Colour me red, but I decided to abstain from blogging before, during, and after the by-election. The MSM stuttered their speculative stake-raising nonsense and bloggers echoed the dysfunction in tune with their respective party lines.
As fun as it was, we may be facing economic problems so serious that we'll be forced to discuss real ideas for a change -- and wouldn't that be charming?
The National's lead story today featured one investor who said "we're looking at a financial crisis equal to that of the 1930s. We should all be very concerned about what that means."
But he wasn't the only one using alarmist rhetoric.
Another said "there is a possibility we could have a depression. We could be looking at 1929. I'm not forecasting that and I don't want to be represented as such, but the dangers are real and apparent."
The TSX plunged 400 points; the loonie saw its biggest single drop in 40 years, and the price of oil -- often called a market 'fundamental' by those with hats over their eyes -- keeps fluctuating so much that any minute we're all going to keel over with acute nausea.
It's just one day's movement, but the ride's not over.
Lyle Gramley, Former Governor of the US fed and 50-some-odd year economic veteran, said, "we need to begin to start thinking outside the box because what we're experiencing now in financial markets is unlike anything I have seen in more than 50 years in looking at the economy."
But just when we think the market's pissing in our sandbox, we hear such soothing words as "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong," usually alluding to the demand for oil. In fact, it's something our own delusional PM said a few months back, and something a good many people were saying at the beginning of the credit crisis, which I dare point out, keeps worsening.
In the midst of all the anxiety, I'd like to take up Gramley's offer and suggest an idea from outside the box:
We have a global market that is ruled by an unthinking, greedy, and growing global mob. At the centre of the mob, we have a huge hulk of a monster -- the US -- deep in debt from a nasty addiction to oil and oil wars, and using dirty money to finance it all. The dirty money comes from bad loans and other grimy, unseemly "quick cash" schemes.
Suddenly, Murphy and his law caught the US with its pants down, and now we have an economic problem that some are comparing to the 1930s.
But have you heard anyone talk about how broken our global financial institutions are? Are we thinking about changing how we finance credit and debt? Are we talking about just how bad an investment expensive oil is in this warming world (for that matter, do we realize how little oil actually contributes to the Canadian economy as a percentage of GDP)?
No, not at all. In fact, we more often than not hear people jabber on about how oil investments will somehow save us from diving off the edge of an economic cliff; that, like I said, it somehow constitutes a market "fundamental."
The problem with this logic is that oil means nothing if its prices is so high that it grinds down -- rather than greases -- the global economy. And if you look at the problem without your economic-fundamentalist blinders on, you notice that dirty, expensive oil is the dumbest investment we could possibly make in the economy, nevermind the planet, especially at this stage in history.
This is a twofold emergency made worse by our short-term thinking. Though whether we ever treat it as an emergency in Canada is debatable. Our present government doesn't believe in intervention, and I wonder sometimes if they even understand global warming.
Most of all, though this may at first seem from out of left-field, we need to reform our global financial practices. Currency-trading and debt-based economics have not served us well. The practice of using the US dollar as a reserve currency needs to end, and we need a globally-neutral currency or resource to replace it.
Not gold.
We don't have the luxury today of thinking that gold is the world's most precious resource. The most precious resource today the proportion of non-carbon elements in our atmosphere.
What am I talking about? We are facing not one, but two global emergencies: One being the credit crunch, the other, as I alluded to, being global warming. With a currency adjustment, we can quickly harness the power of the free market to save our future.
There is no reason why we can't translate the chemistry of our atmosphere into a global, ecologically-backed currency unit that prevents us from further overstepping our ecological limit and launches us toward a sure-footed economic future built on clean energy.
Sounds funny, you think, making cash out of thin air? Well just what the heck do you think we're doing right now?
As fun as it was, we may be facing economic problems so serious that we'll be forced to discuss real ideas for a change -- and wouldn't that be charming?
The National's lead story today featured one investor who said "we're looking at a financial crisis equal to that of the 1930s. We should all be very concerned about what that means."
But he wasn't the only one using alarmist rhetoric.
Another said "there is a possibility we could have a depression. We could be looking at 1929. I'm not forecasting that and I don't want to be represented as such, but the dangers are real and apparent."
The TSX plunged 400 points; the loonie saw its biggest single drop in 40 years, and the price of oil -- often called a market 'fundamental' by those with hats over their eyes -- keeps fluctuating so much that any minute we're all going to keel over with acute nausea.
It's just one day's movement, but the ride's not over.
Lyle Gramley, Former Governor of the US fed and 50-some-odd year economic veteran, said, "we need to begin to start thinking outside the box because what we're experiencing now in financial markets is unlike anything I have seen in more than 50 years in looking at the economy."
But just when we think the market's pissing in our sandbox, we hear such soothing words as "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong," usually alluding to the demand for oil. In fact, it's something our own delusional PM said a few months back, and something a good many people were saying at the beginning of the credit crisis, which I dare point out, keeps worsening.
***
In the midst of all the anxiety, I'd like to take up Gramley's offer and suggest an idea from outside the box:
We have a global market that is ruled by an unthinking, greedy, and growing global mob. At the centre of the mob, we have a huge hulk of a monster -- the US -- deep in debt from a nasty addiction to oil and oil wars, and using dirty money to finance it all. The dirty money comes from bad loans and other grimy, unseemly "quick cash" schemes.
Suddenly, Murphy and his law caught the US with its pants down, and now we have an economic problem that some are comparing to the 1930s.
But have you heard anyone talk about how broken our global financial institutions are? Are we thinking about changing how we finance credit and debt? Are we talking about just how bad an investment expensive oil is in this warming world (for that matter, do we realize how little oil actually contributes to the Canadian economy as a percentage of GDP)?
No, not at all. In fact, we more often than not hear people jabber on about how oil investments will somehow save us from diving off the edge of an economic cliff; that, like I said, it somehow constitutes a market "fundamental."
The problem with this logic is that oil means nothing if its prices is so high that it grinds down -- rather than greases -- the global economy. And if you look at the problem without your economic-fundamentalist blinders on, you notice that dirty, expensive oil is the dumbest investment we could possibly make in the economy, nevermind the planet, especially at this stage in history.
This is a twofold emergency made worse by our short-term thinking. Though whether we ever treat it as an emergency in Canada is debatable. Our present government doesn't believe in intervention, and I wonder sometimes if they even understand global warming.
Most of all, though this may at first seem from out of left-field, we need to reform our global financial practices. Currency-trading and debt-based economics have not served us well. The practice of using the US dollar as a reserve currency needs to end, and we need a globally-neutral currency or resource to replace it.
Not gold.
We don't have the luxury today of thinking that gold is the world's most precious resource. The most precious resource today the proportion of non-carbon elements in our atmosphere.
What am I talking about? We are facing not one, but two global emergencies: One being the credit crunch, the other, as I alluded to, being global warming. With a currency adjustment, we can quickly harness the power of the free market to save our future.
There is no reason why we can't translate the chemistry of our atmosphere into a global, ecologically-backed currency unit that prevents us from further overstepping our ecological limit and launches us toward a sure-footed economic future built on clean energy.
Sounds funny, you think, making cash out of thin air? Well just what the heck do you think we're doing right now?
Labels: credit crunch, dead paradigms, debt, delusions of grandeur, economy, election, environment, slow learners, subprime housing crisis
2 Comments:
I think you've missed at least 2 other global crisis peak oil and predicted famine, honestly there is no way out of todays predicaments without a total reset of what we do and how we do it.
The problem is no one is going to willing make the changes needed on a global scale and while your air currency is interesting half the world soon won't be able to feed itself let alone accurately measure their GHGs.
(That said, please flush your currency plan)
More importantly I don't think once peak oil and famine hit they will give a damn about GHGs, it will be seen as a luxury.
We are quickly losing our window to act on these issue because when immediate survival is called into question long term planing will be dropped. The end result will be fixing it hard way, massive die offs, environmental disaster and world depression.
As for gold it's value is not in the metal itself but rather the unique features that make it sound money.
Durability , portability, dividable, constant, not counterfitable, and having a known supply and a know rate of production growth.
That does not make it perfect but a "properly" controled gold backed standard has historically been our most stable money. The problems are when goverments ingnore control of the money supply and the paper becomes out of sync with it's backing.
For an iteresting yet rather dry look at gold currencies and why they can work, but sometimes did not due to mismanagement read
Gold the once and future money .
Have you not noticed that most Political bloggers don't give a rats ass about economic issues. The various parties are too limited and the people to impatient to learn and discuss long winded economic principles.
Since the parties don't bring up anything that can't be packaged in 30 second sound bites there is room for the normal partisan party echos and no room for the average he said/she said, mine is bigger than yours type political discource. So they mostly ignore these issues, having not been programed what to believe.
These are the issues that will define our times not Cadman, not adscam, and not who is or is not a leader. Our grandkids will read the history books and say "why the fuck were you wasting your time on this shit"
Sure, we can probably reel off a few other global crises and their complimenting catalysts, including the biofuel delusion, but as far as oil is concerned, the problem is that we're not going to run out of it quickly enough in order to set off a societal shift. The oilsands here and in Venezuela are supposed to keep us greased and gassed for years.
The point to highlight, then, is that supply will not sufficiently keep up with increased global demand - especially from Asia.
You're right. We do need to hit the "reset" button, but I hope you're wrong about the scale and immediacy of the slide. I doubt how quickly we'll slide into a famine here in the North because genetic engineering will increase short-term agricultural output. I don't advocate for it, but realistically, this is already underway.
You're also right that the problem of GHGs will likely soon seem like a distant or "luxurious" issue, if it doesn't already, but if we tether an ecologically-backed reserve currency unit to the proportion of non-carbon elements in the atmosphere, we can prevent this from happening.
That would be putting the cart before the horse, but imagine the benefits for a minute.
In times past, gold's unique features were what made it the best money resource (I've read cousins of the book you mention). But things like durability and portability are no longer necessary in the 21st century, even, I argue, during a time of economic slowdown. The most important feature of gold that you mentioned was its "slow rate of production" - in other words, the rarity of the resource.
Well the same thing can be said of non-carbon elements in the atmosphere, since their proportion is shrinking. They are rare; producing more of it is hard (but not impossible), and certainly necessary. I'm really asking you think outside the box here - and here's the main point - under this crazy, seemingly outlandish scheme, the economy would only be able to grow if we decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to suitable levels. This would require a standard global monitor - something like a UN-mandated body - to set the value of the atmosphere.
That means that forests and oceans, etc, will become even more valuable commodities as reserves of wealth. It also means that doing things like burning fossil fuels would more obviously damage the fortunes of the global economy, and investors would then rightly shy away from it.
This idea might make a minority of dirty-energy investors cringe, but an idea like this should settle the stomachs of those riding this hideous market roller-coaster because it should theoretically stabilize the global markets.
We could eventually switch back to a gold-backed standard after we've restored the atmosphere to equilibrium.
It's a pipedream, sure, but its benefits make it worthwhile pipedream.
Finally, indeed, I have noticed that most bloggers - just like the general population - don't give a rats ass about economic issues, and that's troubling. The lack of an audience for serious issues makes blogging feel like an exercise in futility. In the case of economic apathy, it likely means that most people will be willing to accept that Stephen Harper - bearing his ancient "Calgary school" economic theology - will be considered the best person to manage the economy simply by virtue of the "Economics" label on his MA.
I dearly hope that crass partisanship arrives at its deathbed in the near future. But before that happens, the public - and our pathetic media - have to actually and entirely lose their appetite for it. They say they have, but ironically, just like the politicians they deride, they're not walking their talk.
Post a Comment
<< Home