This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
NASA Study: "Collapse Is Very Difficult To Avoid"
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog,
As any long-time reader of this column knows, we routinely draw from historical lessons to highlight that this time is not different.
Throughout the 18th century, for example, France was the greatest superpower in Europe, if not the world.
But they became complacent, believing that they had some sort of ‘divine right’ to reign supreme, and that they could be as fiscally irresponsible as they liked.
The French government spent money like drunken sailors; they had substantial welfare programs, free hospitals, and grand monuments.
They held vast territories overseas, engaged in constant warfare, and even had their own intrusive intelligence service that spied on King and subject alike.
Of course, they couldn’t pay for any of this.
French budget deficits were out of control, and they resorted to going heavily into debt and rapidly debasing their currency.
Stop me when this sounds familiar.
The French economy ultimately failed, bringing with it a 26-year period of hyperinflation, civil war, military conquest, and genocide.
History is full of examples, from ancient Mesopotamia to the Soviet Union, which show that whenever societies reach unsustainable levels of resource consumption and allocation, they collapse.
I’ve been writing about this for years, and the idea is now hitting mainstream.
A recent research paper funded by NASA highlights this same premise.
According to the authors:
“Collapses of even advanced civilizations have occurred many times in the past five thousand years, and they were frequently followed by centuries of population and cultural decline and economic regression.”
The results of their experiments show that some of the very clear trends which exist today– unsustainable resource consumption, and economic stratification that favors the elite– can very easily result in collapse.
In fact, they write that “collapse is very difficult to avoid and requires major policy changes.”
This isn’t exactly good news.
But here’s the thing– between massive debts, deficits, money printing, war, resource depletion, etc., our modern society seems riddled with these risks.
And history certainly shows that dominant powers are always changing.
Empires rise and fall. The global monetary system is always changing. The prevailing social contract is always changing.
But there is one FAR greater trend across history that supercedes all of the rest… and that trend is the RISE of humanity.
Human beings are fundamentally tool creators. We take problems and turn them into opportunities. We find solutions. We adapt and overcome.
The world is not coming to an end. It’s going to reset. There’s a huge difference between the two.
Think about the system that we’re living under.
A tiny elite has total control of the money supply. They wield intrusive spy networks and weapons of mass destruction. The can confiscate the wealth of others in their sole discretion. They can indebt unborn generations.
Curiously, these are the same people who are so incompetent they can’t put a website together.
It’s not working. And just about everyone knows it.
We’re taught growing up that ‘We the People’ have the power to affect radical change in the voting booth. But this is another fairy tale.
Voting only changes the players. It doesn’t change the game.
Technology is one major game changer. The technology exists today to completely revolutionize the way we live and govern ourselves.
Today’s system is just a 19th century model applied to a 21st century society. I mean– a room full of men making decisions about how much money to print? It’s so antiquated it’s almost comical.
But given that the majority of Western governments borrow money just to pay interest on money they’ve already borrowed, it’s obvious the current game is almost finished.
When it ends, there will be a reset… potentially a tumultuous one.
This is why you want to have a plan B, and why you don’t want to have all of your eggs in one basket.
After all, why bother working so hard if everything you’ve ever achieved or provided for your children is tied up in a country with dismal fundamentals?
If you agree with me, then feel free to share this article with your friends below so they also can get a plan B in place. They’ll be glad they did.
»
- 35355 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Denver airport perhaps?
Well what we do know is that 'service center' is UPLINK, and that any 'newer' plane on earth has this technology to over-ride all systems.
By satellite down link
Probably not DENVER, but may near, COLORADO has lots of secret MIL BASES
Where does BOEING have a super-secret major MIL base? There are millions of acres still at the HANFORD reservation that are restricted access, and Pacific Northwest Lab's, all close to the old BOEING.
Also BOEING is not even the first contractor to work on BUAP, its just that BOEING was the first aviation company to have the technology employed.
Let's review the technlogy.
1.) Takes over complete control of the aircraft
2.) Blocks all cell phones, so 'terrorists' can't call home
3.) Flight direction to go home, is 100% controlled by 'service center' totally impossible for anyone on the plane to get back control of anything once BUAP takes control.
4.) All control is done by satellite.
*
Given what we seen this is the most likely cause of HOW the plane was taken, as surely the PILOT wasn't involved. This way nobody on the plane could have done anything except enjoy the ride.
*
One other thing to mention, on the world right now 5 airplanes have gone down by MISUSE of this technolgoy, and people have tried to take BOEING to court, only to have cases thrown out, because the courts cannot investigate TOP-SECRET technology. So this is not the first time that SOCIOPATHS have taken down a plane just because they can.
*
Winners/losers still remain the same, MALAY wins because opposition is destroyed ( implication of pilot ), CHINESE is more likely to engage in war as their people are pissed off to the max, first KUNMING now this (all CIA).
Certainly the freescale patent holders of the OBAMA digestible computer to take you for life in Obama-Care,
Major win for ISRAEL, as they'll say that the IRANIANS brought the plane down like the drone, which is true the same technolgoy is used that the drones can be over-ridden by 'service center' and brought home, ... but me thinks that ISRAEL is more likely to have this technology than IRAN, also add that CHINA must have the technology too, as in recent years CHINA has bought ALL BOEING secrets.
It could be that CHINA brought down this plane themselves to bring about WW3 and get their people on support, certainly ZIO-CON has china, and with CHINESE allies the war with Russia will be easy.
I kind of wonder what would happen if this remote system (BUAP or whatever military equivilent) took over the flight with knowledgable pilots who objected to their flight being taken over.
Could the pilots disable the remote fly system in any way, perhaps by pulling and reseting the main bus? Raises some interesting questions.
Makes me want to ask: when did they go to the service ceiling and how long were they at 45,000 feet? If the plane was being remoted and the 'remoters' knew the pilots were actively trying to disable said system, how could the 'remoters' stop them? Is it possible to remotely disable emergency oxygen systems and decompress a Boeing 777 on purpose?
Any one able to answer the above?
The BUAP system is Un-Interruptible AutoPilot.
All COMM goes dark
All cell phones are jammed
The plane goes dark to the world
The plane is taken over by 'service control' who dispatches the plane to the nearest MIL base that the 'service center' reports to,.. once the plane is on the ground the MIL takes over.
*
Every thing about MH-370 fit's right in 'radio-silence', ... blacked-out to radar and everyone.
They didn't want the terrorist to talk to the ground, they didn't want the terrorists on the ground to know where the plane was taken.
This is all right out Doctor Strangelove,... stupid beyond logic, but because it was done in SECRET the ZIO-CON's got their way,... make no mistake why would anybody on earth want a BOEING ever again,... once it is known that insane governments can KILL on a whim.
Regardless, it can only be applied when they know that an event has taken place. If they are not aware of an event or which aircraft is involved, they won't know which plane needs to be commandeered.
Also, note that a computer program called Homerun was operational in the 1980s which could take control of an airline and direct its flight. This is one of the explanations for why none of the 911 airplanes radioed the international code for hijacking 7777. After Homerun or similar program takes control of an aircraft, it is no longer possible to send the 7777 code.
Well as a pilot I can tell you that the terrorists were trained, and in kindergarten flight school that's the first thing they teach is entering those codes, so it would be pathetically stupid for a pilot to enter that shit in front of a terrorist who had a knife to his throat.
The entire narrative that the bad guy would just sit and watch a pilot enter the code and not know what he was doing, ... is bullshit.
*
I hold to the occam razor school of thought, 19 saudi-boyz with razor knives commandeered airplanes and flew them into tall buildings, and the hair lip white guy cannot accept this simple fact.
NASA tells the truth for once, never thought I'd see the day.
Wait, you mean there are Nazis on the dark side of the moon?!
Knowing the economy is going to collapse isnt rocket science.
But since they got involved now also in stating the fact WT????
Yeah, in a way...
A whole heck of a lot of people, however, think that a magic wand can be waved in order to fix the/an economy. People seem to have lost sight of the fact the economies are means of trying to value limited resources, key word being "limited."
Oh wow, another simon black article......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Mr. Black,
You don't get it, and it is interesting to see you slowly expose yourself.
Social Analysis by NASA ... oh no IRON MOUNTAIN REPORT back in the day, was said to be out of NASA; Even Kissinger called the report a fake, but most people think the report, like Pentagon Papers was very real..
[ people NASA was doing NAZI sociology study's in the 1960's and before that ... ]
15 Aug 2013 ... Deborah Tavares: Silent Weapons, Iron Mountain Report, NSA, & NASA War Document (Matrix Deciphered). from TheRapeOfJustice: ...
New NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere and The Green Agenda ... NASA The Future of War ... Cliff Notes for the Iron Mountain Report.
28 Nov 2013 ... Iron Mountain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3rrvM... This is an actual NASA document retrieved from NASA's website created July ... tax are · Video Reports Halifax Oct 8 2013 Dead Bees and Sick Dying Trees.
No mate, no reset. This time it's the consequence of a species overshooting. NTE is the name of the game.
The primary reason that we are apparently locked into collapse is that we seem locked into the FACT that civilization is controlled by legalized lies, backed up by legalized violence. Inside of that situation, evidence and logical arguments are useless, because the established systems of legalized lies do not care about anything but being able to back up their lies with violence. The deeper dilemmas are due to there being no practical ways in the short-term to change that FACT. Attempting to present more rational arguments results in accomplished nothing, since the established systems were built on the basis of evil deliberate ignorance, that will not pay attention to anything but violence. However, attempting to be violent only make sure that things get worse even faster. Entropy is a bitch, since the only 2 real choices are try to be reasonable, but thereby accomplish practically nothing, or become irrational, and make things get worse faster.
Therefore, the real world is dominated by the most criminally insane people, who have specialized for thousands of years in backing up lies with violence. They have created a vicious social spiral around them whereby the vast majority of people have adapted to that FACT by remaining ignorant and afraid. Given that overall social situation, there are no ways to prevent the collapses caused by legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, maintaining generalized attitudes of evil deliberate ignorance.
Just look at the monetary system, to see how a fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting system dominates the world, despite it being objectively insane to have private banks create the public "money" supply out of nothing as debts. Most people who read Zero Hedge already know that, but nobody can come up with any politically possible practical solutions. Instead, we can only watch and wait, as the Central Banks operate as the Fraud Kings, which are creating more and more "money" out of nothing as debts, despite the FACT that those debt slavery systems have generated numbers which now have the size of debt insanities.
Despite how utterly insane it is to operate the public "money" supply in that fashion, the feedbacks of the roles of money in the funding of the political processes have made it practically impossible to do anything effective to reform that monetary system. Similarly, everywhere else one looks, one will see that special interests have completely corrupted governmental policies, so that short-term privatized profits always prevail over the considerations of the longer term socialized losses, and overall destruction of the natural world.
The graph in the article above features the steep decline in the life of the natural world, then followed by declines in everything else, with the ruling classes being the last to feel the effects of their decisions. Unless there was some series of very unlikely political miracles, then there is no doubt that collapse will be very difficult to avoid. Indeed, there are better arguments to be made that the world's human population in 2100 will not be more than 10 billion, but rather less than 1 billion.
The primary reason that we are apparently locked into collapse is that we seem locked into the FACT that civilization is controlled by legalized lies, backed up by legalized violence. -Radical Marijuana
Yes, apparently locked and seemingly locked but not ultimately.
I think the political miracle we have talked about just happened.
"And the (Vlads) who hold high places must be the ones who start to mold a new reality, closer to the heart." -RUSH
"The decline of the west" [Oswald Sprengler], ... have you read the volumes RM?
All civilization in human history end this way, no fucking exception.
The shit rises to the top, and the fish rots from the head down, oldest narrative on earth.
... not the whole thing ... I only skimmed through ...
I guess most people would recognize that their individual death is somewhat similar to the death of their civilization. I suppose one issue is what seeds for the future are left behind. The range of ways that people personally cope with the prospect of themselves or their whole society going into decline, fall, and death, is as wide as the range of human beings and cultures.
Things are basically the same now as always, EXCEPT MAGNIFIED BY TRILLIONS OF TIMES BY ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY. Most of the human tragedy that I perceive as being most probable are due to social and political processes not being able to go through enough paradigm shifts, to cope with the previous paradigm shifts in physics and biology, etc. ... Humans are still totally hidebound by old-fashioned religions and ideologies, into which have been injected technologies that are trillions of times more powerful.
The seeds for the future are as fantastic in their potential as the magnitude of the contradiction between progress in science operating through social pyramid systems controlled by lies and violence! THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN GREATER CONTRADICTIONS IN KNOWN HUMAN HISTORY THAN THERE ARE EMERGING NOW!
Far and away the best essay on this topic is Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival:
http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf
This book is only 24 pages and it's free, so I won't bother summarizing it here.
Wow, great find! Thank you for contributing! (I've only read about 9 pages so far, but I do plan on finishing it.)
"What then can be the reason why, in a society which claims to probe every problem, the bases of history are still so completely unknown? ... histories are propaganda, not well-balanced investigations ..."
Glubb is making the same point as I made above: society is dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories. Most of the opposition groups to the biggest bullies are controlled to operate within the frame of reference of the same bullshit.
I have never found anyone who writes a good analysis of problems who does not collapse back to the same old bullshit when they turn to proposing "solutions." A good analysis reveals that governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. A set of solutions which were consistent with that analysis would propose that better government would require better organized crime. However, I have never read anyone else offer that point of view.
A good analysis of history reveals that warfare has been the father and king of all, and that weapons have always been a priority. Despite militarism obviously being the supreme ideology, the inherent paradox of militarism was that success in warfare depended upon deceits. Therefore, the most important thing that human beings do is kill each other. Hence, the only genuine solutions to reaching real limits to growth, and the threat of collapses, would be to operate better death controls. However, that then engages the paradox of militarism, which is that the best death controls were operated through lying the best about them.
That is the root of the reason why civilization can not avoid collapse. Civilization is controlled by backing up frauds with force, which require that be done through the maximum possible deceptions. That has been way too successful, so that those who operate the frauds are thoroughly protected by the enormous piles of bullshit built up around them, while the controlled opposition proposes fake "solutions" based upon the same old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, and related impossible ideals, which actually cause the opposite to happen, when they promote their over-simplified ethics, through the established religions and ideologies.
To somewhat prevent, mitigate, or maybe recover from the collapses, then civilization would have to become more genuinely scientific about itself, and thereby face more of the radical truth about its nature and its problems. IF we understood our problems better, then we might be able to resolve them better. However, since society is controlled by systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which are "opposed" by those who tend to stay within the same systems, there are no practical solutions, since rational debate, based on facing the fundamental facts, is not possible inside a society which is almost totally dominated by bullshit about itself.
After all, the real questions around how to deal with the limits to growth, and the threat of collapses caused by failing to cope with the limits to growth, all revolve about the core issues of the death controls, manifested in the murder systems. Those are the crux of the problem regarding how we respond to the threat of civilization being crazy enough to cause it own collapses. Clearly, the profound depth and difficulty of that problem is why it appears to be practically impossible to avoid those collapses.
Since the only real solutions would require better organized crime, operating better death controls, such realistic solutions are extremely problematic, and especially so because all of our historically developed death controls depended for their short-term successes upon being done through the maximum possible deceits. Thus, the established systems, and their controlled opposition, both operate themselves through the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, which tend to present everything as backwards as possible to the way things really are.
Grubb wrote that:
"It has been shown that, normally, the rise and fall of great nations are due to internal reasons alone. Ten generations of human beings suffice to transform the hardy and enterprising pioneer into the captious citizen of the welfare state. But whereas the life histories of great nations show an unexpected uniformity, the nature of their falls depends largely on outside circumstances and thus shows a high degree of diversity."Indeed, normally, society rots from the inside first, before something external puts upon the pressure that causes it to collapse. Furthermore, as the saying goes, "the fish rots from the head." That is, the social pyramid system goes rotten from the ruling classes downwards, in a feedback loop of too much triumphant evil deliberate ignorance, caused the paradox of final failure from too much success at controlling society with lies, backed by violence. Clearly, that is what is happening to our political economy, and too, that is what will eventually happen throughout our human ecology, and natural ecology.
RM, I think that we need to get a better understanding of the word "solution."
The word "solution" denotes a sense of permanance.
The very notion of something being permanent is, to put it midly, a bit of a stretch, hyperbolic.
We have taken liberties with our words and meanings, whereby such action has resulted in our complete inability to even begin to approach problems.
Problems, as as are "solutions," are also not permanent: well, there's death and all, but it seems that there's a bit of a dispute in all of that so I'll just let that go and concentrate on what exists DURING life.
If we are looking to solve problems when problems are NOT static with measure that we expect to be permanent ("solutions") then we can only guarantee confusion and "failure."
As Eric Sevareid put it: The chief cause of problems is solutions.
i would disagree.
it is failure to understand root cause(s) of problems, which leads to incomplete or wrong solutions.
Getting to root cause, requires igorning tertiary symptoms.
This is why ZH is no closer to the truth, or solutions than a blind is to seeing or a death person to hearing.
When your all consumed by the tertiary effects of the first order problem, how in the fucking hell can you offer 'solutions'.
If everywhere you see fire, and you force everyone to carry 'water', yet choose to ignore the minority that ignite the fire.
*
97% never have a clue 2.99% have a clue, and 0.01% make shit happen,
We can only like RM hope to have a clue, solutions are only for the 0.01%,
The 97% fuck them, they were fucked when they woke, and they'll just as fucked when they sleep.
All the 2.99% can hope for is knowing seeing and hearing you just might avoid certain 'fuck' daily like the 97%.
The 0.01% have always done the fucking an always will. It's even worse because the 97% are hard-wired to be such, they wouldn't know anything else, and if you gave them a vote, they would vote to be part of the FSA for all time.
End of fucking story.
*
What is the point of solutions, when the 97% will always support slavery if it means they're pampered in the moment?
Life is simple, you have a choice, you can be one of the 97%, or the 2.99%, or the 0.01%, but if you want to be an elite, you better start young, or be born rich.
Call me a 'social darwinian', I call myself a man with eyes, and a nose for shit. When all of our leaders are nitwits as we know, ... then you must assume that real leaders hide in the shadows. Fuck the WASH-DC circus, fuck the MSM.
Live free or die.
Yeah, Seer, a language of dynamic equilibria of flowing "solutions" is more like what happens, while the "problems" are cutting some part of that process out, and reifying it.
We are stuck with stuff of human language being very problematic by its basic nature. Language is a package deal of the best and worst stuck together in an inseparable way.
Hey Radical. I lost the opportunity to thank you for posting your thoughts when you seemed a bit pessimistic and down about not bothering to explain things any more on CD's thread. You do make a difference you know. A few of your posts have stuck with me over the years.
I could go on about how language itself is basically a lie, a device to force the mind to accept symbols of objects as the objects themselves, but maybe another time. All I wanted to tell you is that you do make a difference, and despite the struggles to find our way out of paradoxes that present themselves as solutions, the fact that you recognise the paradox is above and beyond most people. Maybe the solution is not what we do but the way we implement it. As my folks used to say, if you are good and you pour your love, heart and soul to your desires, you can rarely do wrong.
I don't believe in the "compete or die" message, never have. As the poster above wrote, collaborative efforts are what started our journey to sentience which gave us the chance to have the leisure to dream, as well as our all important ability to adapt. Those are the keys to our future survival.
Got to get to work, so no replies for awhile, but good to see your thoughts in the comments again.
Thanks YHC!
I agree that the basic human condition is the package deal of our ability to tell stories being the best and worst thing for us. That is, I agree with your view that "language itself is basically a lie, a device to force the mind to accept symbols of objects as the objects themselves."
That is made much worse by the biggest bullies that dominate society promoting their bullshit language as the absolute truth, and making every effort to make sure that most people never understand the elementary principles of philosophy, and so, never develop any genuine spirituality.
(It is not an accident that all the drugs that can give people a boost towards understanding that everything they perceive is being constructed in their own mental processes were criminalized. That is an aspect of the overall "war on consciousness" that the ruling classes wage to control the minds of the lower classes.)
Anyway, me too, YHC, I have to get back to my "work" ... I tend to spend too much time on Zero Hedge, because I find the most interesting material for me here.
RM - Good intellectual insight. Mine is similar but perhaps can be explained simpler: Compete or die. That's our evolution in a nutshell. Now the answer is to channel this into collaborative effort. Even within such a purpose, competition will still exits but for a common goal.
Robbing people the best is not a common collective purpose. The quest for immortality on the other hand is and one which all would support and be channeled for an opportunity to gain. But nobody is suggesting this even though the science in theory is here and now.
There are cycles of the robber and the producer, excess attracts predators in nature. That cycle cannot be stopped.
We do things for two primary reasons:
1) Opportunity to gain
2) Fear of loss
What is lacking is a collective purpose. Current leadership are robbers, they fear loss of ilicit gains while the producer fears being plundered again. A constant fear of loss creates anxiety, mental illness. It also creates adrenaline which increases beta brain waves which overcome the previous evolutionary hurdle.
A purpose can be discussed globally now with the Internet and competition channeled but that won't happen until this crop of robbers turn on one another (happening now) and that will likely cause many deaths but I do not subscribe to your Malthusian viewpoint in general.
We learn (or relearn) mostly by pain. After this next wave of pain, will remind us it is time for collective purpose. I am stating my observations of cycles. Our evolutionary cycle is accelerating. Our advanced tools are a reflection of such.
One such tool is the quantum computer. Of course it has been built to generate massive calculations for what else - problem solving but as per norm the intent was trade. But punching holes in 4D has revealed a new opportunity, a new land to explore, our end of biomechanical evolution and a start (actually more like a return) to our original state - energy. The American continent was discovered by accident, to increase trade with Asia.
I forgot the precise theory but there is one where scientists theorize that we haven't been found by aliens or nor are we likely to encounter them because if the design of intelligent life is replicated like a seeded garden (and I agree with this one premise of this theory) that such kill each other off to extinction every time. What I theorize is that we evolve past biomechanical beings back to energy.
The theory of how is we can insert a portion of our DNA code into an electron and seed ourselves in 4D. As it is already known time is vastly accelerated there, such a seed could be fully grown and speaking back to us within seconds (in 3D time). I believe this can be accomplished within 50 years. We're already punching holes in 4D but again, missing the gold mine for a handful of coins so to speak.
There would be absolutely no point to space travel in a 'starship' - ever and this commentary is getting long but if want to talk further as to why, email me at jrines@ragingdebate.com. Perhaps another reason why NASA is being defunded. Even if what I say is totally possible, I think we should do a collective project to land on Mars. Something fun to keep us busy and push ourselves to learn to build some other nifty tools in the process.
I opine that some of the greyhair necons may know this also but may think to themselves "well, I won't make it so screw it! I'll take it all now." Or maybe they haven't read about the quantum computer and what it is actually doing. But it will likely be the next crop or two of leaders that carry that charge forward (Operation Eternity). The pain of death and eliminating it is onviously an opportunity to gain and eliminates the fear of loss.
Raging Debate, your point about how to transform the "compete or die" evolutionary nutshell into some new ways "to channel this into collaborative effort" becomes quite imperative after the development of weapons that are trillions of times more powerful. (That reminds me of Buckminster Fuller's Utopia or oblivion: the prospects for humanity, amongst many other famous thinkers!)
Also, that "a purpose can be discussed globally now with the Internet" reminds me of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's theories about the phenomenon of man perhaps enabling the emergence of a noosphere. One thing is certain: "Our evolutionary cycle is accelerating."
In that context, something that I wonder about is that probably the creative and constructive breakthroughs are going on at an equally exponential rate as the destructive and demented things are happening. However, while the destruction is relatively easy to imagine, the creative breakthroughs are almost impossible to imagine. One entertaining, well made documentary that I enjoyed, for the sake of its technological optimism, while still being quite realistic about how bad things are, was the THRIVE movie, which has its Web site at:
http://www.thrivemovement.com/
The avatar image that is associated with my posts on Zero Hedge comes from that source, because I still like to day dream about political miracles, as maybe something like "psychic politics" emerging? The bad stuff is constantly slapping us in the face, while the potentially more important good stuff is difficult to discern, or even be sure whether or not it really exists. But nevertheless, I generally believe that there is still a significant race on between those tendencies ...
The actual money supply is nominal money supply x velocity of money. So if the velocity of money declines enough you can get a deflationary collapse even if the nominal money supply is increasing.
One factor in the velocity of money is disposable income. If an economy goes from
A) 90% middle class and 10% rich
to
B) 90% poor and 10% rich
then you trash disposable income and as a result massively reduce the velocity of money creating a hidden deflationary spiral that leads to collapse.
The banking mafia have done this over and over again for thousands of years. Some population somewhere develops a healthy yeoman economy and the banking mafia show up and start running their usury scam transferring wealth to a small elite until wealth is so concentrated it leads to a collapse. Rinse and repeat.
Only yeoman economies, type (A) can work long-term.
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT WHY WE ARE RIGHT FUCKED :
High energy prices = less consumption because everything including the fuel in your tank costs more = layoffs = less tax revenue = government cutbacks, layoffs and debt increases = less consumption = more layoffs = less taxes ===== economic death spiral.
Compounding the problem is the fact that a weak labour market means real wages drop - as they are across the world right now - that means everything is more expensive and your buying power is dropping at the same time.
Governments recognize this and are trying to offset with debt, easy lending (they are purposely inflating bubbles), lower interest rates and money printing.
Of course they will fail - because the disease is expensive oil. And there is no substitute
The economic death spiral will accelerate when the QE and ZIRP no longer have any effect and the confidence game collapses.
This moment will be known as the end of the industrial revolution by the few who survive.
This is not a Hollywood movie where the hero saves the day. This is the reality we are facing.
HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH
http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf
According to the results of a quantitative exercise carried out by the IEA in collaboration with the OECD Economics Department and with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices.
WORLD IS SLEEPWALKING TO A GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS
Mark C. Lewis, former head of energy research at Deutsche Bank's commodities unit highlighted three problems facing the global energy system: "very high decline rates" in global production; "soaring" investment requirements "to find new oil"; and since 2005, "falling exports of crude oil globally."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jan/17/peak-oil-oilandgascompanies
DREAM OF US OIL INDEPENDENCE SLAMS AGAINST SHALE COSTS
The path toward U.S. energy independence, made possible by a boom in shale oil, will be much harder than it seems. Just a few of the roadblocks: Independent producers will spend $1.50 drilling this year for every dollar they get back. Shale output drops faster than production from conventional methods. It will take 2,500 new wells a year just to sustain output of 1 million barrels a day in North Dakota’s Bakken shale, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/dream-of-u-s-oil-independence-slams-against-shale-costs.html
FORMER BP GEOLOGIST: PEAK OIL IS HERE AND IT WILL ‘BREAK ECONOMIES’
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/23/british-petroleum-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession
THE FRACKING PONZI SCHEME
Robert Ayres, a scientist and professor at the Paris-based INSEAD business school, wrote recently that a "mini-bubble" is being inflated by shale gas enthusiasts. “Drilling for oil in the U.S. in 2012 was at the rate of 25,000 new wells per year, just to keep output at the same level as it was in the year 2000, when only 5,000 wells were drilled." http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2013/05/08/shale-oil-and-gas-the-contrarian-view/
WHY AMERICA’S SHALE BOOM COULD END SOONER THAN YOU THINK
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/13/why-americas-shale-oil-boom-could-end-sooner-than-you-think/
SCIENTISTS WARY OF SHALE OIL AND GAS AND U.S. ENERGY SALVATION
"Tight oil is an important contributor to the U.S. energy supply, but its long-term sustainability is questionable. It should be not be viewed as a panacea for business as usual in future U.S. energy security planning."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131028141516.htm
U.S. SHALE OIL BOOM MAY NOT LAST AS FRACKIGN WELLS LACK STAYING POWER
“I look at shale as more of a retirement party than a revolution,” says Art Berman, a petroleum geologist who spent 20 years with what was then Amoco and now runs his own firm, Labyrinth Consulting Services, in Sugar Land, Tex. “It’s the last gasp.”
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power
FRACKING WILL CREATE AN ECONOMIC CRISIS
Overinflated industry claims could pull the rug out from optimistic growth forecasts within just five years. A report released in March by the Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG) concluded that: "... world oil production has not increased anymore but has entered a plateau since about 2005." Crude oil production was "already in slight decline since about 2008." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
THE DECLINE OF THE WORLD’S MAJOR OIL FIELDS
Aging giant fields produce more than half of global oil supply and are already declining as group, Cobb writes. Research suggests that their annual production decline rates are likely to accelerate.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0412/The-decline-of-the-world-s-major-oil-fields
THE TRUTH BEHIND SAUDI ARABIA’S SPARE CAPACITY
The Saudis have also made public plans to start injecting carbon dioxide into the world’s largest oil field, Ghawar, no later than 2013. CO2 injection is what you do when an oil field starts yielding progressively less oil. It gooses the output…for a little while) http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/03/04/the-truth-behind-saudi-arabias-spare-capacity/
Toil for oil means industry sums do not add up (FT.com)
Rising costs are being met only by ever smaller increases in supply
The most interesting message in this year’s World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency is also its most disturbing.
Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry’s upstream investments have registered an astronomical increase, but these ever higher levels of capital expenditure have yielded ever smaller increases in the global oil supply. Even these have only been made possible by record high oil prices. This should be a reality check for those now hyping a new age of global oil abundance.
According to the 2013 WEO, the total world oil supply in 2012 was 87.1m barrels a day, an increase of 11.9mbd over the 75.2mbd produced in 2000.
However, less than one-third of this increase was in the form of conventional crude oil, and more than two-thirds was therefore either what the IEA calls unconventional crude (light-tight oil, oil sands, and deep/ultra-deepwater oil) or natural-gas liquids (NGLs).
This distinction matters because unconventional crude has a higher cost than conventional crude, while NGLs have a lower energy density.
The IEA’s long-run cost curve has conventional crude in a range of $10-$70 a barrel, whereas for unconventional crude the ranges are higher: $50-$90 a barrel for oil sands, $50-$100 for light-tight oil, and $70-$90 for ultra-deep water. Meanwhile, in terms of energy content, a barrel of crude oil is worth 1.4 barrels of NGLs.
Threefold rise
The much higher cost of developing unconventional crude resources and the lower energy density of NGLs explain why, as these sources have increased their share of supply, the industry’s upstream capex has increased. But the sheer scale of the increase is staggering: upstream outlays have risen more than threefold in real terms over the past 12 years, reaching nearly $700bn in 2012 compared with only $250bn in 2000 (both figures in constant 2012 dollars).
Coinciding with the rise in US tight-oil production, most of this increase in upstream capex has occurred since 2005, as investments have effectively doubled from $350bn in that year to nearly $700bn in 2012 (again in 2012 dollars).
All of which means the 2013 WEO has the oil industry’s upstream capex rising by nearly 180 per cent since 2000, but the global oil supply (adjusted for energy content) by only 14 per cent. The most straightforward interpretation of this data is that the economics of oil have become completely dislocated from historic norms since 2000 (and especially since 2005), with the industry investing at exponentially higher rates for increasingly small incremental yields of energy.
The industry has been able and willing to finance such a dramatic increase in its capital investment since 2000 owing to the similarly dramatic increase in prices. BP data show that the average price of Brent crude in real terms increased from $38 a barrel in 2000 to $112 in 2012 (in constant 2011 dollars), which represents a 195 per cent increase, slightly greater in fact than the increase in industry capex over the same period.
However, looking only at the period since 2005, capital outlays have risen faster than prices (90 per cent and 75 per cent respectively), while in the past two years capex has risen by a further 20 per cent (the IEA estimates 2013 upstream capex at $710bn versus $590bn in 2011), while Brent prices have actually averaged about $5 a barrel less this year than in 2011.
Iran not a game changer
That prices have fallen slightly since 2011 while capex has risen by a further 20 per cent is a flashing light on the industry’s dashboard indicating that its upstream growth engine may finally be overheating.
Without a significant technological breakthrough reversing the geological forces that have driven the unprecedented increase in upstream investment over the past decade, prices will have to rise further in real terms from here or else capex – and with it future oil production – will fall.
It should also be emphasised that this vast increase in capex has occurred during a prolonged period of record-low interest rates. Once interest rates start rising again, this will put further pressure on the industry’s ability to make the massive capital outlays required to keep supply growing.
Of course, the diplomatic breakthrough achieved with Iran over the weekend could provide some much needed short-term relief to the market, as Iran’s exports could ultimately increase by up to 1.5m barrels a day if and when western sanctions were to be fully lifted. But this would not change the dynamics of the industry’s capex treadmill in any fundamental sense.
Even if global oil demand only grows at 1 per cent a cent a year, those extra barrels would be would be fully absorbed by the market within about 18 months. And that is probably how long it would take for Iran’s production and exports to return to pre-sanctions levels in any case.
Alternatively, if we take the IEA’s estimate that global production of conventional crude oil from all currently producing fields will decline by 41m barrels a day by 2035 (that is, by an average of 1.9m barrels a day per year), then Iran’s potential increase of 1.5m barrels a day would compensate for just 10 months of natural decline in global conventional-crude output.
In short, behind the hubbub of market hype about a new age of oil abundance, the toil for oil is in fact now more arduous and back-breaking than ever.
This should worry everybody, because with the evidence suggesting that consumers are reluctant to pay much above $110 a barrel, it is an open question what happens next to the industry’s investment plans and hence, over time, to the supply of oil.
Mark Lewis is an independent energy analyst and former head of energy research in commodities at Deutsche Bank; Daniel L Davis, a lieutenant colonel in the US Army, is co-author
Big oil counts the cost of tapping new discoveries – FT.com
“One hundred dollars per barrel is becoming the new $20, in our business.” With that pithy analysis, John Watson, chief executive of Chevron, summed up the oil industry’s plight.
As companies pursue the ever more challenging oil reserves that they need to increase or merely sustain their production, their costs have risen to the point that the most expensive projects, such as deepwater developments or liquefied natural gas plants, need an oil price of at least $100 a barrel to be commercially viable.
Now a growing number of oil executives are saying that has to change. As discussions at the IHS Cera Week conference in Houston made clear, cost-cutting is back at the top of the industry’s agenda.
The issue has come to a head after three years in which the price of crude has drifted down, in part because of the extra supply coming on to the market from the US shale oil boom, while costs have continued to rise.
The result has been a squeeze on margins, declining returns on capital, and underperforming share prices.
Chevron and ExxonMobil’s shares have both risen 11 per cent in the past three years, and Total’s by 8 per cent, while Royal Dutch Shell’s have fallen 2 per cent. In the same period the S&P 500 index rose more than 40 per cent.
Futures prices show oil is expected to fall further, with five-year Brent at about $91 a barrel, suggesting that the pressure on oil producers’ profits will intensify.
Shares in companies such as Schlumberger and Halliburton, which provide services to the big oil groups, have over the past five years comfortably outperformed their customers. Under mounting pressure from their shareholders, oil companies are being forced to act.
In part, the roots of the industry’s cost problem lie in part in the increasing technical difficulty of the new projects being developed, such as large LNG plants or offshore oilfields in deep water. They demand complex equipment such as drilling rigs, specialised materials such as sophisticated steel pipes, and highly-skilled engineers, all of which are in limited supply.
As Peter Coleman, chief executive of Woodside Petroleum of Australia, put it when explaining the soaring cost inflation in the country’s LNG projects: “Everybody jumped into the pool at the same time, and we’re all trying to fight for the same floatable toys.”
Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of Eni of Italy, argues that his rivals’ rising costs also reflect their failure to discover more easily-developed resources. Companies such as Exxon and Shell have been adding production in the oil sands of Canada and US shale, which generally have higher costs per barrel because of the need for techniques such as hydraulic fracturing to extract the resources from the shale, or processing to separate the oil from the sand.
Exploration is more risky, but offers higher returns, Mr Scaroni says. Because with oil sands and shale the resources are known, “you are sure of everything, but the point is profitability is lower than if you make a discovery”.
Christophe de Margerie, chief executive of Total, adds another explanation: companies – including his own – have lost sight of the need to control costs. When oil prices are rising, managers are tempted to relax on cost control because their projects will still be profitable.
“If you have $110 [per barrel], and the budget is at $100, it’s easier. You can say ‘we’ve made it’. But what about the ten dollars? Where are they? Gone with the wind,” he says. “That’s not the way engineers or commercial people should behave.”
All the large western oil companies have reached similar conclusions. Andrew Mackenzie, chief executive of BHP Billiton, the mining and energy group, suggests the oil companies have reached the same point the miners were at a couple of years ago: facing up to the need to improve productivity in an environment of weaker commodity prices.
Total, Chevron and Shell have announced cuts in capital spending, and were joined on Wednesday by Exxon. Several companies have been “recycling” projects: delaying them to try to work on improving their economics.
BP’s Mad Dog phase 2 development in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron’s Rosebank oilfield in the Atlantic west of Shetland, and Woodside’s Browse LNG project in Western Australia are among the plans being reassessed.
Mr Coleman told the Houston conference that as originally planned Browse had an estimated budget of $80bn, which was “not a commercially acceptable risk”.
The prospect of an investment slowdown already appears to be having an impact. David Vaucher, an analyst at IHS, says the firm’s survey of oil and gas production costs shows they levelled off last year, in a sign that the industry is moving into a more sustainable balance.
Day rates for drilling rigs have started to fall, even for advanced deepwater rigs. The prospect of further falls has helped send shares in Transocean, one of the largest rig operators, down 20 per cent in the past 12 months.
However, Mr Vaucher observes that costs tend to be easier to raise than to cut.
At Total, Mr de Margerie still sees a lot of work to be done. He is promising a cost-saving plan throughout the company, a new process for designing projects to build in cost control right from the start, and reshaped relationships with service companies.
“You need to create a new culture,” he says. “Yes, safety first, yes environment. But also at the same time, yes cost is important. And to achieve a project with lower cost is good.”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7861cc8-a51b-11e3-8988-00144feab7de.html#slide0
Quite the collection of links!
What a wild quote that was:
“One hundred dollars per barrel is becoming the new $20, in our business.”
I felt that the points you were making were somewhat similar to those made by Gail Tverberg, on her Web site: http://ourfiniteworld.com/ (You may well already know about her work, since she gets reposted on other Web sites, and, if I remember correctly, at least once that I know of on Zero Hedge?)
P.S. Since "WE ARE RIGHT FUCKED"
Give me a double helping of irrational hope to go, please!
Ask him if he wants some cheese to go with that wine.
Oh but this time IS different, this is not like France or any of those other old empires that fell doing the exact same thing we are doing currently. We have nukes. There will be no next world power, you can be confident if we go down we will take everyone else with us and they know it.
Simon says: "I’ve been writing about this for years, and the idea is now hitting mainstream."
trader1 says: Simon, don't let the imagination of your ego outstretch the limits of your consciousness.
you've missed the more salient points of that research paper. instead, you cherry pick the elements of a very thoughtful study to support a very regressive worldview.
helpful advice: please read the entire paper through and through, suspending your inclinations of how to incorporate "nuggets of others' wisdom" into promoting your internet business.
I can agree with the premise only so far as it relates to resources the host requires - but does not possess.
We artificially limit our resources in order to support folks who determinedly refuse to develop their society's consumption of their OWN resources.
Further, if your premise regarding wealth accumulation has to do with the tyrannical and fascist elites joining with the TPTB to utilize government(s) - in order to to deny/regulate//limit access to economic power to the common men - then I'm with you...
...but if your blarticale is simply another national/international socialist screed to justify MORE confiscation (theft) of the fruits another mans labor...then you can pound sand...with your occupy phony, crony, "masses" of Chavista'sI - I will be waiting for you out on the Potemkin Steps, with a parting gift from Great Uncle Joe, and his recently departed son, Mikhail...
The only way someone can use more than others is if someone is keeping track...the only way to keep track is to be on the look for something "unfair" - and since we know that "fairness" - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder; fairness is when the losers convince the winners to stop trying so hard, and accept the losers premise...
We are NOT in a zero sun game - otherwise - Africa, Saudi Arabia, North Korea - would be using ALL of the "allocation" of the global production "reserved" for them...since they are NOT we can extrapolate that there is more to be had by those who invest in the freedoms that create a society that invents ways to improve life, and the products that minimize the abuse and exploitation of the resources and labor of its citizens.
When other countries decide their resources are for THEM - and utilize them to foster growth of, and reliance on, their OWN resource - then you can begin to have a debate about the fairness of resource allocation..
If you don't let your people have lights or electricity - then you can't very well make a case for fairness of resource allocation - if that someone ELSE isn't actually USING it's share of resources,
The argument is carefully crafted to force a conclusion. It does not anticipate critical thinking..
Instead, the limiters of freedom insist we need to redistribute wealth - not labor! -!for the first time in US history!?
Ridiculous
http://fr.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blarticle
First time I saw that word "blarticle."
It is interesting to speculate how an economy would evolve IF it was not dominated by a fraudulent money system, which creates the public "money" supply out of nothing, as debts, which "money" can also disappear back to nothing, as the debts disappear.
Since that violated the basic laws of nature, because it is the result of frauds, covertly backed by force, to make those frauds fly, the economy does not have a hope in hell of developing better recycling, or anything else that might become a better industrial ecology.
I like the image of changing the social pyramid into a social toroidal vortex. Nothing is going to work for long unless we develop better human and industrial ecologies, within the natural ecologies. Right now, we operate on deliberate ignorance towards those things, because we are dominated by triumphant financial frauds. That has become so screwed up that there no longer looks like any ways to avoid collapses. Theoretically, we could develop better ecologies, however, since our political economy is almost totally entangled by triumphant legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, it appears practically impossible to move in that direction. Instead, we are headed towards mad self destruction, due to the paradox of too much success at lying.
hey.... i thought NASA (need another seven astronauts) was totally focused on muslim morale and outreach to the cuddly jihadi crew...
scrap the piece of shit and let the air farce take over (deliberate.. force).. aren't they the ones that sabotaged NASA in the first place..?? Aren't they developing the space plane...?
better yet let corporate ussa develop the program... meantime we can hitch a ride with russia or china.... oooops so now we have conceded space too...??? what a "fearless leader" we have.... but the EBT crowd loves him... and he does have a pen and a phone... and when he is finished that is about all the ussa will have.
This should be posted as an example of mission drift, the politicization of an agency and waste, fraud and abuse.
Get back to the lauch pad.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.” -Robert Heinlein
While I am sure envy plays a part - because there a lot of humans who don't like to see the other guy get ahead no matter how he does it, how he does it is still important. Collapse won't come about simply because some people have more.. but because having more wasn't earned, but was instead stolen from the living or "borrowed" from the yet to be born. If wealth is the result of providing the value one is paid for by willing particpants, then this won't happen. Its only with Marxist morons come in promising "equality of result" without "equlaity of effort" that these problems start, and of course, the Marxists who propose this are always the first to move into the Farmhouse and demand apples while faithful rube Boxer who beleive in "equality" works in the fields.
Why is "paying your own way in life" such a hard concept for the human monkey? Provide as much value as you consume is sustainable. Holding guns to people's heads and making them work for your benefit, not so much.
In all of history, only the collapse of the largest empires have caused catastrophes, because when a small collapse happened, some other ruler would come in and take over. This sort of thing really doesn't happen anymore now that the world is not largely run by monarchs. If we have a collapse of the West, it's probably going to be a pretty damn big one, given how few people have any sort of survival or otherwise useful skills whatsoever.