oh no, there was some fringe christian movement that suggested the world was going to end a few months back, there's one born every day. i'm sure Rayz will be back on his reg dose soon enough
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
holy shit Rayzor!!! What news to wake up to on a Saturday morning.
...there's something completely unworldy living in Cloncurry for a lifetime, try arguing with a local
TV economists are plugged into a system of thinking which doesn't begin to account for this being a finite world with a finite amount of resources. In their fantasy world based solely on theory, if the market needs more, somebody finds a way to supply more, if that way happen to costs more then the price rises and things eventually find their equilibrium. 
Some have called it 'Peak Everything' cap and I think it's as good a term as any. Richard Heinberg wrote a great book by the same name, pretty good introduction to what is a vast and complex series of intertwined (and crucially important IMO) topics if you're interested.
The global economy effectively runs on oil, coal, gas, uranium, phosphate, various metals, plus the basics ecological inputs like water and arable land for agriculture, fisheries, forests etc.. These are the fundamentals, you can take everything else in economics as fluff when it comes to the big picture. We need to eat, consume energy for various comforts/work and manufacture goods more than anything else which may fleetingly seem important factors in an economy (from tulips and whale oil to high-rise apartments and dot com investments).
In all of the above fundamental areas we are rapidly approaching or have already passed 'peak production' of that particular raw material (or are extracting way more than is sustainable in the case of our fresh water [particularly that from aquifers], soils and oceans). That is to say, we're not running out of oil, uranium or coal anytime soon, in fact, there's never been more available in order to satisfy an ever growing demand (that's why it's called a peak), but the production flow can't possibly be expanded any further - the easy stuff was extracted first (which is why we now have incredibly expensive and highly dangerous oil wells in the middle of oceans etc. instead of the guy with the crow-bar who strikes it lucky) and what is left is harder to get, more expensive, and carries a far greater economic and ecological risk. To paraphrase a good analogy, is it easier and faster (i.e. more return for effort) to eat the first 50% of a yoghurt tub with a spoon, or the last 50%? How increasingly slow and painful (i.e. the return for effort approaches zero) is the last 20%?
Global agriculture is absolutely reliant on non-renewable, mined phosphate. It's in practically everything we eat. We have around 40 years supply left globally (at current rates of usage) and no replacement for it (ironically, our commercially farmed soils are often toxic because we've applied so much, and it's exactly this toxic run-off which is killing the Barrier Reef and many other eco-systems). Without super phosphate delivered in nicely packaged bales to farms on cue at a reasonable price, a good 1/3rd or so of the world would starve and the rest of us would pay many times what we do now for food. Would you rather take your kids to the footy and prop up the corporate AFL model, or give them fruit, vegetables and meat a few times a week and keep a roof over their heads? Rhetorical question...
We're staring the last 50% (or less) of all these key resources in the face, but sadly, our economic models and our 10% strike rate 'nobody saw the GFC coming'
Sooner or later (very much sooner in this case), no amount of money can extract something faster to satiate demand, or make more non-renewable resources magically appear out of thin air (or food appear out of toxic, overused soil and water as the case is), simply because 'the market' demands it.
Every single credit loan in the world is offered based on the assumption that the economy is going to grow (increase in value) and so are wages, real estate etc.; if these things don't grow, then nobody can skim an increasingly greater share off the top and then all the artificial constructs - from stock market dividends to the interest charged on your mortgage - cease to exist. No economy can grow without 'more everything' to supply an ever growing number of people - demands which eventually one country, or one planet, with a finite amount of resources available, can't keep up with. The same simple physics which are behind the collapse of every great civilisation, except this time it's global and we've depleted the planet's most choice resources on a historically unprecedented scale - wasted them on some unbelievably dumb, pointless and trivial things.
You certainly won't find this information on the Channel 7 news or A Current Affair, but from the U.S. military to an overwhelming number of energy experts (resource related scientists to even former and current 'oil men'), there is a massive consensus on these matters in academic circles and you'll find reports and studies from the top level of all the world's important organisations which either confirm what I'm saying, or are very obviously failing to hide it.
I'm not out to convince anyone, I'm ambivalent, it's not like I have something to gain from anything I write here. The OP question strayed into the territory and I felt in the mood to answer it fully.
To finish on a couple of football notes, we won't be any the poorer for an eventual return to suburban style footy, both it and the hyper-drive business of AFL have their good and their bad points.
And if I sometimes seem a bit fanatical about us doing our utmost to get 80%+ right as a football club (rather than 50% or less and a never ending cascade of very hard to forgive mistakes from people who should know better), it's because I'd love little more than for Richmond to sneak a flag while there's still the tiniest of chances to do so.
...
...
...
