<Friday Open ThreadThe Oil DrumNew feature: DrumBeat>

140 comments on An Open Thread theme for a Saturday

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack Greene on May 13, 2006 - 3:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This nation survived a much worst crisis in the Civil War and came through it intact and sound. I think that will still occur.

I never thought of the reform-minded heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a minor archduke . . . .

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jim burke on May 13, 2006 - 3:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I recently finished Peter Heather's "Fall the of Roman Empire," and was rather startled to discover that it collapsed in a relatively short period of time (a decade or so).

It had been tottering for a long time, but barbarian incursions delivered the coup de grace.

Timelines are impossible to predict, for several reasons:

  1. energy declines are only part of it. Political  responses to declines are even more important. Will the US gracefully live on less income, or will it invade the Middle East and try to control the oil? (we know the answer to that one). Also, as power inexorably flows to the few oil exporters, how will they deal with their profound new power and wealth? (anticipation of which may well be why Bush co decided to off Saddam). How will competitors such as China and the US deal with their competition? If China dumps its dollar holdings and uses it to buy energy, how would the US respond?

  2. We can look at the former Soviet Union; who would have predicted that it would collapse at all -- let alone in the spectacular manner in which it happened. (Personal disclosure, I spent much of the '80s studying nuclear deterrence. My professors were outraged when communism collapsed, because their professional trajectories were suddenly irrelevant)

  3. I am finishing Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" 1988. His thesis is that a) societies invest ever more heavily in complexity, and b) the law of diminishing returns impacts these investments, such that soon incredible effort is expended on getting any return at all. GM and Ford are in this boat now; they have sold huge numbers of highly profitable SUVs, and yet they are still going bust. But could any of us predict if and when that will actually happen?

On a larger scale, in 2030 we might be producing two thirds of the energy as now -- gross -- but net may well be much less. Also, we still have to invest in maintaining our present infrastructure,as well as invest in future production and infrastructure. And  that could well be the budget buster. As it is, we seem to be living off debt in many different ways, pushing costs off into the future. At some point these costs have to be paid.

4) The present is qualitatively different from any previous society. Until the industrial revolution, 70 - 90% of all populations were near subsistence farmers, and their lot didn't change all that much from century to century. Now, we are all utterly dependent on what happens in capital markets and energy fields which are distant and opaque.

For all these reasons, we can note the trajectories and try to plan as best we can; but to ask for a rigid timeline is folly.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on May 13, 2006 - 6:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Jim Burke,

On Ford or GM, they do rely in part on foreign sales which are better than at home for the most part. It may be, as some writer recently wrote, ToyotaGM in 2010.

The 6 May Economist has a chart in the back and for industrial nations, for trade (not debt), but points out that Spain, Greece, and Portugal are worse than the USA for % of GDP as a deficit. Northern Europe is the best.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on May 13, 2006 - 7:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Some countries (Canada for example) are running a consistent budget surplus. Toyota would never hook up with GM. General Motors has been insolvent for quite some time. Its debt to equity is roughly 30 to 1 which is ridiculous for a company which has no real growth prospects. Toyota could buy up GM tomorrow for the market worth (14 bill) but would never do this as the company has a huge negative net worth (is worthless). Real liabilities exceed real (marketable) assets by hundreds of billions of dollars.    
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on May 14, 2006 - 12:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
One of the ironic aspect of allies is that Australia has retired their national debt and of course, our govt. has accepted the Reagan idea that deficits do not matter!

I read Harley-Davidson stock had more value than Ford!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Silk1970 on May 14, 2006 - 2:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The Australian government has a very large amount of unfunded superannuation liabilities do despite its claim of having no public debt, we actually do have quite a bit. The state governments are largely debt free, however.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Twilight on May 14, 2006 - 6:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What did you think of this book?  It's a topic I want to research, as I find it very interesting.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rainsofkilimanjaro on May 13, 2006 - 4:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The crisis that America faced during the civil war was of a completely different nature, which makes it difficult to make a comparison to the crisis we face now.  However, I believe that the civil war was in fact far less serious.  First of all, it was a localized crisis, rather than a global one.  While that might not have offered much comfort to Americans, it does change the nature of the problem.  Second, most people were engaged in agriculture, which means that they were far more self-sufficient.  Finally, and most importantly, the crisis was a political and moral one, not a question of resources.  Civil war leaders did not face the problem of decreasing fuel supplies, and skyrocketing costs that we will most likely face.  The problem we face will grow worse and worse, while our ability to deal effectively with it will diminish as our fuel supplies decrease.  The civil war was certainly a traumatic time, but it did not spell starvation for millions of people.  This crisis may threaten the lives of billions of people.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on May 14, 2006 - 5:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bear in mind that the Chinese were having the Taiping rebellion in which twenty million people died, compared to one million for the US during the same period.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
rainsofkilimanjaro on May 13, 2006 - 5:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I hope that you are right, of course.  As for the minor archduke, I suppose that that is a contradiction in terms, so I'm sorry about that.  However, on the global scene, he can hardly have been the only reason for the war.  His death incited global powers into a war, but I think most of the strategic reasons for the war were already present, including the unfolding diplomatic battles over middle east oil.  The archduke was just the excuse for the fight.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on May 13, 2006 - 6:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
rainsofkilimanjaro,

In response to these solid comments. Clearly we face a global crisis, but the education process is not far enough long. It will take some more climatic catastrophes to really wake up the planet's leadership. Some of the leadership gets it, and that is better than five years ago.

The Civil War is by no means a direct analogy. I certainly agree to that. But in terms of tearing at the very fabric of the United States, I do not think there is anything to compare, except the American Revolution itself, which was part of what is often times called the 3rd or 4th World War by some military historians.

The archduke was a trigger. No question that the war could have resulted before or after August 1914. But the results were not pre-determined. It could have been a five month war and just set the old monarchies up for another war in a few years. That it was going to be a long, bloody, and destructive war  - well, it did not have to be.

PS My daughter almost died on your mountain last year. This Fall she is off to South Africa to surf for two months. I told her to travel now as it will be more difficult in a few years.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TheFatLadyhasSung on May 13, 2006 - 9:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It's all about the Soccer Moms in the minivans and SUVs.  When they realize that their kids lives will be worse not better, TSHTF.  The American Dream is a better life for your kids, not cheap gas.  The Mexicans aren't coming here for cheap gas....
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Essex Land Rover Man on May 14, 2006 - 4:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I disagree with that WWI was going to be a short war. The updated/modified Schlieffen Plan was never going to work, and even in its original format would have failed. The density of German troops required to defeat the French was not possible even with railways. The railways made transportation of troops fast, but also because of the complexity of routing troops and turning around trains, once one European country started to move troops by train, every other country had to otherwise it was at a major disadvantage to its enemies. John Keegan's book The First World War is a good book to read on this subject. Every European nation and peoples wanted to prove that their country was the best in the world and would not mind fighting and defeating its rivals to prove its point. Only trouble was, they proved that they were equal and fought themselves to a standstill, whilst proving America the best by being the last to fight, losing the least and so ending up the only real winner.

After watching Blackadder Goes Forth, which seems to capture many peoples imagines and views of the First World War, reading John Keegan's book gave a much better understanding of the difficulties the generals and planners had. As machine guns made defence so much easier and attack so much more costly, it took the generals a long while to work out plans that had a chance of success over terrain that vastly helped defence.

Sorry for this but I find WWI a very depressing subject. WWI is the reason for not having wars, WWII is the reason to have wars.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on May 14, 2006 - 5:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
WWI lasted more than three months because the Germans could no longer be cut off from their ammunition supply by the British navy after the development of the Haber process for nitrogen fixation. No nitrogen fixation and they would have been out of ammo and France by Christmas.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on May 14, 2006 - 8:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Essex Land Rover Man.

And a good case can be made that there would not have been World War II except that we had World War I.

Keegan is a good author and there is a solid chance that any war started in the 1900-1920 period would have been long and bloody and horrible. But it was not inevitable. And it it could have been short. Command decisions at the top can make or break a campaign.

The USA, Japan, and the Commies did benefit from the war.

Hew Strachan's trilogy of which only vol. I is out should be the new standard on the topic.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.