Sri Lanka marks beginning of global economic crisis

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[aeon]

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[aeon]

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

As always the WEF is center stage in some way or another with just about every crises in the past several years.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/this-is-how-we-will-make-sri-lanka-rich-by-2025

https://archive.ph/iP8l4

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[slant]

 

[slant]

Also, I'm processing a lot of notices at work from energy companies in Texas...

 

[philostam]

The quote that sums everything up perfectly for me:

“Volatility never disappears, it just gets transferred. Decades of money printing suppressed market volatility but increased wealth inequality and hence societal and inflation volatility.”

Money printing and under-investment into energy due to ESG hysteria caused this.

 

[John K]

Feel free to share any thoughts or further information on the ongoing economic crisis.

There are always economic crises - they happen every few years and some are bigger than others. The ones I've lived through have just a few causes as far as I can see, and there's nothing new under the sun, though the details differ from one to the next. I expect that we'll emerge eventually from this one, and it remains to see if it's going to be one of the bigger ones or not. The causes really fall into two camps - events such as wars and pandemics on the one hand, and political illusions coming home to roost on the other, such as the .com bubble and the financial crash. These lead to an immediate crisis, but really it's like hitting a bell with a hammer, and the results is a series of oscillations with boom and bust years following.

I think that the events and the illusions are interlinked in the present crisis. We have the pandemic and the Ukraine war of course. We also have the political illusions that you can disconnect the money supply from the production base that manifests it - that's coming home to roost now with massive inflation as the 'free' money chases a reduced supply of resources and services. Another big political illusion is that we can move to green energy and renewables with no adverse transitional consequences. In fact as far as I can see, we should expect major economic upheavals and unrest as we do this if it isn't done with consummate skill, very long term planning and a lot of luck. As far as I understand it, Sri Lanka seems to have banned non-organic fertilisers as part of its green policy just at a time when the global situation has put huge stress on its economy. As a result people are going hungry and its farmers are going bankrupt, which has led to riots, insurgency and the fall of the government. It's probably set back the environmental cause in that country by years.

I wish that politicians weren't so easily swayed by pressure groups and fashion on the move to a green economy and so implement daft, ill-considered policies in order to look good. A lot of people across the world could be very badly hurt by this, potentially, and the damage could be just as great as that forecast for the effects of not tackling global warming. It's very dishonest to pretend that the world can get rid of it's reliance on non-renewables without significant voluntary pain for very many ordinary people and if we are serious about it this needs to be addressed. Otherwise we will start seeing other countries brought to collapse when more ordinary crises pile in on top off the stresses of greening - as seems to have happened in Sri Lanka.

 

[philostam]

I wish that politicians weren't so easily swayed by pressure groups and fashion on the move to a green economy and so implement daft, ill-considered policies in order to look good. A lot of people across the world could be very badly hurt by this, potentially, and the damage could be just as great as that forecast for the effects of not tackling global warming. It's very dishonest to pretend that the world can get rid of it's reliance on non-renewables without significant voluntary pain for very many ordinary people and if we are serious about it this needs to be addressed. Otherwise we will start seeing other countries brought to collapse when more ordinary crises pile in on top off the stresses of greening - as seems to have happened in Sri Lanka.

Yup. Maybe we shouldn't listen to 14 year old girls and twitter mobs.

Remember in 2018 when Germans laughed at Trump when he suggested they have an energy problem (not a Trump supporter by any means, just facts).

 

[slant]

There are always economic crises - they happen every few years and some are bigger than others. The ones I've lived through have just a few causes as far as I can see, and there's nothing new under the sun, though the details differ from one to the next. I expect that we'll emerge eventually from this one, and it remains to see if it's going to be one of the bigger ones or not. The causes really fall into two camps - events such as wars and pandemics on the one hand, and political illusions coming home to roost on the other, such as the .com bubble and the financial crash. These lead to an immediate crisis, but really it's like hitting a bell with a hammer, and the results is a series of oscillations with boom and bust years following.

I think that the events and the illusions are interlinked in the present crisis. We have the pandemic and the Ukraine war of course. We also have the political illusions that you can disconnect the money supply from the production base that manifests it - that's coming home to roost now with massive inflation as the 'free' money chases a reduced supply of resources and services. Another big political illusion is that we can move to green energy and renewables with no adverse transitional consequences. In fact as far as I can see, we should expect major economic upheavals and unrest as we do this if it isn't done with consummate skill, very long term planning and a lot of luck. As far as I understand it, Sri Lanka seems to have banned non-organic fertilisers as part of its green policy just at a time when the global situation has put huge stress on its economy. As a result people are going hungry and its farmers are going bankrupt, which has led to riots, insurgency and the fall of the government. It's probably set back the environmental cause in that country by years.

I wish that politicians weren't so easily swayed by pressure groups and fashion on the move to a green economy and so implement daft, ill-considered policies in order to look good. A lot of people across the world could be very badly hurt by this, potentially, and the damage could be just as great as that forecast for the effects of not tackling global warming. It's very dishonest to pretend that the world can get rid of it's reliance on non-renewables without significant voluntary pain for very many ordinary people and if we are serious about it this needs to be addressed. Otherwise we will start seeing other countries brought to collapse when more ordinary crises pile in on top off the stresses of greening - as seems to have happened in Sri Lanka.

My thoughts on it were that basically necessary creates change and I'm not sure if we could ever actually "convince" enough people to switch to more renewalable energy sources quickly enough without this type of extremely painful, expensive, inconvenient scenario.

I'm sure it would be nice if we could switch gradually and without negatively impacting this many people but I don't think it would actually work. At least in my country, whenever big changes happen it is in response to a huge controversy or upsetting situation. Without that people ignore future problems because they're not currently a problem.

I'm actually pretty pumped and excited about what's going on right now because I think it will usher in new energy sources and we were in dire need of it. Finally people are taking it seriously... Because it is hurting them on a personal level.

 

[John K]

My thoughts on it were that basically necessary creates change and I'm not sure if we could ever actually "convince" enough people to switch to more renewalable energy sources quickly enough without this type of extremely painful, expensive, inconvenient scenario.

I'm sure it would be nice if we could switch gradually and without negatively impacting this many people but I don't think it would actually work. At least in my country, whenever big changes happen it is in response to a huge controversy or upsetting situation. Without that people ignore future problems because they're not currently a problem.

I'm actually pretty pumped and excited about what's going on right now because I think it will usher in new energy sources and we were in dire need of it. Finally people are taking it seriously... Because it is hurting them on a personal level.

Oh I'm sure you are right - there's no doubt that looked at objectively, the massive increases in the cost of non-renewable energy is a huge incentive to move to alternatives. It's a really great opportunity and I hope some good political leaders come into power who can steer us through - but we tend to choose leaders who are stuck in soundbite thinking rather than real systemic policies for the medium to long term.

What I worry about though is that starving people think about their next meal, not their descendants who haven't been born yet. The developed countries can probably weather this, though there'll be big political upheaval if there is a severe energy shortage during the transition years that leads to mass unemployment and economic slump. It would be even worse in developing countries where there could be famine on a massive scale, and that leads to the overthrow of governments as in Sri Lanka. I'm pretty sure the Sri Lankans will abandon their 100% organic crop policy now for example - you can't introduce these things without popular consent and a viable alternative. These sort of problems will bring governments into power that reject the move to renewables if they aren't very carefully handled through a well managed transition. Renewables are nowhere near being able to replace existing resources in short order in a way that can maintain our civilisations and our population sizes - that's one of the great illusions of our time I'm afraid.

 

[slant]

Oh I'm sure you are right - there's no doubt that looked at objectively, the massive increases in the cost of non-renewable energy is a huge incentive to move to alternatives. It's a really great opportunity and I hope some good political leaders come into power who can steer us through - but we tend to choose leaders who are stuck in soundbite thinking rather than real systemic policies for the medium to long term.

What I worry about though is that starving people think about their next meal, not their descendants who haven't been born yet. The developed countries can probably weather this, though there'll be big political upheaval if there is a severe energy shortage during the transition years that leads to mass unemployment and economic slump. It would be even worse in developing countries where there could be famine on a massive scale, and that leads to the overthrow of governments as in Sri Lanka. I'm pretty sure the Sri Lankans will abandon their 100% organic crop policy now for example - you can't introduce these things without popular consent and a viable alternative. These sort of problems will bring governments into power that reject the move to renewables if they aren't very carefully handled through a well managed transition. Renewables are nowhere near being able to replace existing resources in short order in a way that can maintain our civilisations and our population sizes - that's one of the great illusions of our time I'm afraid.

I agree with what you're saying but this was sort of inevitable. People can argue about if we have enough fuel to continue the current energy infrastructure and whether we do currently or not doesn't really matter because this is a "sneak peek" of the type of things that will actually happen when there is a shortage that we cannot solve, and the situation will get worse and worse unless the transition to alternative energy sources begin. Even with alternative energy sources there will be shortages. I do not think there is a "way out", we can stall maybe, but eventually a bunch of people will die as a result of a unsustainable energy grid that enabled humans to populate on a mass scale and have longevity that eventually would not be able to be sustained.

This whole issue is framed as if there are things we can do to prevent all of this, but I don't actually think there is.

We haven't had a global famine or mass population decline due to disease or weather for a few generations because of technology advances, but they used to happen all the time. I think this is just another one, and we are like you say, under the illusion that we can do something about it.

I'm not saying inaction is the answer but I think we perceive to have more control over this than we actually do.

 

[Wyote]

Finally people are taking it seriously... Because it is hurting them on a personal level.

The way of humans really

 

[Wyote]

Renewables are nowhere near being able to replace existing resources in short order in a way that can maintain our civilisations and our population sizes - that's one of the great illusions of our time I'm afraid.

Profit is what matters, even when it comes to saving humanity

 

[John K]

I agree with what you're saying but this was sort of inevitable. People can argue about if we have enough fuel to continue the current energy infrastructure and whether we do currently or not doesn't really matter because this is a "sneak peek" of the type of things that will actually happen when there is a shortage that we cannot solve, and the situation will get worse and worse unless the transition to alternative energy sources begin. Even with alternative energy sources there will be shortages. I do not think there is a "way out", we can stall maybe, but eventually a bunch of people will die as a result of a unsustainable energy grid that enabled humans to populate on a mass scale and have longevity that eventually would not be able to be sustained.

This whole issue is framed as if there are things we can do to prevent all of this, but I don't actually think there is.

We haven't had a global famine or mass population decline due to disease or weather for a few generations because of technology advances, but they used to happen all the time. I think this is just another one, and we are like you say, under the illusion that we can do something about it.

I'm not saying inaction is the answer but I think we perceive to have more control over this than we actually do.

I'm not as pessimistic as that, because the world economy has a lot of squishiness in it, rather than being something that can shatter completely. We still have a lot of non-renewable resources left - enough for another couple of generations I'd guess, and probably more than that truth be known. We have hundreds of years of coal lying buried in the UK for example and loads of frackable oil too but we just choose not to mine it. Now we shouldn't be afraid to use these sort of resources around the world as part of a planned and coordinated transition - but not just to put off thinking about it.

But folks aren't rational about planning effectively and flexibly, so we put ourselves in hock to nasty totalitarian economies who don't have our scruples.

But I fear you are right and that it will take major shortages and a lot of real suffering before things will move. I have a feeling that the world's population in 200 years will be less than a 10th of what it is now - we have a choice whether to get there in a pleasant way, or a disastrous way. Either way, that's how the problem will be solved.

Mind you - people may be nature's way of extending the present inter-glacial indefinitely LOL. It's ending is really rather overdue - we are in the middle of an ice age and the glacial periods last a lot longer than the interglacials if nature isn't modified by people.

Profit is what matters, even when it comes to saving humanity

It does! It's surprising how quickly things can move when people scent the profit blood isn't it. I remember reading that room-bright LED bulbs were impossible technology a few decades ago, but they are the only sensible sort to buy now and pretty cheap. I do wish we were going for hydrogen powered cars rather than electric ones though - it seems like a much more sensible technology if they can get the renewable water splitting technology and the liquid hydrogen delivery process sorted. I bet there's a fortune to be made in that eventually. I think electric cars will generate their own environmental angst in a couple of decades when we all realise that clapped out batteries are nasty things to dump or recycle.

 

[slant]

Profit is what matters, even when it comes to saving humanity

Yeah but ... Profit is just representing what we used to do through barter and trade of actual goods. If I try to accomplish something without a profit, there are implications for that - like people not having resources to buy things like food that they need in order to work in order to accomplish whatever is trying to be accomplished.

I'm not as pessimistic as that, because the world economy has a lot of squishiness in it, rather than being something that can shatter completely. We still have a lot of non-renewable resources left - enough for another couple of generations I'd guess, and probably more than that truth be known. We have hundreds of years of coal lying buried in the UK for example and loads of frackable oil too but we just choose not to mine it. Now we shouldn't be afraid to use these sort of resources around the world as part of a planned and coordinated transition - but not just to put off thinking about it.

But folks aren't rational about planning effectively and flexibly, so we put ourselves in hock to nasty totalitarian economies who don't have our scruples.

But I fear you are right and that it will take major shortages and a lot of real suffering before things will move. I have a feeling that the world's population in 200 years will be less than a 10th of what it is now - we have a choice whether to get there in a pleasant way, or a disastrous way. Either way, that's how the problem will be solved.

Mind you - people may be nature's way of extending the present inter-glacial indefinitely LOL. It's ending is really rather overdue - we are in the middle of an ice age and the glacial periods last a lot longer than the interglacials if nature isn't modified by people.


It does! It's surprising how quickly things can move when people scent the profit blood isn't it. I remember reading that room-bright LED bulbs were impossible technology a few decades ago, but they are the only sensible sort to buy now and pretty cheap. I do wish we were going for hydrogen powered cars rather than electric ones though - it seems like a much more sensible technology if they can get the renewable water splitting technology and the liquid hydrogen delivery process sorted. I bet there's a fortune to be made in that eventually. I think electric cars will generate their own environmental angst in a couple of decades when we all realise that clapped out batteries are nasty things to dump or recycle.

I agree with you, I guess I just want to clarify that my response was not me thinking it's going to happen "soon" but rather that when it happens is kinda irrelevant. If the projectory continues, it will happen. And that's why I'm really confused why people split hairs on the "when" or "oh we still have hundreds of years of this"

Cool beans

Doesn't change the fact that it will eventually run out because of the rate in which we consume vs the rate in which the energy we are using is generated (thousands of years gestation period for oil and coal y'all!)

If the argument is,
"Oh well by then technology will be advanced enough and save us"

Maybe.

But also maybe not. So you're right I guess that I'm on the pessimistic side .. It's safer to presume maybe not because people do not see the urgency and don't want to acknowledge it. And they won't until situations like this and again when this type of thing starts to happen it's a wee bit too late to plan ahead.

Anyway sorry for splitting more hairs I'm just confused by this argument sometimes about the time we have left when that doesn't actually matter much, it doesn't have any impact on the actual inevitable issue

 

[Wyote]

Yeah but ... Profit is just representing what we used to do through barter and trade of actual goods. If I try to accomplish something without a profit, there are implications for that - like people not having resources to buy things like food that they need in order to work in order to accomplish whatever is trying to be accomplished.

My point was, if you make something profitable(enough), it will probably happen.
If you set up something that isn't profitable, it's less likely to occur.
Profitable doesn't mean money in a direct sense, necessarily.

 

[slant]

My point was, if you make something profitable, it will probably happen.
If you set up something that isn't profitable, it's less likely to occur.
Profitable doesn't mean money in a direct sense, necessarily.

I understand better now, thanks for explaining, I totally missed your meaning but now that you've explained it I think I view it the same way as you.