perceptions_now wrote on Jul 7^th, 2010 at 11:52am:


They are THE driving forces of growth. Moves in investment and speculation have been driven largely by an over surplus of goods in the last 15 years or so. The move of the US into the Middle East is also driven by this shift: new market share and investment opportunities for the multinationals.

What we now see is a global decline in the economic supremacy of the US, and this will have huge consequences for the world.

Peak Oil, Time, And Population

There is a close relationship between peak oil and population. Since the 1950s there have been many estimates of the rise and fall of global oil production, but it was perhaps inevitable that the shift has been from optimistic to realistic. After all, it is better for one’s reputation to make errors on the side of caution than to look like foolish by announcing a catastrophe that does not occur. With increasing studies, however, and with increasing proximity to the critical events, realism at last takes over.

We begin with two basic facts. The first is that the world’s present annual consumption of oil is nearly 30 billion barrels. The second is that the world’s present population is nearly 7 billion. From there we can add some reasonable estimates of both oil decline and population decline.

The peak of world oil production is about 2010, and the most likely rate of decline after the peak is 6 percent. [5, 7, 11] That means production will fall to half of the peak level in 11 years, i.e. in 2021.

Population size is directly correlated with oil supply. Oil has been the main source of energy within industrial society. It is only with abundant oil that a large global population has been possible, and it was oil that allowed population to grow so quickly. [1]

If oil production drops to half of its peak amount in 11 years, therefore, world population must also drop by half, i.e. to 3.5 billion. A drop from 7 billion to 3.5 means that, as with oil production, the annual population decline rate will be 6%.

But how will it be possible to reduce the population from 7 billion to 3.5 billion in 11 years? Would such a reduction be possible with a program of voluntary cessation of all childbirth, but with no other drastic global change in human behavior? Would a no-child policy be workable? Unfortunately, such a program would be quite unlikely to succeed. In the first place, in order to have any significant effect the program would have to be both global and immediate. In addition, most of the world is hardly amenable to the suggestion of a one-child policy, such as that of China, so it is not likely that it would tolerate a no-child policy.

In any case, cutting the birth rate without increasing the death rate would not have a great enough effect on the final numbers. Since most of the people now living would still be alive in 2021, the population would not be reduced sufficiently. There is, in fact, no feasible political means of reducing population by 6 percent annually.

The only solution will be famine, and that solution will not be one that is chosen by humans. It will be chosen by Nature, as she does for so many other species. The process will be set in place by the ubiquitous and systemic decline in resources, and the consequent decline in industrial production. Without fossil fuels, agricultural yields will decline to about 30 percent. [7, 8, 9] The famine has already started, to judge from the decline in world food supplies. [3, 4] Roughly similar declines will occur in everything from mining, electricity, and manufacturing, to transportation and communication. [2, 6]

Planning for such a scenario should have been started long ago. Even at this late date, however, what is needed is to accept the facts and to ease the way for those relatively few who will constitute the future of humanity. At least on a small scale, such a program will succeed.
Link-
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild070710.htm
====

The timescale for change away from Oil is 10 years minimum, preferably 20-30, which means that earnest Global change should have started about 10 years ago!

Why Prechter Is Probably Wrong About a 1000 Dow

We are big bears - to the point where some people consider us a top candidate for the camp of Robert Prechter of the Elliot Wave, who believes that the Dow will return to 1980 levels of about 1000.

We do have one major quarrel with Prechter. He only uses price charts. We like to develop theories of causation to support the patterns contained in his charts (which do capture a great deal of market action and psychology).

Prechter believes (as we do) that the US stock market has been in a bubble since 1980, and that it will therefore return to earlier levels of 1000. We don't take this literally. But we agree with Prechter's unstated premise, that the Dow will return to 1980 levels after adjusting for intervening inflation. With this major caveat, we're talking about a Dow of not 1000, but of more like 3500.

That's because we believe that the "blue chip" US market, as personsified by the Dow, is a "sine wave," not a growth vehicle, and that what passes for growth in the US stock market is mostly inflation. So does Bill Gross of Pimco, who calculated that the "real" investment return, or 90%+ of it, came from dividends in the twentieth century. Taking out inflation, capital gains would be 0.6% real a year.

Some thirty years have passed since 1980. If you compound the Dow for those years at 0.6% real a year, the cumulative gain would be just over 20%. Starting from a base of 1000, the Dow might be 1200 real. If you take the trough as more like 800, then a "real" Dow of 1000 is a genuine possibility today, which means a Dow with a "3" handle at its next trough.

That's because in the past century, the Dow's value can range from one half of our proprietary "investment value" metric (now about 7000), to about three times that, or over 20,000. Yes, Jeff Miller, a 20,000 Dow is within the realm of possibility. But so is a 3500 Dow (half of 7000), which is our "revised Prechter" metric. Consider those the ceiling and the floor. The last two bottoms came in 1932 and 1974, a little over 40 years apart. In 2010, we are not far from the "40" year mark, although it might not be this year.

The problem with Prechter's price charts is that they don't encompass economic variables like inflation, so they don't provide any support for stock prices at one level or another. Contrary to what the academics teach, stock prices don't follow a "random walk." Instead, they go places, based on information (and sometimes misinformation) available in the marketplace. So, I don't want to hear about price levels, except in the context of other, causal, variables. Here are some:

Suppose the S&P 500 earnings ($56 a share in 2009) "flat-lined" for about five years. And suppose that the P/E ratio went to bear market lows of 5 times earnings as a result. That would imply a 300 S&P 500, and a 3500 Dow, which is certainly within the realm of possibility. More to the point, that is our BASE CASE in the quasi-depressionary environment we foresee for that time.

Hence, our "modified Prechter" theory is that the Dow will return to 1980 levels -- adjusted for inflation. This would put the index in the low to mid-3000s, unless you have raging deflation that takes us back to 1980s price levels as well, which would support Prechter's hypothesis. But he didn't specify the appropriate conditions when he made his prediction, which is why it is not as useful as it ought to be.
Link -
http://seekingalpha.com/article/213936-why-prechter-is-probably-wrong-about-a-10...
=====
There are many predictions about the future of "Financial Markets" and what will influence the outcomes.

And, only time will tell which outcomes will be correct, over various timeframes.

That said, there are many issues which influence Economic events & Global issues in general.

In looking at likely outcomes, some reference to what has happened in the past, will provide some future indicators, but as the inputs change over time, so to will the outcomes and although some future outcomes may have a similar feel to them, they may not be exactly the same as events of past days!

As, I made plain in my initial post on this thread, "What is the Motor of the World and why is it stopping?", I believe the following are THE MAJOR INFLUENCING FACTORS of the next 20-30 years, at least -
Debt is going into unknown territory, in many countries, heading north towards 100% of GDP & beyond!
Energy Decline (Global) – All the easy to get, cheap Energy has already gone, what’s left is the other side of the Hubert’s Curve.
Aging Population (Global) – The Employment Participation ratio has commenced declining, as Boomers first retire, then die, 2 Billion of them.
Population Decline (Global) – the rate of growth is slowing & the total will actually start to decline, within 20-30 years.

So, whilst exactly where we will be in 20 years time, is still conjecture, I believe there is regrettably a very clear & unmistakeable trend in these major factors of influence and unless we break with 200,000 years of human history, quickly, then our own personal wants for now will come back to haunt the future of oursleves & our children.

For the outcomes not to be terribly adverse, we need to pull together for the future benefit of the species and we need to do it, quickly!   

OK thanks for clarifying.

Quote:


I think you got this bit wrong. It is technology that is the ultimate driver. The population boom was in response to this, rather than being the cause. In fact, through most of history the opposite was clearly true - economic growth happened when the population went down because, for a short period at least, people escaped the Malthusian trap.

We did not come up with all these inventions to prop up the population. People just died. But after the inventions came along we could support more people and the people bred to fill the new vaccuum. Fortunately they didn't breed fast enough to actually fill that gap, for a variety of reasons, all of which ultimately hang off the wealth that came from the inventions.

Furthermore, contrary to popular mythology, it was not need that drove invention, but idleness - the sort of idelness you get after a plague or war wiped out a big chunk of Europe's population and people didn't have to constantly scrounge for food any more.

I always wondered why Nostrodamus could never 'percieve' anything of the 'future' in regards to the Southern Hemisphere, the true Southern Hemisphere (because you know there is a false one working for the Northern Hemisphere )?
Is it because, although we are 'Down Under' ...we are indeed a 'Day Ahead'. 

Anyway, lets start. I'm just throwing in a few things that will not provide an immediate answer, instead they will help lead to an answer.

China will, along with its population, experience a 'SuperNova' effect.
It will become the most dominant nation upon the planet for a while, but thats ok - every dog has his day.
The energy needed for this SuperNova effect will be a hellava lot and with places like Australia and the Middle-East charging a fortune for 'Resources', China will be forced by its own internal demand
...to invade the Resource rich SIBERIA  to the north. 
Of course this is Russian territory, but to the Chinese, the former Ally turn Traitor, is now just a shadow of its former self.
So Russia suddenly finds itself up against an extremely powerful opponent and to be quite honest, Russia is gonna get its arse kicked.
Especially when a few former Soviet 'satellite' nations decide to take advantage and lay in a few kicks against Russia for their own agendas.
Karelia becomes the latest Scandinavian nation with St Petersburg the capital.

Ironically Russia will call for help for a former Enemy come Friend, to become an Ally - the USA. Of course common sense prevails and the USA holds back a bit, but with crazy North Korea making the big mistake of letting off some firecrackers in the wrong direction, the USA is suddenly thrown into the conflict.

So its on for young and old as the USA/Russia Alliance fights a losing battle against China and its allies. Japan stays neutral but still cops a battering none-the-less for its troubles.
India and Pakistan finally cut loose upon each other and use Nukes more than anyone else - resulting in a very devastated sub-continent.
...a lesson to the entire planet about 'weaponry' and how it too can experience a SuperNova effect.
With the USA deeply involved with Russia v China, the entire Islamic front unites for a final fling at Europe ...especially against France.
In other words, the Moslems will do to the French, what the Germans did to the Jews ("what goes around").
Luckily, the French had been testing some Nukes in French Polynesia not so long ago, so they were no pushovers.
Having experienced the tenacity of the Balkans much earlier at the break-up of the Yugoslavian nation, the Moslems give that part of Europe a wide berth.
The European invasion by the Moslem hordes is but a shadow of its glorious exploits centuries ago and with the Israelis like a dagger in their backs, the invasion is more like a massive Riot more than anything else, except for in France, where things really get nasty. The invasion reaches into Scandinavia. Its a bit hard to nuke the enemy when they are well within your borders, which is what the Moslem invasion did effectively in Europe ...even if it was a bit underarmed.

Australia, of course, sends its usual contigent of Mercenaries ...I mean Diggers. As does a lot of nations around the world to help out upon all sides.

Nukes you say? Don't worry, with the knowledge that 'weaponry' can now destroy the 'human world', comes a nice little defence system (actually kick-started in Adelaide) known as Polaris. The majority of Nukes ignited to impact upon the planet are basically shot down via laser guidance and rendered 'useless'. Sadly the Pakistani-Indian conflict couldn't really 'afford' such defensive systems, hence why that part of the world shows what could have been during the Soviet-USA Cold War. Yes, the Indian population is practically annihilated by 80% and this is what is remembered most about WWIII.

China successfully keeps Siberia, but it loses Tibet and some southern territory in the process to southern Asian nations. But the conflict with the added adversity from the USA and other smaller nations, takes its toll. Famine, pestilence, etc suddenly make the conquest for underground resources seem like a golden fleece. Russia, once the largest nation upon the planet via the Soviet age, is now more its smaller self. But having faced an external enemy at a time when it was riddled with corruption and self mutilation. It found itself a new identity to take into the future, not since the Soviet age.

The Moslem invasion eventually dissipates like butter spread too thinly over toast, along with the fact that Israel had extended its borders considerably. To face Christians meant Wealth but Death. To face Israel meant Poverty but Life.

After this a new age begins, where Nuclear power is in the palm of your hand and oil is just another Museum exhibit.

But all is not golden yet.

You still have WWIV. Remember, the Moslems and Jews will eventually Unite (or face utter annihilation at one anothers hands in many ways beyond just political or militarily) against a common enemy
...Italia !
Do you think the Italians will take a 'dive' in the face of the Islam/Israel wrath?    Or will the Vatican save the day, by giving back something that was lost/stolen a very long time ago?

Come WWIIIV, you will find the Bolivians leading the way Militarily in the world and finally bringing 'peace' under their 'guidance'.

>>> 

It's not just Columbia. Drug labs are in every corner of this world.

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:


I say Neither, you say Niether?

The truth, most likely, is that the dramatic Population increase of the last 80 years or so, was because of and arose from a number of factors including Technology, an increased availability of cheap & abundant Energy, as well as purely social issues.

However, these factors all became interlocking  and became the old "Chicken & Egg" conumdrum, of which came first.

That said, we are now at the crossroads of civilisation, as for the HUMAN POPULATION for first time is bumping into the glass ceiling that is the MAXIMUM LONG TERM SUSTAINABLE, given the FINITE ESSENTIAL RESOURCES of this planet!

In any event, the next 20-30 years, WILL go a long way to determining the future of the Human species & the Planet, for thousands of years to come and possibly the duration of our human experience?

As I have said, we are in DEAP sh!t Globally-

D

ebt is going into unknown territory, in many countries, heading north towards 100% of GDP & beyond!

E

nergy Decline (Global) – All the easy to get, cheap Energy has already gone, what’s left is the other side of the Hubert’s Curve.

A

ging Population (Global) – The Employment Participation ratio has commenced declining, as Boomers first retire, then die, 2 Billion of them.

P

opulation Decline (Global) – the rate of growth is slowing & the total will actually start to decline, within 20-30 years.

And, unless we get underway, very soon, then the likely Climate Changes following the above, may well be beyond us & any Technology/Innovation that we may try to bring to bear.

In the shorter timespan, Global Warming will be difficult enough, but we are now approaching the end of the warming cycle and in the longer term Global Cooling may actually prove a greater problem? Of course, the short & long terms I refer to here are in Planetary periods of time, not human.

Btw, as I have said before, I gather we are in agreement in quite a few areas, but not all.