Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030
Private investors prefer projects inside a model where profits and growth scale at exponentially greater rates. A lot of great ideas that could benefit humanity don't fall in that class and get ignored. Therefore, expecting technology to solve our problems isn't necessarily reality-based (some great ideas won't see the light if they require more patience).
In an entrepreneurial world, where profits and growth are king, I see no reason to believe that market forces and technology will solve all our problems and it is this human hubris that will lead us to eventual shocks.
As much as I might agree that long-term models don't always paint an accurate picture, our short-term culture feeding on more immediate gratification isn't optimum either. I don't think our current economic and political environment has that balance and we ignore longer term planning because it requires immediate sacrifices (we aren't willing to make) in return for longer term stability sometime in the future.
One could argue that we cynically don't believe the promises of better times ahead because we've been burned so often by demagogues, but face it, we also see a lot of evidence where self-interest trumps looking out for the greater good.
I think it is safe to say that historically, there have always been major shocks (natural or man-made), and there will be more coming. You don't have to be a prophet of doom to come to that conclusion. We don't have to be so negative as to dwell on it and live in constant fear of it. But a little bit more wisdom in our planning and development models couldn't hurt.
There are many private equity firms that only specialize in long term (5-10 year) investments where money is locked in and cannot be retrieved by investors until a certain time. If its a feasible idea with high potential - its going to get plenty of investors.
I think it is clear that the main governing parties would not survive politically at the polls if they dared pivot towards any Green policies that would harm the economy or voters' pocketbooks. Our political leadership won't lead on this issue, it will follow. The Dems will only go as far as the majority of the electorate will allow them. The battle being waged at this point is a PR battle for hearts and minds at the grassroots level. Greener policies will be adopted over time, it's just a matter of when and how much the system can take. The world accepted the scientific verdict and did pivot more quickly on CFCs (anthropogenic Ozone hole) than carbon levels (anthropogenic climate change) for obvious reasons. The case study file on resistance to the carbon level issue more closely resembles the tobacco file. Don't be fooled by PR from the Durban climate change conference, it was a total disaster. I will disagree with environmentalists on one thing, personally I don't think we can avoid disaster just by learning to live lightly on the planet. That third option disappeared awhile back.
Dude, you just spewed some random stupidity about the theory I presented forward. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about, and you simply like to randomly piss on third-world country emigrants.
"50 millions uneducated Africans", right. Sure. Because THAT'S how you solve a labor pool shortage in developed economies.
Maybe, and it might be a more near future problem, but money is a man made idea. You can reset. Natural resources? Not so much.
Global debt bubble is an issue that's going to burst much sooner than 2030, possibly sooner than 2020, unless the "powers that be" come to their senses and at least halve the debts. Even that may not be enough. The US debt is at such a state that it's going to take decades to resolve. For example when Finland was in the midst of the recession in the early 90's with currency devaluation and stuff, it took over a decade to come out of it. Granted the tech bubble and boom of the cell phone market helped in that. Somewhat off topic but related to the above, but had the Finnish government been smart with the sale of some/one of the national companies, we might have been better off even now. They lost out on billions because of their stalling.
Maybe, and it might be a more near future problem, but money is a man made idea. You can reset. Natural resources? Not so much.
Very true but how many people are going to care about the resources when you're begging on the street or fighting in a line-up to be next for a loaf of bread?
Maybe, and it might be a more near future problem, but money is a man made idea. You can reset. Natural resources? Not so much.
You can reset, but it's going to ruin the lives of millions of people. Not just the fat cats. Actually they'd probably still be the best off of anyone, since they have hard assets while everyone over the age of 45 who set up their retirement based on the old system is going to be screwed if you "reset."
It is much, much, MUCH better to actually solve the problems than it is to ignore them and try to "reset." We're talking about the kind of disruption that leads to total national anarchy and the collapse of whole societies. A literal nuclear option. In fact if you set off a nuke in the middle of every major American city, it would cause less havoc.
This kind of debt crisis followed by a foolhardy attempt to "reset" is one of the three most common ways the United States is hypothesized to die. along with nuclear catastrophe and the folding of all societies into the new world order.
You can reset, but it's going to ruin the lives of millions of people. Not just the fat cats. Actually they'd probably still be the best off of anyone, since they have hard assets while everyone over the age of 45 who set up their retirement based on the old system is going to be screwed if you "reset."
It is much, much, MUCH better to actually solve the problems than it is to ignore them and try to "reset." We're talking about the kind of disruption that leads to total national anarchy and the collapse of whole societies. A literal nuclear option. In fact if you set off a nuke in the middle of every major American city, it would cause less havoc.
This kind of debt crisis followed by a foolhardy attempt to "reset" is one of the three most common ways the United States is hypothesized to die. along with nuclear catastrophe and the folding of all societies into the new world order.
There are many private equity firms that only specialize in long term (5-10 year) investments where money is locked in and cannot be retrieved by investors until a certain time. If its a feasible idea with high potential - its going to get plenty of investors.
I honestly don't know how to reply to that. Although I do know short term goals are set by profit motives and probably not much else, I have no idea what assumptions investors would use to set those long term goals. A specific fund would have to have that target in mind. You do know that angel investors and longer term venture-capital investors refuse 99% of the proposals. The hit and miss ratio for success over the longer term seems bleak if one would also add the proviso that the investment have an environmental friendly obligation. You'd really have to have policy-committed investors for that one.
The North American apathy towards Green issues will change if and when the economic issues improve. Right now, green issues have been framed as a negative force constricting prosperity and job growth (not true). Anti-green has also been spun to many right-wing voters who are distrustful of science (because anthropology is seen as a threat to God) as another crazy idea promoted by atheist scientists. Libertarians are weary of Green policies because they see government regulation and bureaucracy bloat (an ideological excuse for them to go into denial). Mostly, conservative parties in North America have decided to wage war on Green to back a narrow but powerful energy business interest.
I don't really see how you can define being green as not constricting prosperity, at least in the short run. Regardless of whether you think reducing emissions is necessary or not, it's an additional regulatory burden which will hurt the economy.
I don't understand the idea that improving the environment somehow pays for itself.
The implication of the post I was responding to was that money was just an imaginary, man-made thing and the money system could be rebooted.
Not without the kind of anarchy we saw in the last days of he Weimar Republic.
ah ok. I saw anarchy and nuking cities and I was wunderin where you were going...
..as for money being an imaginary man-made thing, I can see where one might get that impression. Bernanke and the Fed have been rolling the stuff off their hot presses in quantitative easing numbers, but no hyperinflation, yet; I guess as long as the banks keep it hoarded in their safes (or zombie bank reserve accounts) it doesn't hit the street and we get spared having to use wheelbarrows to carry cash to buy a loaf of bread.
I don't really see how you can define being green as not constricting prosperity, at least in the short run. Regardless of whether you think reducing emissions is necessary or not, it's an additional regulatory burden which will hurt the economy.
I don't understand the idea that improving the environment somehow pays for itself.
On the public finance side, I guess what environmental economists are saying is, you can pay now, or you can pay later. I gather most are voting to pay later.
On the business side, the argument is about the advantage of getting in early, on developing, manufacturing and retailing the innovative green technologies. Countries with a head start will acquire a competitive advantage, the laggards get left behind.
It's 18 years down the road, who knows what could happen between now and then?
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
On the public finance side, I guess what environmental economists are saying is, you can pay now, or you can pay later. I gather most are voting to pay later.
On the business side, the argument is about the advantage of getting in early, on developing, manufacturing and retailing the innovative green technologies. Countries with a head start will acquire a competitive advantage, the laggards get left behind.
I disagree. It depends on the depth and strength of the market for green technologies. If too many consumers decide to pay later, there will be plenty of time for that technology to have been exported to Chinese factories by the time anyone really wants it.
Laughable. Assumes that the efficiency of consumption remains at a flat rate going forward. We're consistently consuming more efficiently and technology improves that.
Banks and investors speculate about the future. For those interested, the following is the HSBC study, "The World in 2050" led by Karen Ward. It closely follows the studies of other financial institutions, so if you read this one, you'll get a good idea what the others are saying too.
These predictions mostly assume that conditions will remain essentially unchanged for the next 40 years. That is probably unlikely. It isn't heavy on climate change. It doesn't take into account a number of bubbles that can burst. It's mostly straight line prognostications.
My personal opinion (worth a grain of salt), is that the projections for China might be a bit rosy, given that I think this country might hit an economic bump in the road before 2050. The predictions might also be a bit rosy for countries in the tropics, if climate change does have a larger economic impact down the road.
(for non-tech geeks, if it doesn't open, it's a PDF document and you will need to download an app like Adobe Acrobat, Foxit Reader or PDF Reader for Windows.)
To be honest, climate change isn't likely to have that great an impact on the world in 40 years, even if the positive feedback concept is correct.
Agreed on China. I wouldn't trust a single number China reports about their own economy without a meticulous examination of the numbers and the hard assets behind the numbers by three neutral parties. Bureaucratic exaggeration has been a tradition in China for generations.
