O))) wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:



But that's where it starts

That was Rudd's justification for ratifying Kyoto

Quote:
By freediver

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

They sure did. In fact I remember Liberal supporters on the Cracker forum back in 2007 saying they hoped the coalition would lose that election as the biggest financial crisis in our life times was about to hit.

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:



There are a great many economists in this world - unfortunately, however, most of them have been co-opted into the corporate world, very few of them are truly independent and even fewer have a broad public reach...

That said, one of the greatest ironies about economics, is that it often turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophesy...

Right now, there is a great deal of vested interest, in economic predictions of maintaining the status quo of the global economic ponzi scheme - and a great deal of denial about the flawed worship of the inherently insatiable and destructive 'Growth Fairy' and his evil twin, the 'Good Greedy Witch of the West'...

There is a growing consensus amongst independent economists, that the world needs to make some dramatic socio-economic and environmental shifts - but there must be a paradigm shift at a political level before these changes can be implemented - and the stranglehold of a few self-serving and corrupt billionaires and warmongers needs to be exposed and broken first...

Equitist wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 4:25pm:


The predictions of the GFC were the opposite of a self fulfilling prophecy. Extraordinary (and politically unpalatable) measures were taken for several years in the leadup to the GFC that significantly reduced the extent of the crisis.

I suspect you are thinking of the actions taken after the GFC hit. You would have trouble arguing that those taken beforehand, in anticipation of what was to come made it worse.

But they did see it coming. Like I said it was mainstream economics and front page news for years.

Not that anyone needs and excuse for not predicting the future, but I'm just pointing out the facts.

stryder wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:



Stryder, can you please tell us how you know what the majority of economists were seeing around that time - much less what they were thinking!?

For example, can you please point to the plethora of articles written by that majority which predicted an alternative scenario!?

Whilst you are at it, perhaps you could explain how the numerous articles containing competing scenarios came to your attention at that time...and since...