?

Log in

No account? Create an account

(no subject)

« previous entry | next entry »
Jul. 20th, 2001 | 12:37 am

Now that's an interesting idea...

According to this article published in the Sunday, July 15, 2001 edition of the Observer of London. We're hurtling into a recession.

The authors premise is that the current economic system was set up to send wealth to the US, and that up to now the US would bail out countries whose economies were collapsing in order to protect the system. However, for assorted reason, the author believes that too many parts are going wrong with the economy at once and world leaders aren't prepared to respond to the coming crisis.

I'm not sure how much I believe it, but I do remember the key point of "Beyond the Limits". Exponential growth is unsustainable. You will always exceed your limits if you continue with exponential growth.

And both populations and economies show exponentially growing behavior.

So the article reminded me of the question "What's going to break first?"

The economy, the environment, or overpopulation?

The nicest thing about the economy collapsing first, is I think it'll hurt the US the most. And as the current world political and economic system was largely engineered for benefit of the US, there's something that seems more fair that the US suffer the consequences of its actions, instead of what would happen with an environmental collapse where the poorest countries would suffer first.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {8}

Valairyn

Gee Thanks

from: valairyn
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 11:57 am (UTC)
Link

You know I don't know that I being someone who lives in the US would terribly like it to hurt us the most, actually I would much rather it not hurt anybody at all. One thing though, not everyone in the US always agree's with what the US is doing....Try to keep that in mind.

Reply | Thread

Freya

Re: Gee Thanks

from: moonglade
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 12:14 pm (UTC)
Link

*giggle* she if from the U.S. I think! :)
...but you are right she doesn't agree with what the US is doing. :)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Valairyn

Re: Gee Thanks

from: valairyn
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 12:18 pm (UTC)
Link

A lot of us do not agree with anything the US does and we live here....hmmm...and I thought we lived in a democracy (of course its not actually a democracy its a republic but still!)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

Re: Gee Thanks

from: alienghic
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 01:15 pm (UTC)
Link

By most measures Mr. Bush lost the presidency. He was effectively appointed by the supreme court medling in a states affairs, and quite a few people are pissed. You just don't hear much about it.

Though check out The Anti-Bush Majority on alternet.org for more information.

And yes, I'm a middle class professional living in southern california, so am likely to suffer if things break too much here as well.

Though I'm trying to live within my belief system. I realized that cars are one of the large components to global warming which is likely to end up flooding poor nations, and so am trying to go car-free while living in los angeles since I'm feeling its wrong to contribute to a system that although indirect, runs a large risk of killing off large numbers of people

On a more humorus note florida is pretty flat as well, and athough unlikely to happen to this extreame, there is something amusing the idea that Bush's policies will put the state that got him elected under water.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Freya

Re: Gee Thanks

from: moonglade
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 01:50 pm (UTC)
Link

Not helped much by Mr Dubya, getting in despite the fact he didn't really have the public support. *sigh*

It must be really nasty to have to live in the US when you don't agree with it all, but then I think those who will be hardest hit are the people in the states who have the big cars and the bad lifestyles because they will have to get used to changes that perhaps the rest of us are used to?

Well it would be nice to think so.
I hope if there is a collapse in the world economy, that we all learn from it though. That woould be the best thing! :)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

Re: Gee Thanks

from: alienghic
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 02:24 pm (UTC)
Link

I think those who will be hardest hit are the people in the states who have the big cars and the bad lifestyles because they will have to get used to changes that perhaps the rest of us are used to?

That's what I'm hoping, as far as I can tell that's the second best solution. (The first is if they willingly changed.)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Valairyn

Re: Gee Thanks

from: valairyn
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 11:09 pm (UTC)
Link

To be completely honest, I am hoping that there is no collapse of the world economy. Though I agree with your sentiments on Mr. Bush. I find his ideas and his policies not only ill concieved but also repulsive (as a liberal democrat, I suppose I should). Hopefully though he will be voted out of office on the next go around.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

Re: Gee Thanks

from: alienghic
date: Jul. 20th, 2001 12:36 pm (UTC)
Link

It would be far preferable if we were able to avoid the various forms of collapse facing us. There are probably ways to avoid it, though not with conservatives funnelling all the money, resources, and power to the rich.

An economic collapse to me seems preferable because economies can be rebuilt, there are even ways of living that don't even require an economy. Economies are a human invention and can be delt with on human timeframes.

A planetary ecological collapse seems less preferable. For instance the species that are being rendered extinct, will never return. The exploration of the possibilities of life that represents is lost forever. Other species will come to be that will fill the niches of those that are lost. That however can take hundreds, thousands, or perhaps even millions of years.

Additionally most of the reports on ecological collapse indicate that it will be the poorest nations that will be hit first.

For instance the city of Punta Arenas, Chili, has no ozone layer to protect it. (at least for parts of the year). Is it their fault that western industrialized countries produced vast quantities of chemicals with no real understanding of their long term effects? In addtion they're poor enough that they can't really afford the sunscreen needed to protect them from all the ultra violet light, and first world nations haven't been really enthusiastic about providing them the funds for for the sunscreen.

It deeply bothers me that others have to suffer the consequences of the american way of life and that we're not particularly good about cleaning up after ourselves.

Now of course if we did better at cleaning up after ourselves and preventing further ecological problems, my analysis would be wrong.

Though I'm getting sick and tired of just complaining about what's wrong. There are alternatives, they just don't get as much press.

Reply | Parent | Thread