Welcome to the New World
- Shameless EU
- Happy Knifings And CCTV
- Welcome to the New World
Yes, the Credit Crunch is coming home to roost. Make no mistake, the recent events in the world financial markets have changed the world as we know it and it will never be the same again. Everybody has been affected by the turmoil in the financial markets, directly or indirectly. Rich and poor alike, in fact the rich have been hit so severely you can’t imagine. This recession will be a great equaliser.
Free market philosophy has a lot going for it, but at times like this you have to question the underlying wisdom of this approach. Purists would argue that we should let the markets sort themselves out but with the current downward spiral the obvious concern is that the world will rapidly disappear up its own backside. The economy is rapidly coming to a standstill. Banks won’t lend money to each other, yet alone you or me. The housing market is dead and woe betide car manufacturers.
At the moment we are in a surreal phase where life is going on as normal. Christmas is coming and the economies of the western world are still chugging along under the inertia of consumer spending, but what happens when the credit card bills arrive on the doormat in January? 2009 will be an uphill struggle for most, people will pull in their haunches and look to reduce their debt burden. Consumer spending will slow rapidly and profit warnings from manufacturers and service providers will be plentiful. Stocks will crash even more and the downward cycle will continue.
This recession has the potential to be deeper and longer than no other the world has ever known. Yet I sense hope; there is so much talent out there, so many hard working , diligent, talented individuals bursting with enthusiasm and innovation that I cannot see how the downturn can last too long. In addition, when recovery comes it will come in a way that has never happened before. The standard of education, communication and technology will enable the realisation of smart business ideas in a way and with a pace that has never been seen before. This time it will be an a truly global basis with more and more Third World nations participating. I truly believe the world will be a better place with harmony and cooperation taking place like never before.
I see China and India as major players, no longer emerging markets but powerhouses of the new global economy. Africa will also participate as there is so much untapped potential there. Turning the Sahara green will be the way to save the world from threats of global warming/climate change. The deforestation in the Amazon will be offset by the greening of the Sahara. True carbon offsetting. There will be a surplus of food and this can be used to make carbon neutral fuel. A totally renewable source of carbon fuel which is effectively solar energy. The new plants will extract carbon from the atmosphere, in exactly the same way as other plant life, but we will be revitalising an area of land that is totally wasted right now. Sea water irrigation and salt resistant crops is the answer!
I see a brave new world where communication and cooperation are key. Talented individuals will run their own businesses from the comfort of their own home/office whilst collaborating with their personal networks around the globe. They will employ a few key workers and a few more service operators, plumbers, builders, gardeners, nannys and the like.
This is the new business model for the 21st century and you IT savvy, creative, problem solvers out there are at the heart of it, you can change the world with your innovative ideas and communication skills. How many of you reading this are out of work right now, spending your waking hours searching the internet, looking for the right role? With approximately 200 people applying for the same role as you, you would be right in thinking that the job market is extremely competitive right now. Don’t worry, in the new world you will be masters of the Universe. You just have to find your niche!
Written by Pete Wilder · Filed Under Economy
Erm, I must have missed something here, you talk about “turning the Sahara green”, how exactly can this be done?
The Sahara is a desert for a reason: that very few plants are able to survive there in such arid, hot conditions.
Hi Douglas,
I can’t speak for Pete but my thoughts are that it would be possible to green the Sahara.
It isn’t a matter of finding plants that can thrive in such conditions but improving the conditions so a wider range of vegetation can survive there
If you look at the growth of deserts, it is usually caused by one or more of deforestation, unsustainable farming and over-grazing.
It would follow then that a co-ordinated programme of reforestation and sustainable farming could gradually turn back and reduce the deserts.
Hi Douglas
Christopher is right, it’s about improving the conditions so a wider range of vegetation can survive there.
No mean feat I agree but given resources, overtime this could be achieved through a combination of Civil and Genetic engineering. Libya and their ‘Great Man Made River’ project is a great example.
A very constructive projection of times ahead. I was directed to this site by Chris, a fellow-blogger from Blogcritics.
I think it will take some great innovation, on the scale of steam engine, discovery of oil as a main source of energy, the computer and the Internet – some major technological breakthrough, in short, to turn things around. The scenario of us descending to a more primitive way of life is too hard to stomach. There are lots of creative and innovative people out there. Something is bound to happen!
Hi Roger,
Thanks for stopping by, hope you like the place.
I believe technological developments such as nano-tech can and will relieve both energy issues and production issues in the not too distant future.
There’s more bloody oil underground on this planet than people can imagine.
It’s a matter of wresting power away from tree hugging lib schmucks and drill, baby, drill!
Not that it would necessarily be the solution to any of our energy problems, but beyond the established reserves we already know about, where exactly is this vast underground richness to be found?
What do you mean “our”?
Worry about your own energy needs. You have the North Sea already.
As the USA’s energy needs, there is an abundance of shale oil in the Rocky Mountain range and of course, the ANWR reserve. Then there are the untapped resources off both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
After that, you start drilling in the Arctic, what with the melted ice caps, provides a wonderful opportunity to explore that territory.
There’s enough oil for years. We just have to have the smarts and courage to get it.
But no, that would be too much to ask from tree hugger friendly twerps like Barry O. and his cohorts in Congress
By “our” I mean humanity, who do you mean, the USA you’re so fond of?
All the oil you mentioned in #8 is already known about. What you said was that there is more underground oil on this planet than “people can imagine”. More lip-flapping hyperbole on your part then.
Funny, I wasn’t aware that I was required to supply an exhaustive forecast of this planet’s oil reserves. Based on what I mentioned, that’s potentially a couple of hundred’s year’s worth of oil right there.
But of course, lib doomsayers as yourself secretly wish that such forecasts do not reach fruition. You would love to see powerful nations brought to their knees so everyone can exist in the same third world hell.
Humanity? That’s a laugh. “Humanity” to libs like you is to place all cultures, races, ethnicities, philosophies, etc, on the same moral plane.
You could at least try to remember what you are writing, David.
You said “There’s more bloody oil underground on this planet than people can imagine.” That obviously excludes all the oil we do know about, because that we can imagine. Doh!
I fear it is pointless to continue correcting your imaginings but:- I’m not a doomsayer. I support all efforts to deliver affordable energy to people but don’t think that we should leave pollution in the wake of the energy production process. I don’t want to see powerful nations brought to their knees and have never said anything along those lines ever. I don’t even know what a “moral plane” is but I tend to believe in equal but different not we’re all the same.
Thanks for your visits but at least try to connect with reality rather than all that stuff you make up and confuse with reality.
But David, concerning number 10. Is there any other way of doing it? What other plane ultimately is there?
David, I don’t know if you’re right about how much oil is still in the ground but I hope that you are. I guess it depends on the market price whether it is economical to extract or not. I am sure that we do not want to see a rapid rise in the price of oil like we saw in the middle of last year.
Regardless of how much oil is in the ground, it is still a finite amount and if it lasts 30, 50, 100 or a 1,000 years it is still not a limitless resource. Our children or our grandchildren or their children will need to exploit renewable energy resources in order to maintain and develop civilisation as we know it. Where is the harm in trying to develop these resources now?
Climate change is a fact, it’s happening right now before our eyes. The only question is – to what extent is it man made? Even if mankind’s contribution is minimal, we should still try to find carbon neutral sources of energy as opposed to fossil fuels.
It will be many years before we are self sufficient in renewable energy but one day we will have to be or instead we will return to a pre industrial revolution level of civilisation. In the meantime we can use the oil reserves you are referring to buy us the time to develop the technology.
“That obviously excludes all the oil we do know about, because that we can imagine. Doh!”
No, it doesn’t necessarily, but since you’ve lived your life taking obvious cues from lowbrow pop culture TV shows like the Simpsons, I can understand why your comprehension could be compromised.
What we don’t know is how much there is in those aforementioned places. I would prefer to think that the supplies are more than we can imagine.
You, on the other hand, can only think of the downside because you prefer to place your faith in the common man rather than in those in positions of great wealth and power. The common man waits to be led around by the nose, leading those lives of quiet desperation. Meanwhile, the world’s powerbrokers turn world events on a whim. That’s what I call admirable. Absolute power and control. When you’ve achieved that, you’ve achieved the power of a god.
of course you haven’t said certain things explicitly here, Christopher, but at some point in your life as a liberal leaning individual, such anti-corporate sentiments have had to creep into your thinking. Only tree hugger sympathizers cut to the pollution angle when considering national energy needs. You take the Al Gore route, instead of first thinking about what are the bottom line needs for survival and proceeding accordingly.
Personally, I’ll take my chances with a bit of dirty air rather than paying $10 for a gallon of gas.
“In the meantime we can use the oil reserves you are referring to buy us the time to develop the technology.”
I think that’s the accepted and most likely scenario for the future. But we have a few hundred years. That’s plenty of time.
“Meanwhile, the world’s powerbrokers turn world events on a whim. That’s what I call admirable. Absolute power and control. When you’ve achieved that, you’ve achieved the power of a god.”
You should be ashamed of yourself, David, unless of course you’re one of them. That’s the most un-American thing I’ve heard yet. Actually, it verges on megalomania, come to think of it. If you insist on this position, it discredits all your future comments.
Well, Roger, Machiavelli wrote a whole book on that very premise and he did pretty well with it, didn’t he?
Self-interest is not un-American.
“The world is choking on a glut of altruism”
Ayn Rand
David,
Forgive the harsh words I used. But I wasn’t referring to self-interest, I think – only to “the absolute power and control” thing, or “the power of a god,” if you like. I’m also aware that Ayn Rand was an atheist, and she subscribed to such a view (both in fiction and probably in real life, too.) I can understand and go along with her fictional universe – idealized in order to make very important statements. But I’m not about mistake her account with real life. Which isn’t to say that human mind is not godlike!
Don’t forget, too, the heroes of Ayn Rand’s universe: John Galt, Hank Rearden, et all! None compare to the movers and shakers of today. I’d like to refer to a piece on my own weblog, subtitled “Atlas Shrugged” revisited. Perhaps we can talk later.
Sorry, David. The following is the right link:
“Atlas Shrugged, revisited”.
Roger: I am aware of Rand’s views on those in power. I am also aware that her views were formed during her youth in Soviet Russia. That government was an example of power gone wrong, especially when it’s on record as having slaughtered millions of its own citizens.
Big corporations in the USA haven’t lowered themselves to that.
Rand was fixated on the ultimate and perfect ideal, the “god-like” figure of perfection.
I see that in a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffet, using American examples, and marvel at their achievement of amassing so much economic capital in their lives. With that capital comes power.
Roger: your article makes some compelling points. Where we differ is that I rarely, if ever, ponder moral ethics when it comes to taking part in building financial capital. My family does not break laws in the preservation of its considerable holdings. However, we do adopt a bunker-like “every man for himself” mentality and declare loyalty to our own flesh and blood only.
We, too, are undecided as to whether or not the Obama admin’s investments of taxpayer dollars into shoring up big business will work. I am willing to support that gamble because you never achieve prosperity without taking major risks. I can safely say that I am not a fiscal conservative.
I must admit you’re being very honest, David; not many people would own up what you just said concerning you and yours (even if they were of the same mind). But that’s in fact how wealth has traditionally accumulated, in families.
As regards Ayn Rand, though, I think it’s rather apparent that her notion of an industrial hero and a true leader is inseparable from very strict ethics – some would say, very harsh ethics (i.e., it was inseparable from making a superior product which would benefit to society and reaping their just reward, not “just making money.” And my critique of the present business climate was that we had gotten away from those ideals.
I’ll grant you one thing: prosperity is essential for the preservation of our way of life, our freedoms, culture and civilization. So I’m definitely all for it – but prosperity in a true sense, not in overinflated terms and bubbles.
David, I am delighted to see that, under Roger’s calming influence, you have started to converse rather than berate. Thank you for that.
I quite like the work of Ayn Rand myself, although i don’t buy into all her ideas, particularly with regard to altruism, which I regard as innate to humanity.
In general terms I agree with David that moral ethics should rarely be a consideration in building one’s own wealth, as that, for most people, is simply a matter of investment.
However, when it comes to running a business, I think ethics are unavoidable to some varying degree. After all, it takes a certain amount of ethical commitment in the first place to do honest business.
I am glad, Christopher, for making the proper distinction – between accumulating wealth, that is, and running a business. The second would seem to require some kind of ethic.
But I hold a similar position when it comes to the relationship between a just State and its constituents: it should be endowed with certain ethic and mutual trust.
As long as people do not project liberal sentiments or a liberal agenda, I will treat them with consideration and respect.
That’s right, I don’t have any friends that I consider liberal. I don’t find them at all sane or worthy of my time.
If you said you despised conservatives and that their very presence made you ill, I would fully understand.
That kind of harsh and uncompromising social view I can appreciate.
Well, Christopher, I am not a “going along to get along” kind of individual.
I prefer my misanthropic social view.
I hope it keeps you warm at night.
David,
I admit you’re a hard nut to crack; I give you credit, though, for being honest – more so than most commentators I run across. And because you’re being honest, I think this dialog is worth continuing.
Think, though. Isn’t the main reason you feel so comfy and cozy with your views because (by streak of good luck, hard work, what have you) you’re pretty much insulated from “the quiet desperation of the common man” you spoke of earlier? God forbid what would happen if you and yours would loose your good fortune. That’s why you can dismiss so readily all those who do not share your world view (and expect the same attitude of all others, how could you not? Christopher including); I doubt, however, that Christopher shares this contemptuous view of those who disagree with him.
But wouldn’t you rather try to conceptualize the world not just around your particular situation – which may remain as is or which may just as likely change – but in terms of all possibilities: past, present, and future; all perspectives and points of view. That’s truly a godlike vision if there ever was one; so why not go for it, if you can.
I wouldn’t bring it up, but it was you, remember, who spoke of having powers like a god. Well, what’s wrong, then, with trying to measure up?
Just food for thought.
Roger, I could be down to my last penny and I would not modify my views. I would also rather perish than accept one scrap of charity from a stranger.
You’re suggesting a level of personal reflection that I as a conservative would never indulge. If my family lost everything we would figure out a way to survive because that’s what Jews do. We are the toughest and most resilient race on the planet and we have history to back up that claim. We comprise less than 1% of the world’s population yet we lead the world’s business, scientific, and arts communities.
I spoke of having powers of a god when one has reached a level of a Warren Buffet, a Bill Gates, or a George Soros. I am nowhere near that and never will be.
“Climate change is a fact, it’s happening right now before our eyes. The only question is – to what extent is it man made? Even if mankind’s contribution is minimal, we should still try to find carbon neutral sources of energy as opposed to fossil fuels.”
Why? You haven’t supplied a good enough reason not to.
The only thing that’s “fact’ here is that a collective of anti-corporate useful idiots conscripted by Al Gore’s brigade have hoodwinked enough unthinking dolts into buying the hysteria over this and for what end? Power and control.
Hi David
Climate change is a fact. Glaciers are melting all over the planet, we are in what’s known as an Interglacial period. From Wiki:
‘The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.’
I don’t think anybody in the scientific community would dispute this.
Why should we find carbon neutral sources of energy?
1 Fossil fuels are limited and will run out one day. We will have to find alternative renewable fuels one day so why not start now?
2 Fossil fuels are a carbon sink. Releasing these resources into the atmosphere will tend to exacerbate any man made warming effect. The danger is that we may be close to some kind of tipping point, a point of no return where the planet uncontrollably lurches towards rapid melting of the ice caps causing sea water levels to rise and much of the land mass to disappear.
Of course, it may be the case that our contribution is negligible and one major volcanic eruption of Krakatoa proportions could release more greenhouse gas than we could produce in a century.
Nevertheless, it makes sense to reduce our emmissions, at least until the whole phenomena is better understood.
Re #30, David:
Buffet Soros, Gates – I bet they’ll be first to say they’re mere mortals. I don’t believe they’re delusional. I appreciate, however, your frankness in this dialogue. And I do hope that someday you might want to reflect deeper than you’re presently ready to do. I think I also appreciate the premium that the Jewish people place on survival. To my mind, it’s a burden I wouldn’t want to bear, and I believe I’m free of it. That could be one reason why are views are so divergent.
Good talking to you, David, until next time.
“Climate change is a fact. …
I don’t think anybody in the scientific community would dispute this.”
You don’t read very extensively, do you? For every hysteric that says it’s getting warmer, there’s a report claiming it’s getting colder, or that nothing is being adversely affected.
Sobering COMMON SENSE examinations
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
Conclusion: Global warming hysterics are like religious hysterics claiming that doomsday is inevitable because some book of ancient folktales tells them so.
You’re all a joke.
Roger: my credo is “hope for the best, expect the worst.”
David,
My last comment concerning hope did not refer to the future state of affairs, only to a possible change in your outlook. No man is an island. And if the Hebrew God demands such a harsh view of life on the part of his children, than I must say it’s a cruel God indeed and I want no part of it.
I hate the word “altruism” because it is so phoney, appealing to nothing more than a gesture (akin in my mind to a kind of atonement for one’s sins). On the other hand, the notion of sympathy is a very healthy and normal human emotion and response. Don’t forget that Adam Smith himself, the presumptive father of laissez faire, thought of sympathy (The Theory of Moral Sentiments)as the necessary counterbalancing element.
Again, the best of luck to you and yours.
Hi David, re: #33.
I had meant to reply sooner but I’ve been laid up with a nasty dose of the flu. On the mend now so just wanted to get nack to you on this one.
I thought I made my position quite clear i.e. man’s contribution to climate change is unknown, it’s possible that the impact of man burning fossil fuels is negligible but you have to accept the possibility that it might not be.
Anyway, I guess you knew that already and were just trying to be controversial.
I think he gave up, Pete. Perhaps ran out of answers.
Now you believe that every pithy thought or question that pops out of your pie hole deserves a response?
{The rest of this comment by David Black was nothing but personal insults and has been deleted by the publisher}
I thankfully live in a country like the United States that still believes in free speech.
What a shame you people don’t. Too bad for you.
I’ve been trying to converse with you, David, all along. Don’t say I haven’t.
Yes, you have, Roger. Does that deserve a prize? I’ve stated my disinterest in pseudo-academic discourse from a leftist perspective, but it seems that’s all you people are concerned with, in addition to that antiquated British obsession with manners.
Global warming theory is based on junk science with the goal to punish Big Corporations, free market commerce, and the world’s Haves. I can’t make it any clearer than that. The fact that I am the only person posting to this blog to challenge these fantasies is not lost on me. It’s equally as pathetic as the publisher of this blog denying he’s a leftist, after he expresses his sympathies for the Have-Nots of the world and fails to challenge global warming theory.
I poke holes in your pretensions and it makes you people uncomfortable.
David,
If you recall – and look at the thread if you like – our talk had nothing to do with the above. I have no stake in the issue you’re here discussing, so don’t make me guilty by association.
There are far more important matters than “global warming,” in my humble opinion. And that’s regardless of my own position on this matter (which, again, if you look at the thread, I haven’t expressed).
Roger, unfortunately David Black is so in love with his opinions and is so complacent that the basics of such fundamentals as logic, reason and manners are beyond him. All he knows is how to make insults, but the impression he leaves is of a very angry and insecure old man. Sad, really.
Christopher: Anything is preferable to being a liberal and not owning up to it, as in your case.
Lapses in “logic,” in your interpretation, is failing to give credence to liberal viewpoints.
Liberal viewpoints have no logic, only bleeding heart emotionalism.
What does it say about a person who would rather show their support for the Have Nots of the world than with Haves?
Let’s see, choosing between losers and winners, I’ll choose winners every time.
That’s how you succeed in life.
You know, Chris, I really tried to reach him and for a while I thought I could. I had no idea people like that existed. I’m really sorry for David. I wouldn’t be in his shoes for all the money in the world.
Roger: perhaps you should stop living in that fairy tale existence of yours if you didn’t know people like me were around.
Have you led that sheltered a life? Perhaps you should go live in a war zone for a few years and learn what life is all about.
David,
You would not want to match my exposure to the world and my experiences with yours, believe me. And yes – you are a heck of an exception whether you realize it or not.
Furthermore, if you kind of experiences you had gone through formed you into the human being that you are, then by all means, I will pass. I want no part of it. You’re talking and living the life of a victim, and you had better realize that. So no, thank you. I’d shoot myself in the head rather than live one day in your shoes, and I mean it sincerely. But I do wish you the best.
Oh please, there are plenty of individuals of every race, ethnicity, or culture, with my political views. You make it seem as if conservatism is a political anomaly. You suggest that Zionism isn’t prevalent.
I’ll tell you this, in America, for example, there are people telling me everyday on other blogs that I’m not conservative enough.
Victimhood? In lieu of facts, you resort to armchair psychiatry. How convenient for you, Roger. Would you care to explain the rationale for your “analysis”?
It’s just like your blog, Roger, you can’t resist trying to explain everything to others and most likely, yourself.
Some things are just unworthy of explanation. They exist and that’s all that should matter.
The world is a foul and festering sty. Evidence proves it. Trying to figure out why is a fruitless pursuit.
Academics, for the most part, bore me to death. I spent four years in an expensive American university of high repute and learned this … academe doesn’t attempt to teach practical survival skills. It attempts to brainwash and influence gullible youth into becoming counterculture stooges who should tear down traditional institutions and replace them with a new “progressive” social and economic order. That’s the way it was in the 60s and 70s and it’s really no different now.
You are a product of that brainwashing effect. You believe that everything deserves analysis to the n th degree lest you be branded a simple minded anti-intellectual fool.
It’s the same mindset compelled foolish government leaders to endlessly ponder the nature of evil in the world instead of simply resolving to destroy it at all cost.
There are so many fake intellectuals in this world and many of them occupy the blogosphere.
I really don’t care to waste time thinking about why certain cultures hate Israel and America. That time should be devoted to thinking about how to destroy and defeat them.
Thankfully, the Likud Party still runs Israel and we can look forward to no pansy-assed responses from Israel in the face of continued terrorist aggression against Israel’s right to exist..
I’m not referring to your political views, David. I couldn’t care less about that – only to the figure you cut as a human being. Consider a quote from above:
“Roger, I could be down to my last penny and I would not modify my views. I would also rather perish than accept one scrap of charity from a stranger.”
Really, David. Wonder what your response would have been if you were in Auschwitz or some other such place. And don’t tell me now that your responses do not suffer from a victim’s mentality.
I can’t blame you, because we are who we are and so some extent product of our experiences – only suggest that you take a closer look at the kind of person you are.
For all your views, David, and wealth, believe me, I don’t envy you in the least. As far as I am concerned, you are a miserable human being and cut a very sorry figure.
And no, I don’t believe in Zionism. It’s an idee fixe – the entire history of the Jewish people has been one of constant suffering. It’s far from healthy as human psychology goes and no – definitely not my cup of tea.
There’s nothing wrong, besides, in asking questions and trying to understand life – if only to come to terms with oneself. “Unexamined life,” David, as Socrates was purported to say, “is not worth living,” and I don’t have to justify myself to you in this respect; just as you need not justify to me your sense of self-abnegation.
I’ll bring a colleague of mine (also a Zionist) into this conversation just to see whether I’m totally off the wall in my assessment of you, whether you’re really the kind of exception I consider you to be. Perhaps you and him might come to some terms here. Till later, then.
Roger