Chris Martenson presentation at Gold & Silver meeting in Madrid

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
In this video Chris Martenson, economic analyst and author of 'The Crash Course', explains why he thinks that the coming 20 years are going to look completely unlike the last 20 years. In his presentation he focuses on the so-called three "Es": Economy, Energy and Environment. He argues that at this point in time it is no longer possible to view either one of those topics separately from one another.

Since all our money is loaned onto existence, our economy has to grow exponentially. Martenson proves this point empirically by showing a 99.9% fit of the actual growth curve of the last 40 years to an exponential curve. If we wanted to continue on this path, our debt load would have to double again over the next 10 years. By continually increasing our debt relative to GDP we are making the assumption that our future will always be wealthier than our past. He believes that this assumption is flawed and that the debt loads are already unmanageable.
...
 

dontdeBasemebro

Moderator
Messages
494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This guy is very good, and his website has much worth while information too, thanks for posting. Definitely an hour well spent.
 

escobar

Predaceous Stink Bug
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
yeah i watched that video as well. Very compelling argument on the exponential growth idea. Very similar to what the Hinde Capital presentation talked about. we are at an inflection pt in the curve where things start to go vertical.
 

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
I watched the whole video before posting it here. He speaks with clarity and does a great job of communicating his ideas and concerns. Definitely a more constructive use of an hour of your time than watching anything on TV IMO.
 

rblong2us

Yellow Jacket
Messages
2,090
Reaction score
8
Points
153
Location
off world
I watched the whole video before posting it here. He speaks with clarity and does a great job of communicating his ideas and concerns. Definitely a more constructive use of an hour of your time than watching anything on TV IMO.
Totally agree.

Last Christmas I linked people Im trying to educate, to a brilliant 2 hour 'big picture' lecture by Jim Rickards, this will be their treat for this year.

I have followed Chris Martenson for about 3 years and he seems to have become somewhat 'mainstream' in that time.
Just wish I could bring myself to actually subscribe and find out what important advice / data all those frustrating hidden articles might reveal, that I dont get from the rest of the bloggosphere.

As for watching anything on TV let me tell you 'Bugout One' has no such facility !
and having recently read on ZH, that the only people making money out of flat screen TV's are the glass makers, I suddenly realised they could easily be recycled into solar panels :rotflmbo:
 

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
Chris Martenson talks to James Turk:

 

bushi

Ground Beetle
Messages
973
Reaction score
2
Points
143
...the only questionable point with that "exponential growth" narration is, that in exponential functions, that point where "things start going vertical" is only dependent on what unit we are willing to apply to Y axis... You know, this point of a perceived "change" of steepness, could be located as far in the past or in the future, as you like, if we are willing (on the theoretical charts), or able (=in the real world, with limited resources and capacity) to adjust the Y axis units (from TRillions to whatever gadzillions, for example - it would push it into the future. If we change them from trillions into billions - our charts would be already way over the roof, possibly somewhere around the moon's orbit)

So it is not anything to judge by, the point in which these charts start to "bent" upwards. Much more important is, what are the PHYSICAL limits on the Y axis, that we are/will be experiencing?

But in general, I fully agree with CM on the topic of limited energy output (oil supply), that will be main driving factor, and a highly detrimental one. I do not know about ANYTHING that would keep us on the rising energy consumption path - and I was quite passionate about renevables/alternatives and all, for quite a few years now. While theoretically, Sun's power falling on Earth's surface is way more than sufficient to cover ALL our energy needs, and way into the future - but practically, ain't going to happened anytime soon, if ever - and for some quite critical branches of economy (ie transport, and God forbid air transport...) - hardly even an option...
 
Last edited:

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
Folks at MIT are much more optimistic than Mr. Martenson:
A new study from researchers at MIT and produced for an international think tank, says that the world could suffer from "global economic collapse" and "precipitous population decline" if people continue to consume the world's resources at the current pace.

Smithsonian Magazine writes that Australian physicist Graham Turner says "the world is on track for disaster" and that current evidence coincides with a famous, and in some quarters, infamous, academic report from 1972 entitled, "The Limits to Growth."

Produced for a group called The Club of Rome, the study's researchers created a computing model to forecast different scenarios based on the current models of population growth and global resource consumption. The study also took into account different levels of agricultural productivity, birth control and environmental protection efforts. Twelve million copies of the report were produced and distributed in 37 different languages.

Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without "drastic measures for environmental protection," the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.
...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...rchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

Anyone want to bet that their computer models have unrealistic assumptions and huge holes in their logic?
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
Constant growth depends on constant population growth, which means we will have to consume the natural resources of the earth at what soon become exponentially larger rates of speed......to include oxygen. I see a crash and burn scenario, wiping out a significant portion of the worlds population within a few years......not in 2030.
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
Malthus was right. I believe we are so far beyond carrying capacity that something has to give, and that right soon. Think pandemic, on a global and incureable scale.
 

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
Martenson is a classical Malthusian. ...
It's been a while since I first posted (and watched) the OP, but if I recall correctly, he is not basing his premise upon an ever increasing population. Energy demand from a stable population is and has been rising.

Of course, a world war that wipes out a significant portion of the global population would help curb that problem.
 

swissaustrian

Yellow Jacket
Messages
2,053
Reaction score
0
Points
0
He's linking his thesis to geometrical growth. That's what Malthus did, too.
The argument basicly is that energy consumption is price inelastic. That's definitely not accurate. US per capita energy consumption is much higher than in Europe. We both have a similar standard of living. So what's the main difference? Lower taxes on gasoline in the US and widepsread use of airconditioning. When I went to the US a few years ago, I was totally baffled by the simplicity of the motors in US cars (especially SUVs and pick-ups). They consume gasoline like crazy and are very ineffcient compared to many European cars. If oil prices continue to go up, we'll see declining energy consumption in the US. ZH recently pointed out that this is already beginning. 20 years ago, an average car consumed 4 times the gasoline it consumes today here in Europe. Same for housing construction. Many houses I saw are basicly made of wood/plastic. They're aren't well isolated, so they need heating in winter and cooling during summer. Architects have the skills to build zero energy houses. I think, they'll do that.
 

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
Will energy conservation /efficiency efforts in the West offset growth demand from the East (China, India, etc.)?
 

swissaustrian

Yellow Jacket
Messages
2,053
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Will energy conservation /efficiency efforts in the West offset growth demand from the East (China, India, etc.)?
Good question. They'll certainly not reach the per capita levels of the Western nations. And they'll also not have a middle class in terms of the whole population as we do here in the West.
James Goldsmith described this in his book "the trap" which is mainly about the GATT treaty and it's (not so unintended) consequences. This treaty is designed to create a mass migration in these countries from the rural areas to the megacities. Modern agriculture (GMO, fertilizers, machines) would create mass unemployment and drive people into the slums. They would never have any realistic chance of reaching a Western standard of living. Therefore a significant part of their populations will never be big energy consumers.

Here's a great interview which he gave during the mid 1990s on that.
(Part 1, click through the following clips)
 

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Messages
7,432
Reaction score
14
Points
193
Location
Texas
Thanks sa. I will need to watch it (and re-watch Chris' presentation in the OP) later when I get a window of time.
 

DCFusor

Yellow Jacket
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Floyd, Virginia
I think Malthus was right but too soon - the bane of prophets. We've been really lucky with improving tech and techniques so far, is all. And that's what it mostly is, scientist that I am - luck.

Looks what's changed other than what CM is going on about:

There is no longer a new world full of resources to colonize and exploit.
Don't forget how many times that has saved us since Malthus.

We've pretty much totally explored this planet. There are no huge deposits of anything yet to be found, huge being defined on the global demand scale.

We no longer are guessing about what's in the periodic table, and most of inorganic chemistry is a done deal - no big breakthroughs coming from there anymore.

Ditto plant genetics, the base of our food supply. We are reaching very high efficiencies on turning plant food into food plants. You can't beat 100%.


We now have billions of people in abject poverty who are now insisting on the standard of living Hollywood so stupidly taught them they are entitled to, and they are starting to consume resources as wastefully as the US did. China moreso. Remember they had to cut coal consumption for the Olympics because we foreigners wouldn't have been able to breathe the air?

We know about nuclear power but are too stupid to manage it properly as a species. And our reserves aren't big there either.

Every government is now fiat only, and all are in debt, no one's paid off debt (except maybe Norway?) since WWII - not one dime.

Almost every acre of arable land is now in use already. There's no doubling of crop output anymore per acre and hasn't been for a long time.

We are now so dense as a race that no large fraction of people can just "move to the country" into a single-family dwelling they can cover with solar panels and garden outside. Apt dwellers are going to get hurt on energy, bad, at some point.
And those are most of most developed countries.

For the last few hundred years, we've had great science/tech come along just when needed to solve whatever bump in the road we ran into - but honestly, we hardly needed it because more resources to exploit were always nearby. That is no longer true. Further, what's unknown is only getting smaller over time - even Catholics got hip to that one and quit allowing god to be defined by "whatever science can't explain otherwise" as god was getting pretty small by that system.

We have a pretty good handle on what we don't know yet - and none of it looks like raising the carrying capacity of the planet anytime soon - and even a static capacity is in some doubt - when are we going to mine the landfills? If some aspects of string theory pan out, we might reach others, but historically a diaspora doesn't save the home place - not many will uproot and leave.

Even if somehow we came across free abundant energy, we'd just use it to cook the place and still fight wars anyway. And some would have power over the power, it would not turn into the star trek trans-money world. We'd just have more babies, and it's too crowded for best quality of life as is - even if we were all rich. But we won't be as the income disparity is a function of human nature, something we don't know how to change, and would screw up if we did know how if history is any guide.

I think the only argument is "when" and "how" not "if" - maybe with a side of "in what order".
 

ancona

Praying Mantis
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Waaay south
DCFusor,
The when is after another Carrington Event. Period. When that happens, we will have a thousand nuke plants melting down simultaneously because they never planned for an EMP on that scale. Within a decade, all life on earth is altered or ended forever. While plants and bacteria will adapt, human will perish, and they will do so en-masse.

That these plants have not properly prepared for EMP is the Achilles Heel of the entire world.

May God have mercy on our collective, stupid souls....
 

dontdeBasemebro

Moderator
Messages
494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We now have billions of people in abject poverty who are now insisting on the standard of living Hollywood so stupidly taught them they are entitled to, and they are starting to consume resources as wastefully as the US did. China moreso. Remember they had to cut coal consumption for the Olympics because we foreigners wouldn't have been able to breathe the air?
Even with that, the athletes who competed outdoor in Beijing still suffered due to the filthy air.

DCFusor said:
For the last few hundred years, we've had great science/tech come along just when needed to solve whatever bump in the road we ran into - but honestly, we hardly needed it because more resources to exploit were always nearby. That is no longer true. Further, what's unknown is only getting smaller over time - even Catholics got hip to that one and quit allowing god to be defined by "whatever science can't explain otherwise" as god was getting pretty small by that system.
The problem here is that many people think that technological progress is a function of time and nothing else; that it will just keep marching along as steady as the clock, turning out more and more gadgets. In reality, while time is a one of the inputs, progress also, and more inportantly, requires the saving of resources and the investment of those resources in developement. There is absolutely nothing that requires technology to improve as time passes, and there are plenty of historical periods and plenty of societies that make this apparent. My concern is that the ability to progress is is being systematically dismantled.
 
Top