US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

nearlynew

1echidna wrote: »

People talking nonsense about world wars, energy crunch catastrophe and reverse evolution makes me wonder about their judgement on economic matters of which I confess my grasp is not all that it might be.

If you look deep enough into it, you will find that every single war ever fought has been about money and the economy.

If you know what money "is" and how it is created, you will begin to understand.

dopester

1echidna wrote: »

People talking nonsense about world wars, energy crunch catastrophe and reverse evolution makes me wonder about their judgement on economic matters of which I confess my grasp is not all that it might be.

People will have to make do with fewer items of unnecessary tat in their lives, and some may not be able to afford to upgrade to the latest Iphone 3G Ultra or 3D TV for all their rooms as soon as it comes out. Deal with it - but spoilt people won't get far if they begin protesting over not having or being able to afford the latest luxuries, nor if they envy those who can afford them and choose to buy.

As for toys and gizmos.. there is world-wide manufacturing overcapacity, and now we have less ability to pay after a decade-long bubble of debt-backed consumerism is burst. Many of those manufacturers will be hurting (perhaps fatally so, judging by how a few of the contributors of a car-forum I was reading last night were telling of their shock and anger at how hard to get a specific coil-pack to make their cars work... many weeks delay - component firm gone down?).. on downturn of orders.

Also won't that in itself reduce oil-energy demand - can't see the slack being suddenly picked up easily in domestic, early emerging markets.

Running_Horse

amcluesent wrote: »

It would be foolish to assume an orderly decline. Far more likely is that there will be a series of lurches into chaos, perhaps some or all of -

+ Mutated swine flu kills 100,000 peeps aged 15-45 in Britain.
+ Islamists explode a nuclear dirty bomb in London
+ Shutdown of National Grid at 1st cold snap of winter
+ Systemic failure of gilt markets
+ Tidal surge floods London
+ Police lose control of a major city after rioting

Cheer up, it might never happen. I'm guessing you don't get invited to many parties.

dopester

It is happening all over - and I really suspect we'll get our own version in the UK, despite GG saying we are in better situation to commute (presumably because smaller territory.)

My fears are the costs of maintaining roads, bridges, sewers, and whatever other infrastructure, won't just be worth it on a national level - when best off concentrating money in to more productive areas, and requiring money to back projects which have real economic growth potential -- not wasting it on needs of fewer people in remote towns and villages where business and opportunity is dying out.

Rebuilding One Recession-Torn Town
Officials Say Attempts to Revitalize Youngstown Ohio Have Not Been Successful
By JEREMY KUTNER
June 7, 2009

It is only one of several disappointments for Youngstown 2010. With more than 4,500 vacant structures and a declining tax base from an ever-shrinking population, the city can't stay ahead of the abandonment trend, says William D'Avignon, deputy director of the city's planning department.

4-pages.

After crash, has twilight come to the Sun Belt?
By TODD LEWAN – May 31, 2009

The housing bubble in many places revealed an obsolescent model of economic life, in which cheap real estate encouraged low-density sprawl and created a work force "stuck in place, anchored by houses that cannot be profitably sold," Florida wrote in his March article.

These places, he says, include older, factory towns across the northern Rust Belt but also countless communities in the Sun Belt whose prosperity was built on "fictitious wealth."

What to do? Scrap policies that encourage homebuying, he suggests, and give incentives to more mobile renters who can go where the jobs are.

In the digital age, he says, industries will likely cluster in "mega-regions" of multiple cities and their surrounding suburban rings (e.g., the Boston-New York-Washington corridor). These areas will surge, lifted by the brainpower of educated professionals and creative thinkers that turn out "products and services faster than talented people in other places can."

In short: Those that can draw talented, young people with high-quality, higher education will reap the spoils.

The question is whether the Sun Belt will show the rest of the nation how to retool schools, save water and energy, and better plan its suburbs and exurbs in an era of less.

"By necessity, we're already being forced to address these issues," says Schwer, of the University of Nevada. "This crisis is an opportunity, more than anything else, to reset things, to put some balance back into our lives."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iBmHohGOVfutwzoov-mnaoiT5X2wD98H9RS00

bo_drinker

Talking to someone recently who works on rail maintenance and thought his job was recession proof 6 months ago, different story now. He has seen rotten railway sleepers flipped to save money and hours cut even though there is loads needing maintaining. It is the beginning, I won't be travelling by train anytime soon. He said we need a disaster to get things back on track (excuse punn) maintenance wise.

1echidna

nearlynew wrote: »

If you look deep enough into it, you will find that every single war ever fought has been about money and the economy.

If you know what money "is" and how it is created, you will begin to understand.

UK plc may have made some money out of war in the past but mostly its wealth was built on the industrial revolution which was created by inovative production methods and processes. The scope for creating wealth by warfare has never been less, it is much more likely to impoverish, it is insecurity the populace would feel was the only justification for war. These days life and limb is regarded as more important than money by most and I think you insult people by saying that a decline in material standards of living would incline them to go to war in a vain hope of enriching themselves.

dopester

I once read a sci-fi book where the protagonist worked for a highly-advanced society (tech-wise).

The man known as Cheradenine Zakalwe was one of Special Circumstances' foremost agents, changing the destiny of planets to suit the Culture through intrigue, dirty tricks or military action.

In between the contracts he often took R&R leave amongst other humanoid societies, who had their own ways of doing things in their own time and through outlook of reality of circumstances.

One time was dropped on a planet where the entire society was mobile.

He wanted a simple life so built a shack in the dunes and spent months beach-combing.... (whilst he was out sometimes a few locals would come to his shack and walk around it.. in astonishment.. as if looking for wheels).

Homes which moved.. big trailer-style, and would sell the wares he found at the local town, which was forever in a state of change... everything moving about.. newcomers and others who'd left to other areas. The only sort of permanency being the police - health zone mobile areas.

nearlynew

1echidna wrote: »

UK plc may have made some money out of war in the past but mostly its wealth was built on the industrial revolution which was created by inovative production methods and processes. The scope for creating wealth by warfare has never been less, it is much more likely to impoverish, it is insecurity the populace would feel was the only justification for war. These days life and limb is regarded as more important than money by most and I think you insult people by saying that a decline in material standards of living would incline them to go to war in a vain hope of enriching themselves.

Whilst there is no doubt that this great country of ours has produced some of the finest talents and ingenuity the world has known, one must also acknowledge that none of the prosperity that resulted would have been possible without the colonisation and impoverishment of other countries.
But wars over resources are nothing new. Every war has been about resources
and, hence, the economy.

I would argue that the wealth that the empire brought allowed us to "fight above our weight" economically and the decline of the empire marked the beginning of the end of our way of life.
America, having taken over the baton, are themselves losing their grip on their "empire" and way of life

The end of every empire is charecterised by overexpansion, overindulgence and a mother country which has become lazy, greedy and decadent.
How will America respond to their plight?

Who knows. but it won't be pretty.
These things take a lot of time to play out but I believe we are living through what will be looked back on as a truly momentous period in history - on a par with the industrial revolution.

Degenerate

nearlynew wrote: »

Whilst there is no doubt that this great country of ours has produced some of the finest talents and ingenuity the world has known, one must also acknowledge that none of the prosperity that resulted would have been possible without the colonisation and impoverishment of other countries.

That's a left-wing myth. Whilst the British Empire did indeed exploit the resources of its subject nations, it did not impoverish them to do so. They were already impoverished, as this is the default state of non-developed nations, and all Britain did was take advantage of this to come in and exploit the material resources that these non-industrial societies were unable to utilise themselves. I'm not saying it was our finest hour, but I have to challenge the idea that somehow we should accept historical guilt for what we have, as if it was stolen from others. The truth is simply that we are rich because we had the earliest industrial revolution.

1echidna

nearlynew wrote: »

Whilst there is no doubt that this great country of ours has produced some of the finest talents and ingenuity the world has known, one must also acknowledge that none of the prosperity that resulted would have been possible without the colonisation and impoverishment of other countries.
But wars over resources are nothing new. Every war has been about resources
and, hence, the economy.

I would argue that the wealth that the empire brought allowed us to "fight above our weight" economically and the decline of the empire marked the beginning of the end of our way of life.
America, having taken over the baton, are themselves losing their grip on their "empire" and way of life

The end of every empire is charecterised by overexpansion, overindulgence and a mother country which has become lazy, greedy and decadent.
How will America respond to their plight?

Who knows. but it won't be pretty.
These things take a lot of time to play out but I believe we are living through what will be looked back on as a truly momentous period in history - on a par with the industrial revolution.

I accept a lot of what you say but feel the comment about every war being about resources is rather a sweeping generalisation, rather like saying all crime is about monetary gain. Some base emotions such as pride or religous bigotry may well have been the reason for some wars.