Today vs. the 1920s

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:06 PM

More from my man James Kunstler, whom I expect will be seen as a visionary within the next decade, on what is on the horizon for our economy.... This is the guy concerned about Peak Oil, but he also brings into this the issues of deficit spending etc that are setting us up for a fall the likes of which we can hardly imagine.

I wonder to those who reflexively post about what bullshit these concerns are - what is it that gives you such confidence? And, can't you imagine that people in thousands of societies through the years have felt just the same confidence, only to see their confidence betrayed and their societies left in tatters?

Keep in mind that people felt exactly the way you do in the "roaring" 1920s; how could such a perfect society do any wrong?!?! I know, we've corrected some of the problems that led to the depression - but do you really believe we have corrected every possible problem and created the perfect society, one so perfect it can never be crippled by depression again? That's simply absurd.

It strikes me that many people have a very troubling, almost religious wonderment about the contemporary United States, like we are the full and complete flowering of God's plan for man and nothing can possibly interfere with us.

So I ask, if you are going to post something skeptical - what % likelihood do you give to an outcome such as the one described below? Frankly, if you believe there is zero likelihood, you really ought to think about what a foolhardy position this is. There is never a zero percent chance of any given outcome for any given society. The "zero percenters" that populate this board are delusional fools, just as foolish as I would be to assign a 100% likelihood to this outcome. Personally, I think it is hard to know, but the evidence i see makes me think there's a 50% chance of something like this occurring.

---

Poor Herbert Hoover, the round-faced Stanford-educated wonderboy of the 1920s boom, who got elected president in 1928 on the strength of his performance as an economic management wizard, was corn-holed by the 1929 stock market crash and humiliated by several years of depression that followed it. Hoover's reputation never recovered, and he lived a long life -- another three decades -- under a cloud of ignominy.

A similar, though probably much worse, fate now awaits George W. Bush. The Great Depression, however, was milder than what Bush (and America) now faces.

When Franklin Roosevelt came on board in 1933, he remarked that we had "nothing to fear but fear itself." This now-hoary phrase was much more precise and astute when first uttered than it seems after seven decades of recitation. The Great Depression was indeed a mystifying event because, as Roosevelt further observed, it happened in a society that was so fundamentally wealthy -- suffering "want amidst plenty," as FDR put it. We had barely begun pumping our stupendous oil endowment. We had productive farmland in abundance (even with the dust bowl happening) and plenty of food. We had loads of manpower, oodles of mineral resources, fabulous new industries like radio, motion pictures, cars, the world's most dynamic cities -- you get the picture. And yet the nation was on the ropes in 1933.

The Great Depression was a crisis of credit, capital formation, and markets, not of fundamental resources. It was a crisis of the abstract markers of real wealth, not the wealth itself. It was also a symptom of the diminishing returns of industrial hypergrowth, a kind of economic hormonal disturbance. It produced strange, unanticipated consequences. Hypertrophy in manufacturing led to saturated mass markets. The industrialization of farming led first to over-production of commodities and then to the dust bowl (thanks to that novelty, the Ford tractor). The system seized up. Money (credit) was scarce to an extreme. Farmers went broke. Factory workers were laid off. Essentially, it was intermission in the great industrial meta-drama. Everybody went out for a smoke.

After the convulsion of Word War Two, we went back to confidently marshalling our resources with a vengence. We took all that oil, all the mineral wealth, the raw land, the timber, and other riches and directed it into the dubious-but-profitable project of building a suburban utopia. We're now in the final act of the industrial pageant, a few minutes to curtain. The Long Emergency that we're about to enter as the world passes the all-time oil production peak will be about the depletion and scarcity of things we used to have in plentitude: energy, electricity, food, water, minerals, with a new crisis of money and credit like a cherry on top.

Herbert Hoover was vilified for doing nothing about the depression that followed the stock market crash. When we look back on the years of George W. Bush we will marvel at his failure to lead, especially his failure to inform the public that our habits of daily life would have to change, that we could not continue to burn twenty million barrels of oil a day, and spend money we hadn't earned; that we desperately had to reform our suburban land development habits, that the WalMarts and other predatory corporations had to be restrained in their systematic destruction of local economies, that our railroads needed to be rebuilt, that our borders needed to be defended, that our local small farmers needed to be supported, that our industries needed to be re-scaled and retained here, that corporate chiseling had to be policed, that finance had to be qualitatively different than a craps game in some casino.

The Hooverization of George W. Bush has begun. Only it will go much worse for Bush. His fall could be so hard, swift and awful that he may not be allowed to finish his second term. That's how stunned the public and even their entrenched oligarchical elites will be as the economy tanks and our national life begins to unravel. The Republican majority will go down with him, including such arrant villians as Tom Delay and the hosts of corporate CEO chiselers who sold out their workers and their country. They can pray all the want. It won't help.

Wedge · 2005-03-31, 02:13 PM

This man reminds me of Paul Ehrlich.

ZRilla · 2005-03-31, 02:14 PM

A near term economic collapse? George Bush not being able to finish a 2nd term due to an economic crisis? Less than 1% chance.

NYGblue · 2005-03-31, 02:22 PM

I don't really buy this. Yes I see America falling off, but not catastrophe in 5 years. I allot a 2% chance to this.

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:28 PM

Front page of USA Today today - "Gas Costs Change Lifestyles"

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...ntro31.art.htm

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:29 PM

International Herald Tribune yesterday - "As Fuel Prices Rise, Airlines Cut Back"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/...e-4909169.html

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:31 PM

UK Times Online - "Oil Surge Could Force Energy Clampdowns" - 'The soaring demand for oil is threatening to prompt political clampdowns on fuel use.'

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...521120,00.html

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:38 PM

US 4th Quarter Current Account Deficit Grows to Record

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...AoY&refer=home

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:40 PM

You'd give me 99:1 (zrilla) or 98:2 odds on a depression in the next four years? I'll take both those bets for $10/$20 (if you are correct I pay you this) to $990/$980 (you pay me if I'm right).

Still feel the same way? If so, are we on?

NYGblue · 2005-03-31, 02:45 PM

Shit I will take that bet... but what are the parameters? Full on economic collapse?

lovedumplingx · 2005-03-31, 02:46 PM

Quote:

When we look back on the years of George W. Bush we will marvel at his failure to lead, especially his failure to inform the public that our habits of daily life would have to change, that we could not continue to burn twenty million barrels of oil a day, and spend money we hadn't earned; that we desperately had to reform our suburban land development habits, that the WalMarts and other predatory corporations had to be restrained in their systematic destruction of local economies, that our railroads needed to be rebuilt, that our borders needed to be defended, that our local small farmers needed to be supported, that our industries needed to be re-scaled and retained here, that corporate chiseling had to be policed, that finance had to be qualitatively different than a craps game in some casino.

I just want to know if he was saying this while Clinton was in office. I'm no Bush supporter but it seems to me that the author has listed problems that were identified a while ago but he's now choosing to lay the eternal blame on Bush who has only touched a few of these issues (for better or for worse). I really want to see if the author is so apocolyptic if a Democrat is in office in 2008.

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Shit I will take that bet... but what are the parameters? Full on economic collapse?

A depression that meets the standard criteria for a depression. If there is none, you get $20 in 2010. If there has been one, I get $980.

Lets use this definition - "A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent."

zartan · 2005-03-31, 02:51 PM

Quote:

I just want to know if he was saying this while Clinton was in office. I'm no Bush supporter but it seems to me that the author has listed problems that were identified a while ago but he's now choosing to lay the eternal blame on Bush who has only touched a few of these issues (for better or for worse). I really want to see if the author is so apocolyptic if a Democrat is in office in 2008.

he was actually a novelist when Clinton came into office; he has been studying land use and development patterns over the past decade and now feels this way.

whatever, clinton, bush, its all the same. the point is unchanged and arguing about which party is to blame is a smokescreen for a structural problem that all of our leaders with the notable exception of howard dean have utterly failed to prepare us for.

lovedumplingx · 2005-03-31, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zartan

whatever, clinton, bush, its all the same. the point is unchanged and arguing about which party is to blame is a smokescreen for a structural problem that all of our leaders with the notable exception of howard dean have utterly failed to prepare us for.

That was part of my point. I'm wondering though if the author will stick to his guns if a Democrat is in office in 2008 and isn't changing anything that was addressed in this article or if the author will lessen the strength of his message "in view of what the President will do".

Bioteknik · 2005-03-31, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zartan

A depression that meets the standard criteria for a depression. If there is none, you get $20 in 2010. If there has been one, I get $980.

Lets use this definition - "A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent."

2010? didn't the author say that it will happen during Bush's current term?

edit.. although I see 5 years was mentioned...

2005-03-31, 02:06 PM	#1
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	Today vs. the 1920s More from my man James Kunstler, whom I expect will be seen as a visionary within the next decade, on what is on the horizon for our economy.... This is the guy concerned about Peak Oil, but he also brings into this the issues of deficit spending etc that are setting us up for a fall the likes of which we can hardly imagine. I wonder to those who reflexively post about what bullshit these concerns are - what is it that gives you such confidence? And, can't you imagine that people in thousands of societies through the years have felt just the same confidence, only to see their confidence betrayed and their societies left in tatters? Keep in mind that people felt exactly the way you do in the "roaring" 1920s; how could such a perfect society do any wrong?!?! I know, we've corrected some of the problems that led to the depression - but do you really believe we have corrected every possible problem and created the perfect society, one so perfect it can never be crippled by depression again? That's simply absurd. It strikes me that many people have a very troubling, almost religious wonderment about the contemporary United States, like we are the full and complete flowering of God's plan for man and nothing can possibly interfere with us. So I ask, if you are going to post something skeptical - what % likelihood do you give to an outcome such as the one described below? Frankly, if you believe there is zero likelihood, you really ought to think about what a foolhardy position this is. There is never a zero percent chance of any given outcome for any given society. The "zero percenters" that populate this board are delusional fools, just as foolish as I would be to assign a 100% likelihood to this outcome. Personally, I think it is hard to know, but the evidence i see makes me think there's a 50% chance of something like this occurring. --- Poor Herbert Hoover, the round-faced Stanford-educated wonderboy of the 1920s boom, who got elected president in 1928 on the strength of his performance as an economic management wizard, was corn-holed by the 1929 stock market crash and humiliated by several years of depression that followed it. Hoover's reputation never recovered, and he lived a long life -- another three decades -- under a cloud of ignominy. A similar, though probably much worse, fate now awaits George W. Bush. The Great Depression, however, was milder than what Bush (and America) now faces. When Franklin Roosevelt came on board in 1933, he remarked that we had "nothing to fear but fear itself." This now-hoary phrase was much more precise and astute when first uttered than it seems after seven decades of recitation. The Great Depression was indeed a mystifying event because, as Roosevelt further observed, it happened in a society that was so fundamentally wealthy -- suffering "want amidst plenty," as FDR put it. We had barely begun pumping our stupendous oil endowment. We had productive farmland in abundance (even with the dust bowl happening) and plenty of food. We had loads of manpower, oodles of mineral resources, fabulous new industries like radio, motion pictures, cars, the world's most dynamic cities -- you get the picture. And yet the nation was on the ropes in 1933. The Great Depression was a crisis of credit, capital formation, and markets, not of fundamental resources. It was a crisis of the abstract markers of real wealth, not the wealth itself. It was also a symptom of the diminishing returns of industrial hypergrowth, a kind of economic hormonal disturbance. It produced strange, unanticipated consequences. Hypertrophy in manufacturing led to saturated mass markets. The industrialization of farming led first to over-production of commodities and then to the dust bowl (thanks to that novelty, the Ford tractor). The system seized up. Money (credit) was scarce to an extreme. Farmers went broke. Factory workers were laid off. Essentially, it was intermission in the great industrial meta-drama. Everybody went out for a smoke. After the convulsion of Word War Two, we went back to confidently marshalling our resources with a vengence. We took all that oil, all the mineral wealth, the raw land, the timber, and other riches and directed it into the dubious-but-profitable project of building a suburban utopia. We're now in the final act of the industrial pageant, a few minutes to curtain. The Long Emergency that we're about to enter as the world passes the all-time oil production peak will be about the depletion and scarcity of things we used to have in plentitude: energy, electricity, food, water, minerals, with a new crisis of money and credit like a cherry on top. Herbert Hoover was vilified for doing nothing about the depression that followed the stock market crash. When we look back on the years of George W. Bush we will marvel at his failure to lead, especially his failure to inform the public that our habits of daily life would have to change, that we could not continue to burn twenty million barrels of oil a day, and spend money we hadn't earned; that we desperately had to reform our suburban land development habits, that the WalMarts and other predatory corporations had to be restrained in their systematic destruction of local economies, that our railroads needed to be rebuilt, that our borders needed to be defended, that our local small farmers needed to be supported, that our industries needed to be re-scaled and retained here, that corporate chiseling had to be policed, that finance had to be qualitatively different than a craps game in some casino. The Hooverization of George W. Bush has begun. Only it will go much worse for Bush. His fall could be so hard, swift and awful that he may not be allowed to finish his second term. That's how stunned the public and even their entrenched oligarchical elites will be as the economy tanks and our national life begins to unravel. The Republican majority will go down with him, including such arrant villians as Tom Delay and the hosts of corporate CEO chiselers who sold out their workers and their country. They can pray all the want. It won't help. __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:13 PM	#2
Wedge Antisocial Schizoid Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tempe, AZ Posts: 2,255	This man reminds me of Paul Ehrlich. __________________ In a few years you will come to understand the utter pointlessness of your life and that everything you've ever done is just a means of killing time until your heart stops.

2005-03-31, 02:14 PM	#3
ZRilla Change? Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 7,315	A near term economic collapse? George Bush not being able to finish a 2nd term due to an economic crisis? Less than 1% chance. __________________ If a teacher is given a chance or two chances or three chances but still does not improve, there's no excuse for that person to continue teaching! I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences! - Obama

2005-03-31, 02:22 PM	#4
NYGblue Forca Barca! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC - El Barrio Posts: 5,722	I don't really buy this. Yes I see America falling off, but not catastrophe in 5 years. I allot a 2% chance to this. __________________ "I like to mooooove... When the bassline drops, and the voice is hot, bitch, thats the time i get the itch to get on the floor and move move move until im sore!"

2005-03-31, 02:28 PM	#5
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	Front page of USA Today today - "Gas Costs Change Lifestyles" http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...ntro31.art.htm __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:29 PM	#6
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	International Herald Tribune yesterday - "As Fuel Prices Rise, Airlines Cut Back" http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/...e-4909169.html __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:31 PM	#7
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	UK Times Online - "Oil Surge Could Force Energy Clampdowns" - 'The soaring demand for oil is threatening to prompt political clampdowns on fuel use.' http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...521120,00.html __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:38 PM	#8
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	US 4th Quarter Current Account Deficit Grows to Record http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...AoY&refer=home __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:40 PM	#9
zartan MODERATOR Sad But True Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: LeDroit Park, DC Posts: 27,757	You'd give me 99:1 (zrilla) or 98:2 odds on a depression in the next four years? I'll take both those bets for $10/$20 (if you are correct I pay you this) to $990/$980 (you pay me if I'm right). Still feel the same way? If so, are we on? __________________ "I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that is something you need to do." - Sen. Kit Bond (R), on telecom immunity

2005-03-31, 02:45 PM	#10
NYGblue Forca Barca! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC - El Barrio Posts: 5,722	Shit I will take that bet... but what are the parameters? Full on economic collapse? __________________ "I like to mooooove... When the bassline drops, and the voice is hot, bitch, thats the time i get the itch to get on the floor and move move move until im sore!"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode