00You wrote, “Where I’d really love some clarification is where Stoneleigh & Ilargi stand with regards to collapse that goes beyond the financial & commercial realms – i.e. that of political, societal and cultural collapse (as defined by Orlov).”
Actually, my hat’s off to both of them for remaining focused within their areas of greatest expertise. I’ve been disappointed with so many bright writers over the years who feel that their growing celebrity somehow enables them (compels them?) to profess on topics they know a smidgen too little about. Power and fame corrupt, but Stoneleigh and Ilargi have not yet succumbed, except perhaps slightly on the topic of climate change. I really don’t think ANYBODY is qualified to make predictions about climate change, much less recommendations for government action, but after all, nearly EVERYBODY does.
Raleigh – Thanks for the thoughts. I myself have conflicting thoughts. A hundred years from now, looking back on a 90% reduction in human population that took place in 2014 might appear to be the only thing that could have saved mankind, along with a lot of other species. And that’s irrespective of whatever might bring a population reduction about. A hundred years from now, few survivors of the 2014 die-off would still be around, and though history probably won’t be forgotten, the sting of it will have disappeared.
On the other hand, living through that kind of nightmare in 2014 would be about the worst thing I can imagine. Whether due to wholesale global economic collapse, diseases, wars, genocide, starvation, an asteroid, a coronal mass ejection from the sun or anything else, that level of human trauma and suffering would be hard to justify even if it led to a better world a century hence. The trouble is, I see no other way that the big problems facing us might actually be solved for a while.
I worry that the elites see it that way, too, and worse, intend to do things to actually bring a massive population reduction about, if for no other reason than that they feel they have the means.
I think Ilargi’s and Stoneleigh’s warnings are probably right: that a collapse is likely to proceed faster than most people would predict, especially now that the house of cards is stacked higher than ever before. They’ve mostly addressed collapse in terms of the economy and in terms of increasingly dear hydrocarbons, but other unpredictable factors could easily synergize to bring about something much more intolerable.
Perhaps we’ve been unwittingly eating GMO’s that will make us sterile, or maybe between pesticides, fluoride, vaccines and chemtrails we’ll perish from what amounts to poisoning. A totalitarian New World Order with a single global currency, FEMA concentration camps, batteries of guillotines, legions of spies and enforcers, and a disarmed populace without Internet is what some people fear most, but all bets are off when the factors that might become involved are unpredictable.
Anyway, best of luck to all of us.
A principle theme on this website is limits to growth, to resources, to the amount of pollution we can withstand. These limits are being tested now more than ever because the human population has grown so large. Persuading people to live with increased austerity, and showing them how to get by with less is great, but that only slows our approach to disaster, and maybe softens the blow a little. The problems are still there. Besides, it’s probably too ambitious to think a high percentage of the species can be reached with these messages in time.
So I’m wondering if anybody would like to comment on the plans that some members of the top one percent and some political movers-and-shakers are being accused of, plans that are alleged to be aimed at drastic global population reduction. Speculation about these plans abounds all over the alternative media, but here is one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TyAJZVARPwI’ll withhold my opinion of this for the moment, hoping to hear a few others first.
On an earlier topic, here’s another voice commenting on the numbers of scientists who feel strongly about the climate change controversy. The video is new today, or I’d have included it when the topic was being discussed. I’m not trying to get another conversation going because I’d prefer the climate here remain composed (pun intended). Just the first three minutes or so:
Ilargi, your mind’s made up; I’ve done what I can but wasted my time. Lesson learned. “Who pays the deniers” is a lot like “when did you stop beating your wife?” It appears you’re having a hard time figuring out what the question that you want to ask is.
Nobel Laureate Says The Arctic Will Be Ice-Free In A Few Weeks
Zaphod42, your mind’s also made up. Your labels and attacks on me are uniformly incorrect (and juvenile and offensive), but that’s the kind of “argument” I’ve come to expect from AGW fans. You’re wrong about private universities doing most of the research, and you’re mistaken to think a government website can be trusted.
Reply if you wish, but I’m done with this particular thread.
“Diogenes, that’s a lot of scam detection. Do they pay all the scientists, are they all part of the scam, or do they start teaching them false science in high school?”
Ilargi, the money for climate research comes chiefly from government, and it’s a lot of money. The government isn’t the least bit interested in whether global warming is real or not because they’re already committed to massive national and international programs that presuppose anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for justification.
If AGW was scientifically shown to be absolutely, unmistakably, undeniably, provably, demonstrably wrong, does anybody think for a moment that the governmental and academic empires built on the foundations of its being true would be dismantled? Not a snowball’s chance. That train left the station – – moving swiftly – – long ago.
Climate research grant proposals must be written in a way that already presupposes the validity of AGW. So researching the projected effects of warmer temperatures and drought on butterfly mating gets funded. Funding is simply not awarded to any researcher whose objective is to honestly re-evaluate whether or not AGW is bogus to begin with. So in effect, yes, they really are paying the scientists to be on the AGW bandwagon.
But there is a larger issue having to do with all the high-brow claims from politicians, journalists and teeming masses of non-scientists eager to express their oh-so-enlightened opinions. Scientific conclusions are not arrived at through consensus. Scientific theories aren’t established with men in lab coats lining up at a ballot box, but rather through exhaustive accumulation and re-evaluation of evidence. Most of the statements in support of AGW that I’ve read over the years have pointed to some mythical percentage of scientists, or some absolute number of scientists, who presumably supported the AGW conclusion in some poll. Ignoring for the moment that the most publicized polls have been shown to be bogus, what difference does it make? Before Galileo, 99% of scientists agreed with each other, but they were flat-out wrong.
When people in power make grand plans, sometimes they tell us about them and other times they don’t. When a citizen notices that something’s amiss and suggests that the government is doing something secretively because it’s probably also illegal, he’s accused of being a conspiracy theorist. George Bush scolded the nation in a speech after 9/11 to never tolerate conspiracy theorists. The NSA recently changed the “conspiracy theorist” ad-hominem to “terrorist.” So you tell me, why do you suppose scientific terrorists (a.k.a. “deniers”) don’t receive government funding for projects disproving AGW, and what effect do you suppose that has on the percentage of scientists “found to be in support of”AGW conclusions?
Ken, I’m disappointed that my long comment wasn’t enough for you to chew on. Perhaps you skipped the “chew on” part. Now you need a scholarly assessment of ocean currents for some reason – – because that’s largely what ocean temperatures are dependent upon. With links, of course. Why didn’t you provide that information yourself if you thought it made the case for Obama’s carbon regulations, taxes and punitive fines?
Ocean acidification? Same thing. Break a leg. I’ve spent enough time here trotting out evidence today.
But I’ll indulge you briefly just the same because I’m such a nice guy. Carbon dioxide dissolved in water produces carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is a very weak organic acid and it takes an awful lot of it to make significant changes to ocean pH. Early Earth had atmospheric CO2 levels of more than 20% if I recall correctly (it’s been a long time, and my memory is fading). The thousands of feet of limestone sediments in various places around the globe represent that atmospheric CO2 having been fixed into stone by various marine processes including coral reefs. The upshot is that the system is buffered. Don’t lose sleep over acidified oceans. The fact that marine life shows resilience against minor temperature and acidity changes indicates that this isn’t a new phenomenon. Earth’s history has been overwhelmingly more hostile (has presented far greater selective pressures against living things) than your SUV is capable of generating today.
And Livedeadcat, as you know, CO2 is clear and colorless. And though recognizing your comment wasn’t directed at me, I’ll maintain that even 10,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is as benign and unimportant as the tenth’s place in tomorrow’s temperature forecast. So, 400ppm CO2 wouldn’t be newsworthy in the least except for the fact that people in control want to use it as a pretext to rape you repeatedly for the rest of your life. And while I thought that might be considered an undesirable thing, it turns out there is no shortage of cheerleaders, true believers and tyrants who want to see it happen.
AGW, global warming, climate change, carbon taxes, CO2, ocean acidification and ocean temperatures have nothing to do AT ALL with anything but separating you from your money.
When will human beings grow a brain and recognize that H2O is the only greenhouse gas of any importance? Alas, probably not until Al Gore becomes the appointed King of the New World Order. Bummer.
Well, I read the article and it actually doesn’t say anything. Read it yourself. A lot of threatening “threat” threats, and that’s about it. I guess it can be safely assumed we all know what they mean by all that threatening language. Except that we don’t.
It’s a new world religion and Obama is its latest messiah. The oceans might rise a few millimeters and threaten. The average summer temperature someplace might rise two degrees and threaten. There will be threats from storms (as if the world never saw storms before), and despite the fact that we haven’t seen hurricanes for nine years now.
Empires are built around misconceptions until those empires become “too big to fail.” If you think the climate is a threat, just wait until you start seeing the damage done by the climate-change SCAM. I wrote a comment to yesterday’s article on 400 ppm CO2 if you want to see what I really think.
I love this website, and owe much of my understanding of the future of the world’s energy and money to Ilargi and Stoneleigh. Two brilliant people who I revere. But why, oh why Lord, is there always a fly in the ointment?
The association of CO2 with climate “change” is a tax scam. And being a tax scam, you can correctly assume that it’s a banking scam underneath. Congratulations. This website has helped to expose and explain banking scams in all their destructive and criminal glory, and has provided a crucial public service in doing so. But now it throws its weight in support of a destructive and criminal – – banking scam?
“Global warming” (and all its renamed bastard children) is indeed a banking scam — turned political scam — turned religious movement, but it has never been scientific except on the part of the “deniers” (an ad-hominem meant to be synonymous with “genocidal lunatics”). Supporters (I call them “suckers”) not only fail to observe scientific evidence objectively (if at all), but succumb to doom hysterics every time they feel nature has deviated a little too far from room temperature.
There’s a whole herd of elephants in the room – – you know: the ones that piety requires us to ignore:
1. Government funding for so-called climate “science” REQUIRES conclusions supporting the CO2 climate change dogma. “Deniers” lose their funding, and there is a lot of money at stake.
2. The U.S. Interior Secretary has condemned “deniers” department-wide. This is not science. This is religious dogma (she calls it a “moral imperative,” in fact).
3. Geo-engineering is in full swing all over the globe, creating blankets of clouds that not only reduce solar flux to the Earth’s surface, but also reduce IR radiation back into space during the night. The effects of “chemtrails” and “solar radiation management” on both climate and weather are profound, but you still regard a few ppm CO2 as disastrous? Keep in mind that 100 ppm = a single one-hundredth of one percent, so virtually supernatural properties are being bestowed on this tiny population of molecules. Compared with water vapor, CO2 is totally inconsequential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TK2ZqFFv0MImagine a scientific experiment investigating the effects of a few ppm of arsenic in drinking water, but the researcher secretly floods the water with cyanide. When test animals keel over, you’re still calling for a reduction in arsenic in drinking water. Why can’t you see that the atmosphere on Earth is no longer a valid laboratory for observing the effects of CO2 concentrations? If climate is changing, it’s because they’re deliberately changing it through geo-engineering. And where do you suppose the money comes from to do that?
4. The record of prominent “climate scientists” popularizing “global warming” is one of forged data, dishonest manipulation of data, cherry-picking of data, ignoring of data, deliberate placement of test instruments in urban environments where heat is bound to be higher (e.g. near buildings and asphalt roadways), and recorded communications between researchers admitting to these activities. Those activities disqualify them as scientists. The mainstream media have been cooperative in publicizing the scams as “science,” though, and in vilifying “deniers.”
5. The recorded history of weather and climate worldwide shows much greater extremes than those we’ve witnessed in the last several decades. Climate extremes are the rule on Earth, and climate is, and has always, been perpetually changing. Climate change is a planetary given, and not something you should ask politicians to monkey with.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/46/
You can scroll backward in time with that link and see endless reports of climate extremes throughout history.6. There are two great sinks for atmospheric CO2: green plants (that convert it into living tissue) and water (think oceans). The higher the CO2, the more is incorporated into green plants, and the more is dissolved in oceans. In other words, Earth already has massive buffers that keep CO2 concentrations in check. How much energy do you think mankind should devote to competing with those already-existent buffers? How much CO2 from fossil fuels must be generated – – how much waste from nuclear power plants – – how many Chinese solar farms on what used to be southwestern cattle ranches – – to sequester some amount of CO2 that compares with what oceans and green plants sequester? Just to satisfy your religious certainty that 350 ppm CO2 would save the world from certain fire and brimstone? Surely you’ve gone completely mad.
State Of The Climate Report
Posted on April 17, 2014
by stevengoddard
The IPCC says the world is burning up
The real world says differently.
▪ No global warming for over 17 years
▪ Global sea ice area is near an all-time record high for mid-April
▪ Great Lakes ice cover is the highest on record for mid-April
▪ Antarctic sea ice area is the highest on record for mid-April
▪ Arctic multi-year ice way up over the last three years
▪ Record low tornado activity in the US since the start of 2012
▪ Near record low hurricane activity in the US over the past five years
▪ No major hurricanes in the US for almost nine years – a record
▪ No hurricanes in Florida for almost nine years – a record
▪ Last year was the quietest Atlantic hurricane season in decades
Coldest four months on record in much of the midwestWake up, people. You’re getting robbed by the same crooks yet again.
