Uma boa explicação para a crise mais recente.
Se é verdade, não sei. Mas está bem explicadinho. Via Ciência ao Natural.
The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.
segunda-feira, março 30, 2009
Subscrever:
Enviar feedback (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Há tretas que me incomodam. É aqui que desabafo.
Preços
Ingredientes
- religião (509)
- ciência (396)
- cepticismo (330)
- copyright (322)
- política (241)
- amendoins (238)
- ética (238)
- criacionismo (214)
- gozo (192)
- eu (190)
- ateísmo (180)
- filosofia (135)
- digital (57)
- aborto (53)
- argolada (51)
- sarcasmo (51)
- tecnologia (39)
- mente (12)
- blinologia (11)
- politica (9)
- COVID19 (5)
- gertrudismo (5)
Gaveta das tretas
-
▼
2009
(295)
-
▼
março
(32)
- Umbigologia.
- Uma boa explicação para a crise mais recente.
- Evolução: compaixão e ética.
- 300
- Treta da semana: pio, salpico e opúsculo.
- Justiça ou caridade.
- Financiar a criatividade, parte 1: pagar o que pre...
- Ah, ele é isso?
- Cultura
- A propósito
- A instrumentalização do futebol.
- A ilusão da propriedade intelectual.
- Instrumentalizar a sexualidade.
- Treta da semana: a avaliação das escolas.
- Adenda ao post anterior.
- Deve estar a interpretar...
- Interpretando.
- Evolução: conceitos, modelos, hipóteses e factos.
- Legal, 5.
- Treta da Semana: Filtrar a Internet.
- Miscelânea criacionista: Dissonância cognitiva.
- O problema é a partilha de ficheiros.
- Porque sim e porque não.
- Bom e barato, VIII
- “Indústria cultural”.
- Treta da Semana: O ADN telepata.
- Roubaram o carro do Tózé Brito (ou como que, segun...
- Metáfora... mas de quê?
- O julgamento dos piratas.
- Darwin na FCT.
- Mais Mamadus.
- Treta da Semana: os Mamadus.
-
▼
março
(32)
O que leio por cá
- A. Ateísta Portuguesa
- Abobrinha
- ArchiTruques
- Arundel
- Blasfémias
- Ciência ao Natural
- Companhia dos Filósofos
- Criacionismo e Evolução
- Crónica da Ciência
- De Rerum Natura
- Diário Ateísta
- Espectadores
- Esquerda Republicana
- Joaninha Voa Voa
- KrippArt
- Lusodinos
- Lógica do Sabino
- Portal Ateu
- Radiante
- Random Precision
- Remixtures
- Ricardo.pt
- Terra Que Gira
O que leio por lá
Quem escreve isto
Sim foi mais ou menos isto. Está bem explicadinho. Já o tinha visto no Blasfémias.
ResponderEliminarNo doubt an illuminating, well designed and narrated video, but ...
ResponderEliminar... it does not address the root of the problem, the Fractional-reserve banking system, where bankers and economists think they can violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by generating money out of nothing (i.e. from debt). This looks like a huge pyramid scheme. Besides, what is happening now is not really new, what is new is the global scale of the problem and the next time a crunch occurs it will be even worse (unless globalization ends). In the end Nature can never be fooled, which will then hit you quite hard.
This video explains that quite well: "Money as debt", it is a bit long (about 47 min) but it is quite enjoyable to watch and you'll have a good overview of how banks work and came to be the way they are now.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws", said in 1838 by Amschel Meyer Rothschild (1773-1855), banker.
"unless globalization ends"
ResponderEliminarHydrofluoric
how do you propose to end globalization?
Cristy
Está bem explicado, mas falta a parte toda da política: em meados dos anos 90, o Governo de Washington criou, por motivos políticos, as condições legais para permitir empréstimos sem garantias. É claro que quem pôde (pessoas que sabiam não ter dinheiro para casas, bancos, agentes imobiliários e investidores) se aproveitou da situação. What else is new? Mas cabe ao governo a responsabilidade por permitir - e até fomentar - estes desenvolvimentos.
ResponderEliminarCristy
Another doom-n-gloom freak. Hey Hydro, how's peak oil goin' for ya, huh? :p
ResponderEliminarMais um bom artigo aqui. Na minha modesta.
ResponderEliminarEles de facto criam dinheiro (i.e. papel) mas não riqueza: essa riqueza virtual existe enquanto todos acreditarem que o dinheiro vale alguma coisa.
ResponderEliminarTalvez isso seja mais fácil numa sociedade que estava habituada ao padrão do ouro.
HF,
ResponderEliminar«it does not address the root of the problem, the Fractional-reserve banking system»
Thanks for the video link. A bit on the conspiracy-theory side, but quite elucidating.
However, I don't share their pessimism. I think the way that system works is a reflection of the decreasing importance of money, and its decreasing correlation to wealth in the broader sense of well-being, comfort, life expectancy, education, etc.
Note what happened in the crysis of '29, and compare that to, for example, Iceland going bankrupt. Despite the financial tragedy of a whole country going bankrupt there is none, or very little, of the personal tragedy of the past.
"Despite the financial tragedy of a whole country going bankrupt there is none, or very little, of the personal tragedy of the past."
ResponderEliminarLudi:
That applies only to the industrialized countries. The fall-out for the rest of the world has already started: immigrants who are losing their jobs and are thus unable to send back money to their families are just a first symptom of what this crisis will mean for those in countries that are not as wealthy as ours (or protected by powerful structures like the EU, in the case of Portugal).
Isto de "falar" em inglês contigo é um pouquinho estranho :-)
Cristy
«I think the way that system works is a reflection of the decreasing importance of money»
ResponderEliminarHow come, doctor Lud Wig? People keep asking for more and more, and yes, i mean iPhones and stuff.
Also wish Cristy wasn't right. As for the Iceland case, they may well sink in bankruptcy as shiny gentlemen because there is bankruptcy and there is bankruptcy. Ask my cousin Parente, he's on the charity branch of economics.
(my best wishes to cousin Parente :)
António Parente is right.
ResponderEliminarWe are delighted with your comments.
Go on Cristy!
try never talk in portuguese agein nor about religion related things!
Bruce (and Cristy)
ResponderEliminar«As for the Iceland case, they may well sink in bankruptcy as shiny gentlemen»
I agree that financial crises are a big problem in poor countries, as they were in the past when all countries were, to today's standards, poor. Meaning, countries where the main function of what money existed was to provide the basic needs of most people. Food, housing, water, etc.
But nowadays there are many countries where only a small fraction of money goes into these things and most money goes to stuff like entertainment, luxuries and ISO-9000 consulting. In these countries "finantial crysis" mostly means "something to fill news hours with and sell more advertising".
And although I agree that we need to take special care with those countries that are not in the same situation, it is also the case that more and more people are living in ways such that little of the money they have is actually needed.
«In these countries "finantial crysis" mostly means "something to fill news hours with and sell more advertising".»
ResponderEliminarCan you repeat, please?
"try never talk in portuguese agein nor about religion related things!"
ResponderEliminarCaro Nuno Gaspar,
lamento profundamente ter que desiludi-lo. Já deve ter reparado que so opositora da postura católica muito bem representada pelo seu Papa e obviamente adoptada por de que a mulher não tem voto na matéria, e que só deve falar quando lho permitem. Pelo contrário, reconheço o direito a livre expressão a todos, o que o inlcui a si e a mim.
Cristy
Caro António Parente,
ResponderEliminaré evidente que sim, e fico muito contente com o que anunciou. Mas permita-me que aguarde um bocadinho até acreditar plenamente, a ver se desta vez vai mesmo passar das palavras á prática. É que se recomeçar a atacar aqui alguém pela sua aparência física e coisas assim - que foi onde começou a tal turbulência entre nós - não respondo por mim. É mais forte do que eu, muito mais tratando-se do meu maninho.
Cristy
Nuno Gaspar,
ResponderEliminar«Can you repeat, please?»
Até posso dizer em portuguÊs :)
A minha hipótese é que o sofrimento total que esta crise financeira causa nos países como os da UE (industrializados, ricos e com sistemas públicos que protegem os cidadãos destas coisas) é inferior ao sofrimento causado pelos acidentes de automóvel nos mesmos países e no mesmo período. Essa é a minha percepção da escala da crise aqui onde vivo.
É claro que fora destes países os efeitos serão maiores. Precisamente porque aínda há muitos sítios onde a maior parte dos rendimentos das pessoas são necessários para sobreviver. No entanto, também aí a crise será um problema relativamente menor quando comparada aos outros (guerra, doenças, miséria generalizada...).
Parece-me por isso infeliz que se dê tanta atenção ao momento de crise e tão pouca aos problemas circundantes...
"No entanto, também aí a crise será um problema relativamente menor quando comparada aos outros (guerra, doenças, miséria generalizada...)."
ResponderEliminarLudi,
sim, mas o problema é que esta crise - aliás, qualquer crise ou mesmo só a desculpa de uma crise - tende a agravar todos esses problemas que tu citáste. E quem se lixa, para variar, é o mexilhão. E são muitos, muitos mexilhões, mesmo que o seu número seja menor agora do que há 50 anos.
Cristy
Caro António Parente,
ResponderEliminarde acordo.
Cristy
Ludwig,
ResponderEliminarAquilo que diz faz sentido para quem trabalha ne função pública, onde a ameaça de desemprego é menor. Se trabalhasse numa empresa privada, onde o seu posto de trabalho depende de muitas coisas que não apenas a antiguidade e um contrato de trabalho, entre as quais a viabilidade da empresa determinada também pelas condições da economia do país e do mundo, julgo que falaria de outra maneira. Seja na Europa ou noutro continente.
É necessário falar nesta crise por muitas razões. Uma delas é que implica uma mudança no estilo de vida e nos valores das pessoas, das empresas e dos estados.
Não mais viver acima das suas possibilidades. Não mais gastar mais do que aquilo que se tem. Não mais comprar com o dinheiro que penso que vou ganhar um dia. Não mais parecer do que ser.
Se não aprendermos a lição desta vez, a crise seguinte levará por completo o que restar desta.
Ó António Parente,
ResponderEliminarCuidado! Quando menos esperar tem uma faca espetada nas costas...
Nuno Gaspar,
ResponderEliminar«Aquilo que diz faz sentido para quem trabalha ne função pública, onde a ameaça de desemprego é menor»
Não... faz sentido em qualquer país onde perder o desemprego está longe de ser tão mau como ter um acidente de viação. Em contraste com outros países onde perder o emprego é uma sentença de morte.
É essa a diferença que estou a apontar. E se bem que reconheça que é só em alguns países que perder o emprego não significa que a família vai morrer à fome ou passar a viver na rua, parece-me que, a longo prazo, caminhamos para uma economia onde o capital tem cada vez menos importância. Não sei como é que será essa economia, mas parece-me que quando este sistema financeiro finalmente colapsar o impacto será muito menor do que se julga.
Ludwig,
ResponderEliminar«faz sentido em qualquer país onde perder o desemprego está longe de ser tão mau como ter um acidente de viação»
Você faz cada comparação!!...
Nota-se que lhe está a fugir o pé para temas que conhece pouco. Não se preocupe. Está-se a ver que de economia sabe mais quem tem consciência de que não pode saber muito. Uma humildade necessária a muitas ciências (ou à ciência, como gosta de dizer). Você tem que começar a ler Nassim Nicholas Taleb em voz alta nas suas aulas.
António Parente,
ResponderEliminarPor mim tudo bem.
Embora eu não achasse que houvesse assim um clima hostil entre nós que justificasse esse afirmar de tréguas, pois para isso teria que haver uma "guerra" que acho que não houve.
Cristy,
ResponderEliminarThat was just a conditional remark (in parenthesis), I did not propose the end of globalization. History cannot be stopped regardless of what humans wish or legislate. But it is quite easy to predict when globalization will end, it will be when the low entropy energy we are currently addicted to becomes too expensive.
Last year when a barrel of oil reached nearly $150 USD (futures markets) many companies started to shift previously delocalized production (mainly to China) back to their home countries. The cost of transporting the goods, even in the huge container ships, became a significant percentage in the final cost of the products. People think History will stop when everybody has democracy, education, a comfortable life. Just another delusion, the current civilization is just a thin layer made with cheap energy.
LK,
ResponderEliminar> However, I don't share their pessimism. I think the way that system
> works is a reflection of the decreasing importance of money, and its
> decreasing correlation to wealth in the broader sense of well-being,
> comfort, life expectancy, education, etc.
There something people tend to (understandably) forget, all that wealth, comfort, education, etc. requires *a lot* of energy. Regarding the decreasing correlation between money and wealth I presume you are referring to the welfare state, only available in some countries, but even that requires a lot of cheap energy (usually plundered from other not so lucky countries).
Many people think that technology will solve all the problems without realizing that, first, technology is itself extremely energy hungry, and second, even with huge supplies of cheap energy it is very difficult to design and make even moderately complex things to work reliably. The success rate in the semiconductor industry is quite low (chip designs that actually end up in profitable production), despite huge capital investments. The failure rate of NASA probe launches to the planet Mars is nearly 30%. People that work in these areas know the limits of technology, people who don't have too much faith that technology will solve all the problems. And besides, it also creates a lot of problems (that are usually ignored).
Saudy Arabia is one of the countries included in the G20 (Greedy 20) meeting in London this week, why do you think they are there?
> Note what happened in the crysis of '29, and compare that to, for
> example, Iceland going bankrupt. Despite the financial tragedy of a
> whole country going bankrupt there is none, or very little, of the
> personal tragedy of the past.
Iceland is a very small country (< 5e5 people) and was lucky enough to have the support of their very rich Nordic brothers (specially Norway and Sweden). But even so the usually peaceful Icelandic people took to the streets and the government fell. In the USA if the government had not inject nearly a trillion dollars to avoid the collapse of big banks and insurance/pension funds companies, the whole of the banking/financial system would have collapsed. They are literally trying to borrow their way out of this crisis. Where is all that money coming from? A lot of it from China.
HF,
ResponderEliminar« Regarding the decreasing correlation between money and wealth I presume you are referring to the welfare state»
Not quite. If I earned just enough to survive, my wellbeing would be tightly correlated to variations in my income.
But as a middle-class guy in Portugal my long-term wellbeing is more dependent on friends and family, whether I exercise or grow too fat, the fulfillment I get from my job and hobbies and so forth than from my salary, which could vary quite a bit without impacting greatly on how happy I am with my life.
And I'm guessing for my grandchildren the effect will even be greater.
I do understand that our current way of living depends on burning non-renewable energy sources. And that will soon change. But that will probably mean better public transportation, more nuclear power plants and maybe less bananas from Costa Rica (or nuclear cargo ships...).
LK,
ResponderEliminarNo doubt that good relations with friends, family and the nearby community should be far more important than worshiping money.
The problem are expectations and indoctrination. In a world where people are indoctrinated to expect continual growth, where success should imply more and more money which will then make you more "free" and "happy" (because you can buy all that stuff) then other people have expectations towards you even if you don't like it. You might be lucky enough to live in a small community where people are well educated enough as to be immune to that kind of indoctrination.
Off to London now, plenty of action there tomorrow to "undoctrinate" people ;-)
Hydrofluoric,
ResponderEliminarmy bad, then, but it was a genuine question.
I do share your worries about the energy problem. But in spite of being a born skeptical, I am confident that solutions will be found. People have always managed to that when it comes to finding a way not only to survive, but to imrpove their lives (at least the lives of some). I am less confident, though that these solutions will not be at the expense of the poor - because unfortunately that is also lesson taught to us by History.
Cristy
HF,
ResponderEliminar«No doubt that good relations with friends, family and the nearby community should be far more important than worshiping money.»
Not quite what I meant... I wasn't making a value judgement but a statement of fact.
For people who have very little money even a small change in income means a large change in quality of life. This regardless of whether they value money for itself, but as a consequence of them needing it to survive and feed their children.
But those who have some money, and you don't need a lot -- most people in industrialized countries are in this category -- changes in income have a lower impact on the quality of life than many other unrelated factors.
And I think there is a trend in this direction. More and more people will be in that category in the future, less susceptible to financial crises.
Eu sabia. O HF é um peak oiler. Como é que eu os distingo tão bem!!
ResponderEliminarHF, good fortune for you and don't waste your time with peak oil doom nonsense anymore.
E enquanto existe o perigo real de entrarmos numa segunda grande depressão, bem, tudo o que é bom acaba, mas assim igualmente tudo o que é mau.
> Not quite what I meant... I wasn't making a value judgement but a
ResponderEliminar> statement of fact.
In complex human behaviour it is quite difficult to separate facts from the value judgements that lead to them.
>
> For people who have very little money even a small change in income
> means a large change in quality of life. This regardless of whether
> they value money for itself, but as a consequence of them needing it
> to survive and feed their children.
If money is important for their survival then it is hard to see how they will not value money and because they are very sensitive to small variations of income they will tend to value it even further. Similarly a pet animal will value its owner because he/she feeds it, the owner is the pet's "money".
> But those who have some money, and you don't need a lot -- most people
> in industrialized countries are in this category -- changes in income
> have a lower impact on the quality of life than many other unrelated
> factors.
I understood quite well what you meant, i.e., richer people have lower sensitivity to variations in their income but my point was that debt is not wealth creation and if governments have to print a lot of bank notes to make up for this debt money (quantitative easing) then your money starts to become worthless and you'll start sliding from middle-class to a lower class..
> And I think there is a trend in this direction. More and more people
> will be in that category in the future, less susceptible to financial
> crises.
You seem to have an unbounded faith on human progress, as if it were a
one way arrow pointing upwards.
Unfortunately I don't have any reasons to believe that the recent run of 150 years of constant "progress" and growth, coincident with the era of cheap energy, will last forever. Yes, science and technology do progress in a cumulative way but humans do not progress, at most they evolve (very slowly). Sooner or later History will resume its normal course, which for humans means a lot of more wars and famines. The flawed idea that humans should be set apart from other animals and Nature itself seems to be shared by both Western religions (Christianity and Islam) and humanists.
BR,
ResponderEliminarYour level of indoctrination is so high that denial is the only escape from having to acknowledge the harsh reality-based evidence. Not much different from the wishful practices of religious people.
When I worked for StatOil the good thing about reality was not doing the geological prospecting, the gathering of seismic wave time series, getting the complex autocorrelation matrices, doing the singular value decomposition, performing the FFT on the obtained noise subspace eigenvalues and then looking at the produced pseudo-spectrum trying to spot the elusive signature of oil reservoirs underground. The good thing was talking to people that had been travelling all around the world trying to find new oil wells.
Hydrofluoric,
ResponderEliminarYour level of indoctrination is so high that denial is the only escape from having to acknowledge the harsh reality-based evidence. Not much different from the wishful practices of religious people.
That's funny, because I was just thinking exactly the same of you. It does help me to understand perfectly where you come from. And it's also no news to me that you have worked in an oil company. I've seen and talked to a lot of people that came from that area. Funny thing is, people take anecdotal evidence around them as confirmatory of their own prejudices. Thus, I know people in the field that are desperately trying to convince others that we are just about falling off a cliff, due to the evidence they gathered. Others are pointing out the huge glut we are due ahead to have, a la 1970s.
I am skeptical of both, of course, but the doom'n gloom position has indeed been akin to a religion, a kind of a 21st century marxist pseudo-"reasonable" take on reality, that is anything but. Your dreams of returning to a Eden-era of "harmony" with nature is the religious one, not mine. To return to such an era is easy. It is soldiering on in progress that is hard.
> I've seen and talked to a lot of people that came from that area.
ResponderEliminar>Funny thing is, people take anecdotal evidence around them as
> confirmatory of their own prejudices.
It is quite clear that not only you are lying but also don't have a clue what you are talking about.
You could have avoided this embarrassment by being less lazy and actually doing some research on peer reviewed literature. You don't know how to do it? Ok, don't worry, I'll tell you: "Google Scholar, get me peer reviewed literature on oil depletion"
Hydro, I'm not embarrassed by ignorance, and always glad for someone to point me out where I could learn more. And no, I am no liar on these subjects, I'm slightly more versed than you might guess.
ResponderEliminarHaving said all this, Colin Campbell, Mathew Simmons, Hirsch and all the major peak oil advocates / researchers are no news to me. Been there done that. I'm not even denying that there will be an oil peak. That's obvious. In most OECD countries, they've passed that peak already, and so will the world.
What really puts me off in your position is the sureness of the demise of industrial civilization due to peak oil, which depends upon assumptions that are far less evident than you would suggest.
But that has always have been the problem with the prophets of doom. Peak Oil has been preached as the endgame since the 70s, with the infamous Carter speech as a good symbol of it. Mad Max was unavoidable and we would get there in the 80s.
We didn't. But that doesn't stop the very same people crying wolf every single year.
It doesn't matter though. Technology needed to get us through a world with less oil is already in the pipelines, and oil demand is quite elastic in the long run.
Este comentário foi removido pelo autor.
ResponderEliminar