Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.
See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.
So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.
[/quote]
Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.
Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.
I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.
Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.
[/quote]
Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.
You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.
Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law
First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.
Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)
Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.
Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.
So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.
Here, even more simple for you:
-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.
MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance
2-4 years max before we have serious declines.
[/quote]
Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.
Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.
I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.
It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.
