[Yossarian]

I'm playing devil's advocate.

It's interesting how your answer started trying to list some minor positves (wine from Bradford), went on to more neutral ground - hedge fund managers making money from misfortune, and quickly got back into a negative narrative. Says a lot about how focussed people are on the horror stories of global warming (I'm not denying them, see above). But is that useful to only focus on one possible outcome?

I was trying to resist making a similar observation.  The danger of trying to shock the world into action with tales about potential apocalyptic climate change is that, rather than having the desired effect of everyone selling their cars, getting out their bicycles , never flying again, etc, the majority response is likely to be, "The world's going to end? Oh fuck it, why even bother trying then..."

The governments of the developed world are like a bunch of blokes who smoke 80 a day.  America is a 70-something Marlboro man, sitting on his horse, fag hanging out of his mouth.  China is in his late twenties, who grew up watching Marlboro man's adverts.  Marlboro man can try to persuade China to swap to Silk Cut Ultras all he likes, but China's not going to change. Well, not until Marlboro man falls off his horse.

[petejh]

Am I right in saying that, in your view, the next 50 years boils down to a choice between transitioning too quickly for the current economic system to keep up, in which case it's hideaway hillbilly time or... transitioning at a pace whereby the current economic system is able to keep up with readjustments into new technologies etc, whereby it's businees as usual for those 'in' the system. ?

If so, I'm not sure which version I prefer to be honest.

[tomtom]

I take it to mean that not alot will happen for 30-50 years, because it'll take 10-20 years for something bad to happen, then another 20 years or so for something to be done about it.. (by not alot I mean nothing substantial..)

[petejh]

Make it the next hundred years if that's a more accurate timescale.

[Oldmanmatt]

https://twitter.com/fieldproducer/status/175812350828486656

Weren't we just talking about this?

[petejh]

We are all "in" the system.

I'd also substitute "an uncertainty" for "a choice". As I wrote a few pages earlier, the future doesn't care what we think.

Of course, I realise we're all 'in' the global economic system, sitting here drinking my south american coffee made in a machine built in China, eating a bannana from Colombia, berries flown in from south africa and typing on a laptop assembled in the US and delivered to me in the UK (get my carbon footprint).

Like you say it's interesting to consider how the current 600 year-old capitalist system might end through not being able to adjust quickly enough.

[miso soup]

Pessimism:

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Optimism:

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[Johnny Brown]

Good feature in New Scientist on 'the future' this week too. Sidesteps the next 100 years but still interesting stuff.

[Paulos]

Pessimism:

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Optimism:

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_diamandis_abundance_is_our_future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TEDTalks_video+%28TEDTalks+Main+%28SD%29+-+Site%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Abundance is the future?! Oh these techno-optimist nutters. Change Optimism to pipe dreaming - it is unlikely any human invention will be able to make up for the squandered fossil fuels and other natural resources. 

[Oldmanmatt]

If we think of the World war, that was the 20th century...
(Is it too dramatic to think of it as one drawn out conflict, starting in somewhere around 1914 and continuing, spreading and evolving, with the odd moment of rest; until today? After all, nearly all modern conflicts seem to be directly attributable to the end of the Empires).

I would argue, that we have seen total civil and societal collapse more than once in the life times of our Grandparents...

And we hardly think about it.

Countries that were devastated, ruined, populations culled, economies wiped out; are quaint little tourist traps twenty years later. Germany, was destroyed twice, in the last hundred years; and yet...

And yet, we move on.

Our society and economy, is radically different from that which our grandparents were born into and it continues to change; daily.

Most of the most pessimistic view points grow from the statement "If we carry on like this..."

I'm just not convinced we have ever "carried on like this".

Or that we have the faintest idea of where we will be heading tomorrow.

Given the broad spectrum of people represented on this forum, we all seem to be vaguely on the same page, disagreeing on the minutia; not the overall picture.
We all seem well informed and aware and motivated to "do something".

That, I would posit, points to a growing "ground swell".

This has to be sign of an impending Paradigm shift, no?
 

[slackline]

Might see if I can find time to read The Origin of Financial Crises: Central banks, credit bubbles and the efficient market fallacy by George Cooper

Review

Differentiates between markets for goods/services and financial markets, the former tending towards equilibrium the later doesn't.

[philo]

Might see if I can find time to read The Origin of Financial Crises: Central banks, credit bubbles and the efficient market fallacy by George Cooper

Review

Differentiates between markets for goods/services and financial markets, the former tending towards equilibrium the later doesn't.

It is a good read and if you go back further and look at "the money changers" you can see how the people who control the money control the power.  "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". N.Rothschild.
Currency wars by James Rickards is another good read if you have time.  I still think we are on a path to a inflationary depression, you simply cannot borrow and spend your way out of trouble.  Who knows what the world will look like in 50, 10, 5 years time but we can all be certain that the east will hold the power financially.

[slackline]

Added this to my reading list this morning....

Capital in the Twenty First Century

The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism....

....The book argues that the world is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth and that their power is increasing, creating an oligarchy.

Guardian overview

Sounds interesting, if a little unconventional in the premises on which he makes his case.

[Fultonius]

Off with their heads! It's time for a revolution...

[petejh]

Might see if I can find time to read The Origin of Financial Crises: Central banks, credit bubbles and the efficient market fallacy by George Cooper

Review

Differentiates between markets for goods/services and financial markets, the former tending towards equilibrium the later doesn't.

It is a good read and if you go back further and look at "the money changers" you can see how the people who control the money control the power.  "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". N.Rothschild.
Currency wars by James Rickards is another good read if you have time.  I still think we are on a path to a inflationary depression, you simply cannot borrow and spend your way out of trouble.  Who knows what the world will look like in 50, 10, 5 years time but we can all be certain that the east will hold the power financially.

Well 2 years hence and that hasn't happened -
The UK is now close to being back to pre-recession GDP levels in some areas of the economy:
Joe Grice, chief economist at the Office for National Statistics (yesterday):
''This is the fifth consecutive quarter of steady growth. Overall, the economy is now only 0.6% below the pre-recession peak at the beginning of 2008. In fact, services are now 2% above the pre-recession peak but the production and construction sectors are still around 12% lower. and the US and Germany are above their GDP levels.''

or maybe it has (see below).
But then anyone claiming to be able to predict global economics should be regarded with deep skepticism and forced to read Nate Silver's Signal and the Noise:
Economic Predictions - Nate Silver - Oxford Union: 
'we have got no better in the past 40 years at predicting job rates, GDP or inflation even though people claim to keep getting better at predicting these things'.

Give it 50 years and you'll probably get lucky at some point. I predict we'll see inflation, deflation, feast, famine, recession and economic growth during that time. There will be plenty of natural disasters, wars, peace treaties, epidemics and wonder drugs and the rising and falling of major economies. Petejh - Chief economist at UKB inc.

[miso soup]

Everyone should read Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber.

[Oldmanmatt]

Added this to my reading list this morning....

Capital in the Twenty First Century

The central thesis of the book is that inequality is not an accident, but rather a feature of capitalism....

....The book argues that the world is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth and that their power is increasing, creating an oligarchy.

Another layman's question, so don't read it as a statement.

Surely, the original Patrimonial capitalism (and isn't that just another term for Feudalism?) was based upon land ownership?

It's hard to imagine the same dominance being achieved by control of capital (which is in essence unreal/virtual/shared illusion), as opposed to a physical resource.

The number of revolutions, of various hues, throughout history; seem to indicate that such concentration of power is somewhat fleeting...

[Jaspersharpe]

Yup, the financial world has spectacularly failed to end in the last few years despite all the doomsayers and conspiracy-theorists. Greece is still in the euro FFS!

WHAT!? What did you just say!!??

I can't hear properly through this tinfoil hat. It's a special gold plated one that I spent all my money on cos gold will never devalue. Like Bitcoins. And tulips. And.....

Look just leave it yeah.

[Johnny Brown]

It's hard to imagine the same dominance being achieved by control of capital (which is in essence unreal/virtual/shared illusion), as opposed to a physical resource.

I suspect the reality is the opposite. With capital being both virtual and invisible, it is far easier to create enormous inequality whilst keeping it sufficiently hidden to avoid revolution. And as imaginary as it is, I don't see much opportunity to unsubscribe from the illusion in our modern world.

[Sasquatch]

Phew, glad someone else has taken that role. Thick-skinned-ness being the key qualification. I nominate Sasquatch as Vice-Chief Economist.

How long is the term?        

Yup, the financial world has spectacularly failed to end in the last few years despite all the doomsayers and conspiracy-theorists. Greece is still in the euro FFS!

The financials markets are the roller coaster and we live in the theme park.  We all love to go for a ride

Surely, the original Patrimonial capitalism (and isn't that just another term for Feudalism?) was based upon land ownership?

It's hard to imagine the same dominance being achieved by control of capital (which is in essence unreal/virtual/shared illusion), as opposed to a physical resource.

The number of revolutions, of various hues, throughout history; seem to indicate that such concentration of power is somewhat fleeting...

Capital is Capital.  Whether virtual or physical, it's simply a means to an end.  if you have more of it, you're more likely to get to the end   (obviously there are differences from a practical standpoint, but less than you would think)

In all seriousness though, JB Nailed it.

I suspect the reality is the opposite. With capital being both virtual and invisible, it is far easier to create enormous inequality whilst keeping it sufficiently hidden to avoid revolution. And as imaginary as it is, I don't see much opportunity to unsubscribe from the illusion in our modern world.

[Jaspersharpe]

Yeah the people who top the rich lists are often those who have earned (or technically stolen in the case of the Russians) their wealth rather than inheriting it so that doesn't really make sense (not that said rich lists are in any way accurate, but still, Gates, Buffett, Abramovich etc).

Looks like a good book though.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

[Fultonius]

Just read this: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf

Quite thought provoking, if simplistic and, in the case of the "old tribal markets" a bit unconvincing. I agree with much of what he says about the current situation and the problems we face.

What I'm not so sure about is his "potential solution". It has some promise but it seems a bit wishy washy and not well argued or discussed. I think his final statement is spot on though:

Given that the
mainstream, resolutely led by the economics profession, shows no sign of ever attending to
these issues, it is difficult to maintain belief that we have the wit or the will to save ourselves

Well, that's got me in a pessimistic mood for the day.

[Fultonius]

I was pondering buying this book: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415820950/

And thought - "hmm, maybe I should not waste the paper and get it on Kindle"  ironically it's only available in paper form.

Right, I'm off to pick up my brand new mountianbike from the post office. Guilty consumer 

[Oldmanmatt]

Yeah the people who top the rich lists are often those who have earned (or technically stolen in the case of the Russians) their wealth rather than inheriting it so that doesn't really make sense (not that said rich lists are in any way accurate, but still, Gates, Buffett, Abramovich etc).

Looks like a good book though.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

True and I think I passed on my sentiment about many of them earlier in this thread or a similar one.
The last one I worked for before retiring permanently from the Mega Yacht industry, was Pr1nce Turk1 <bin_Nasser> (I hope that's enough to stop google pulling up the thread).
I ran the refit of his yacht Sarah in BCN (that's how I came to be living in Spain when Lili's cancer returned).

The practicalities of working in that industry mean that most contact is informal. Quite often meeting the client in his (almost always a "he") dressing gown and slippers.

If I take that family as an example. There is little unity between the offspring (many battles about sexuality and the heir apparent is about as bright as a snuffed birthday candle). Toby's "Ego investment" doesn't cover it. Splurge, blow, fritter are closer. That is how I made my living!
Interestingly, I was a victim of the power shift (operations/illness, age and royal deaths) that cut off most of their access to the royal trough.

I have not met all the world super rich, by any means, but those I've met divide into two groups (imo); the self made (in the sub-sets, Canny and engaging or Sociopathic and reclusive) or Inherited (in the sub-sets, Spoilt and stupid or Disenchanted and rebellious).

Bearing in mind the offspring of the first group slip automatically into group two. As another example, see the B&mford family (who I performed a similar task for in the  '90s <Virginian>).

Marrying a BA stewardess is a good way to lose some dough...


Overall point? I've never been impressed by any of them, bar one or two self made, who also seemed the most grounded.
I have a mental image of the world, as run by these individuals; as a car driven by the Keystone Cops...

[miso soup]

They're generally all still rich though, aren't they?  Rich kids might piss a good chunk of wealth up the wall but you don't see many renouncing it and getting a job in Tesco.  They piss it up the wall because they know there's plenty more where that came from, for the most part they remain a part of the oligarchy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746