environmental costs playing a role in economic downturn?

[Rhett]

For something like two years now the media has been saturated with news of current and likely costs of major environmental problems, which most describe as a massive challenge facing the entirety of humanity. One would think this would naturally see people not spending as much money, keeping some reserve to counter these effects. And here we are in a major economic downturn, mainly because people aren't spending as much money. Yet no-one seems to think there is any correlation. People seem to think the downturn stems almost solely from problems in the american economy.

[DHodges]

The economic downturn was not caused by a spike in the savings rate. The downturn began around the end of 2007. The savings rate increased in 2008, but is still not high by historical standards.

[brokenhead]

The economic downturn was not caused by a spike in the savings rate. The downturn began around the end of 2007. The savings rate increased in 2008, but is still not high by historical standards.

I think that what Rhett is saying is that going green at this time could worsen the world's financial woes. I understand the point. But I am not sure I agree with it. I believe we have no choice but to face the environmental issues. Growth may come in sectors that are involved in the efforts slow down the poisoning of the planet and the depletion of nonrenewable resources. That will be most likely not have much of an impact on the immediate economy, in my view. I mean, the money is out there. The idea is to plug the leaks and get the money moving again.

[Carl G]

For something like two years now the media has been saturated with news of current and likely costs of major environmental problems, which most describe as a massive challenge facing the entirety of humanity. One would think this would naturally see people not spending as much money, keeping some reserve to counter these effects.

Except for charitiable donations, people do not usually reserve money for world problems. Heck, most don't even have enough savings for six months ordinary living expenses.

And here we are in a major economic downturn, mainly because people aren't spending as much money.

I am no financial guru but I'm pretty sure the main problem is not citizens not spending enough.

Yet no-one seems to think there is any correlation.

Between the environmental problems that may face us and the economic mess we are in? Being that we have not yet begun spending on the environment, what could that correlation possibly be?

People seem to think the downturn stems almost solely from problems in the american economy.

I think we shall see that this is no mere downturn, but the beginning of an economic meltdown -- probably intentional -- that may lead to new currencies, new economic models, changes in the overt balance of global powers, and possibly the one world government that has long been predicted by some.

[DHodges]

I think we shall see that this is no mere downturn, but the beginning of an economic meltdown -- probably intentional -- that may lead to new currencies, new economic models, changes in the overt balance of global powers, and possibly the one world government that has long been predicted by some.

This is exactly the issue I've been thinking about lately. In these very turbulent times, the probability of war is much higher than usual.

No one knows, right now, where this economic mess is heading. There are too many things going on, too many players, to make a prediction with any kind of certainty. Things are changing very rapidly. Think of where we were just a year ago compared to today.

Because of the economic turmoil, the possibility of war (in the medium term) is no longer remote. Two possible scenarios I am considering are:

1) A large international war. Something larger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The largest conflict since WWII (not counting "cold war" actions). Not sure exactly what the sides would be.

2) Something on the North American continent, most likely the USA being forced to take some (military) action with respect to Mexico, probably ending with a drastic shift in international borders. (USA doesn't particularly want Mexican territory, but Mexico would like to have California.)
It's probably worthwhile to keep an eye on what's happening in Mexico.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges,

1) A large international war. Something larger than Iraq or Afghanistan. The largest conflict since WWII (not counting "cold war" actions). Not sure exactly what the sides would be.

A preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could do it, by either the US or Israel. it would be interesting to see what countries would support the Israel/US alliance, and which ones would support Iran. Russia would probably support Iran. Tribal groups in Pakistan may also side with Iran, along with militant groups from other radicalized groups and rogue states. There is a lot of hatred towards Israel/US by the Islam people. Imperialism and occupation over the Palestinian territories will do that.

hmmm, Ignorance vs ignorace, I wonder who will win? I'm putting my bet on ignorance. Whos with me?!

2) Something on the North American continent, most likely the USA being forced to take some (military) action with respect to Mexico, probably ending with a drastic shift in international borders. (USA doesn't particularly want Mexican territory, but Mexico would like to have California.)
It's probably worthwhile to keep an eye on what's happening in Mexico.

The US may have to put thousands of military troops near the borders, which could cause some major conflict between US military and Mexican drug lords. I can't see illegal mexican aliens causing as huge of a conflict.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Another problem I have is the American's blind faith in Barack Obama who isn't very wise when it comes to military conflict in the middle-east. He wants more troops in Afganistan and Pakistan, which won't solve any problems there, and will only continue to increase the national deficit. Obama also sides with Israel more than the Palestinians, his bias is obvious.

Obama's charisma and celebrity worship just might allow the masses to be duped into another 'necessary' war.

The US would be better off pulling their troops out of the region entirely, and focusing all their financial resources into sustainable energy research and decreases their deficit, while strengthening their dollar. And if the middle-east self-destructs, so be it. They are not a center of logic and scientific progress anyway.

Political chaos and economic disorder have a way of spreading to other nations like a sort of virus, which is a feasible possibility, but not a certainity.

[Rhett]

The economic downturn was not caused by a spike in the savings rate. The downturn began around the end of 2007. The savings rate increased in 2008, but is still not high by historical standards.

I'm not suggesting that environmental fears/preparation are the major factor in the economic downturn. People are saying that it's not a factor at all, and i think it must surely be a factor. People's decisions have some degree of fuzziness so they don't know exactly why they do things, and after all the media attention on current and future environmental costs, i find it hard to believe that people are 100% disregarding this influence.

And if people saving isn't a major factor in the economic downturn, what is? The downturn can't be attributed to job losses, as they are only minor so far. The 'real' economy must still be fairly healthy. All the money that isn't going into shares and houses must be somewhere else, somewhere that doesn't create (as much) economic growth, at least not now. I accept there has been a general writedown of assets, and this alone will see a large lowering of GDP growth. Hmm.

I am open to the possibility that the cause of the downturn may not bear any relation to environmental concerns, but guesstimate that environmental concerns if they weren't there at the start, have at least played a role for a while.

[Rhett]

I think that what Rhett is saying is that going green at this time could worsen the world's financial woes. I understand the point. But I am not sure I agree with it. I believe we have no choice but to face the environmental issues. Growth may come in sectors that are involved in the efforts slow down the poisoning of the planet and the depletion of nonrenewable resources. That will be most likely not have much of an impact on the immediate economy, in my view. I mean, the money is out there. The idea is to plug the leaks and get the money moving again.

I think putting a large chunk if not the entirety of government economic stimulus packages towards green development is a really good idea.

But if vulnerable governments overestimate the recovery ability of their economies they run the risk of sliding into bankrupcy.

[Rhett]

R: For something like two years now the media has been saturated with news of current and likely costs of major environmental problems, which most describe as a massive challenge facing the entirety of humanity. One would think this would naturally see people not spending as much money, keeping some reserve to counter these effects.
C: Except for charitiable donations, people do not usually reserve money for world problems. Heck, most don't even have enough savings for six months ordinary living expenses.

Sorry, i should have said reducing their debt.

R: And here we are in a major economic downturn, mainly because people aren't spending as much money.
C: I am no financial guru but I'm pretty sure the main problem is not citizens not spending enough.

Again, reducing debt.

R: Yet no-one seems to think there is any correlation.
C: Between the environmental problems that may face us and the economic mess we are in? Being that we have not yet begun spending on the environment, what could that correlation possibly be?

Environmental problems are already raising prices of some things, such as food, and this is in the media a lot.

R: People seem to think the downturn stems almost solely from problems in the american economy.
C: I think we shall see that this is no mere downturn, but the beginning of an economic meltdown -- probably intentional -- that may lead to new currencies, new economic models, changes in the overt balance of global powers, and possibly the one world government that has long been predicted by some.

One world government? That must surely be a long way off if ever. Even a world overseeing agency like a powered-up UN is a long way off if ever. I like the way scientists are being given a lot of media time and political influence.

[Rhett]

This is exactly the issue I've been thinking about lately. In these very turbulent times, the probability of war is much higher than usual.

Wars are in some sense covert economic stimulus packages, but i think wars are usually waged for other reasons. Since many governments are publicly declaring economic stimulus packages of a productive nature, that would seem one factor against the waging of wars.

Why do you think large economic fluctuations create an increased likelihood of war? People seem rather pre-occupied with economics.

[Rhett]

A preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could do it, by either the US or Israel. it would be interesting to see what countries would support the Israel/US alliance, and which ones would support Iran. Russia would probably support Iran. Tribal groups in Pakistan may also side with Iran, along with militant groups from other radicalized groups and rogue states. There is a lot of hatred towards Israel/US by the Islam people. Imperialism and occupation over the Palestinian territories will do that.

hmmm, Ignorance vs ignorace, I wonder who will win? I'm putting my bet on ignorance. Whos with me?!

My guess is Russia may supply Iran with weapons, but would not involve itself directly in Iranian or American territory, partly because it would get wiped-out by US nuclear weapons, and partly because it is economically reliant on Europe and Europe would ultimately support america.

Americans are more conscious than middle-easterns and russions. I tip them to stay dominant.

[Rhett]

Another problem I have is the American's blind faith in Barack Obama who isn't very wise when it comes to military conflict in the middle-east. He wants more troops in Afganistan and Pakistan, which won't solve any problems there, and will only continue to increase the national deficit. Obama also sides with Israel more than the Palestinians, his bias is obvious.

Obama's charisma and celebrity worship just might allow the masses to be duped into another 'necessary' war.

The US would be better off pulling their troops out of the region entirely, and focusing all their financial resources into sustainable energy research and decreases their deficit, while strengthening their dollar. And if the middle-east self-destructs, so be it. They are not a center of logic and scientific progress anyway.

Political chaos and economic disorder have a way of spreading to other nations like a sort of virus, which is a feasible possibility, but not a certainity.

America needs to be careful it isn't tricked into over-reaching itself. The elites in rival countries, crude as they may be, are well aware America is vulnerable right now, and a select few countries might like to see the US crumble. Then again crude people won't be able to help themselves privately admiring America's material prosperity.

But i think globalisation and the internet have a strong and increasing influence towards peace. No-one is likely to attack an economy they trade with unless they can profit from the attack, and that doesn't tend to happen these days. Similarly people are unlikely to attack people they interact with on the internet. How many Iranians and American's may soon develop friendships with each other on the internet? In time i think the internet will be a massive dominant force against wars. I think investment in internet rollout in developing and hostile countries is possibly the best investment in so many respects, even more powerful than say renewable energy. Rollout the internet in afghan, iraqi and pakistani schools etc...

[Shahrazad]

How many Iranians and American's may soon develop friendships with each other on the internet?

That will only happen if people from both countries speak the same language. Most Iranians don't speak English.

[Rhett]

R: How many Iranians and American's may soon develop friendships with each other on the internet?
S: That will only happen if people from both countries speak the same language. Most Iranians don't speak English.

Give them the internet and they will have both motive and opportunity to learn english. I think the best thing is for the whole world to have english as their main if not sole language, there are so many benefits and so very few drawbacks to this. Consign the other languages to museums, if only to make the point that english is not an 'inherent' language.

[Shahrazad]

I really don't care what language is chosen, but I do wish the world decided to speak the same language. And that should sound weird coming from a language interpreter.

[Carl G]

I think everyone should be forced to speak Mandarin. After all it is the most spoken language on the planet.

[Shahrazad]

That would seem to be fair.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

I think everyone should be forced to speak Mandarin. After all it is the most spoken language on the planet.

I disagree, Mandarin is overly complicated in my opinion. There are too many sounds and too many letters in the language. Most of the European languages are far superior to Mandarin because they are more simplistic and to the point. English, French, Spanish, German... all better candidates in my view.

even Japanese and Korean are less complicated...

[Carl G]

Then it would help promote intelligence by forcing people to learn a more difficult language. I would have thought you would be for that.

[Shahrazad]

I disagree, Mandarin is overly complicated in my opinion.

If simplicity is the standard, then English loses again. Esperanto would be far, far better.

[Tomas]

.


-Rhett-
For something like two years now the media has been saturated with news of current and likely costs of major environmental problems, which most describe as a massive challenge facing the entirety of humanity.

-tomas-
Had Americans (much less Al Gore) demanded a full recount in the state of Florida, Al Gore would've saved us this hassle. But it's easier to turn the sound down on the TV and kick up the FM a little louder. Bad news totally sucks. But then, Australian news is as much a figment of ones' opinion as the next country's news is.


-Rhett-
One would think this would naturally see people not spending as much money, keeping some reserve to counter these effects.

-tomas-
One can not spend 'money' one doesn't earn enough of. The parasitic governmental structure we're voted ourselves trumps every single time. There are no monetary reserves, China has them (instrumental IOU's) and is wisely snapping up minerals, farmland etc. at bargain-basement prices, the industralized nations are at rock-bottom and this is always the best time to invest in everything.

Hell, even Taiwan is politically readying itself to climb on board China's industrial engine. Essentially, it's just another shipping container (boxcar) in a long line that spans the globe. Prepositioning for the year 2012.


-Rhett-
And here we are in a major economic downturn, mainly because people aren't spending as much money. Yet no-one seems to think there is any correlation. People seem to think the downturn stems almost solely from problems in the american economy.

-tomas-
The downturn for America began in the Great Society that LBJ foisted upon us. It began an era of unfunded mandates. By intentional design, VietNam was never funded.

Thank goodness for Sir Brother Barack, once he's finished cleaning our clock and Mexico, Canada are fully integrated into NAFTA (money unification in 2010), the party will begin!

PS - I just love the English elite, they have the brains and america the military muscle to do the dirty work for the moneyed class.

Peace Loved Up

.

[DHodges]

Consumer Spending Up. There, problem solved.


I would also vote for Esperanto or other constructed language like Lojban. I doubt such a project is actually possible in practice, however. Artifical languages have never caught on.

[Carl G]

Consumer Spending Up. There, problem solved.

Ha, dry humor. I like it.

I would also vote for Esperanto or other constructed language like Lojban. I doubt such a project is actually possible in practice, however. Artifical languages have never caught on.

Lojban looks tough to learn. But never mind "catching on"; it could be legislated under pain of death!

[Tomas]

.


Consumer Spending Up.
-DHodges-
There, problem solved.

-tomas-
Thank goodness the feds, military and assorted other parasites are deserving :-) of their inflation-adjusted salaries. They make (and earn) a pile of money every year and deserve to be placed in a higher income tax bracket.


-DHodges-
I would also vote for Esperanto or other constructed language like Lojban. I doubt such a project is actually possible in practice, however. Artifical languages have never caught on.

-tomas-
Nothing like a government-backed famine to knock down the population of the world. Rid us of the 1/3 excess humans and those remaining will gladly learn a 'new' language. Yes, I can see it now - posters telling us how to cross the street in a neighborly way, pushing the elderly in front of trains, buses etc.

Never trust anyone under 30 to help you cross the street .. or navigate the new-and-improved information super-highway. The new wave hero is constructed before our very eyes!