World on the verge of an economic collapse says Soros

reply to post by ExCommando


www.watoday.com.au...

TextAustralia needed a sovereign wealth fund to store mining income while it lasted, ideally stored in a separate account for each taxpayer so the government could not raid it.

So they dont raid it like the government in the US did our Social Security funds.

Well, they are right, it is a slow moving train wreck. And really all their "we can inflate this, or deflate that" stuff isnt going to help in the long run because of the structural flaw.

We need to just let it all go, and see what we can salvage once the dust settles. What I find maddening is that they are trying to heed off the collapse, totally ignoring that the game is destined to collapse, and wondering why they are watching a slow motion train wreck. They still have some delusion that things can continue as they were, and, they cant. Its not possible for the whole world to consume like the first world was. It cant possibly happen.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Delusion, indeed. Either that or they are convinced that their efforts to circumvent a meltdown will work. Problem is the same underlying factor that has, and continues, to ruin the economic and financial landscapes is what is also, incidentally, thwarting governments' and central banks' efforts to stimulate correct world economies - and that imo is greed.

Anyway I think Australia's social security is different to that of the US and UK too I think. In that, Australians do not have to pay into their future pensions or welfare benefits while working. Australians can pay voluntarily into their superannuation (which are also retirement funds) but they don't have to - employers legally have to though. However, Australian workers are probably taxed a little higher and these taxes go into funding welfare and pensions for anyone who claims and is assessed as entitled to these.

I don't like Jim because he mostlkely was in on this and caused it!

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Its not possible for the whole world to consume like the first world was. It cant possibly happen.

That is the undeniable fact of that matter.

The suburban sprawls, like the one in which I lived at designed for one main purpose, and that is consumption.

Industries are concentrated, not because it increases efficiency, but because it drives up the price of homes. Concentrations of population means wider roads, more traffic, people constantly driving long distances, which means buy more gas, putting more miles on their vehicles leading to wearing them out faster, constantly paying high interest rates on new vehicles, insurance, all that.

Everything we buy is designed to fail, the quality continues to decline.

All this serves to enrich the bankers.

Ah, but when the oil runs out, as is happening right now, Trillions of dollars of assets will become worthless. We will have to completely change our infrastructure.

The end of easy to get quality crude will change everything, that is the slow moving train wreck.

Is a 'one world' currency such a bad thing?

For the past 60 years, the'one world' currency has been the US DOollar, which has contributed to the US Military industrial complex, the furthering of the US Empire, etc.

Investors think the US Dollar is toast, and recommend the IMF's "SDR's"




www.theatlantic.com...

Sep 8, 1970 Start Page: C8 Pages: 2 Text Word Count: 609 Abstract (Document Summary) The International Monetary Fund (IMF) today declared that failure by the United States to control inflation could have serious implications for the world economy and the sound functioning of the international monetary system.

pqasb.pqarchiver.com...:AI&type=historic&date=Sep+08%2C+1970&author=&pub=The+Sun+%281837-1985%29&d esc=IMF+Scores+U.S.+On+Inflation&pqatl=google

www.chinadaily.com.cn...

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
They still have some delusion that things can continue as they were, and, they cant. Its not possible for the whole world to consume like the first world was. It cant possibly happen.

That is why the Nationalists are doing their best to ensure that the US becomes a third world country, ruled by elite corporations, accountable to nobody but themselves.

The rest of the world is not catching up to the US. The US is falling back with the rest of the world.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Im not sure who you are calling the "nationalists" but nationalism is not the cause of bringing third world conditions to first world workers. Globalism is.

Edit to add, but you are correct that conditions in America for workers, is falling to meet the nations rising up behind us.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Im not sure who you are calling the "nationalists" but nationalism is not the cause of bringing third world conditions to first world workers. Globalism is.

That is a common misnomer. "Globalist" is a term that gets thrown around a lot in ATS-esque circles, often in contradicting fashion.

It is the "Nationalists" who want to ensure that the US Dollar remains the dominant currency for world trade, not the 'globalists'. The implications for the US dollar remaining in that position would be detrimental to the stability of the world markets. The us dollar's value is too wildly fluctuating because f years of deficit spending. A 'world currency' like, say the International Monetary Fund's "Special Drawing Rights' might actually provide enough stability for the world markets to allow for some level of security and comfort for many 'third world' workers.

To cling to the past model of the US Dollar's might is futile. It is over, We had our day, and for most of the middle class, we wasted it on petty consumer goods. Now, we all will join the ranks of the global work force, with as many rights as a Chinese Factory worker. But a stable world economy, backed by something other than the wildly fluctuating US dollar will actually benefit the US worker in the long run, as it will provide wealth connected to actual, regulated mechanisms, unlike the US dollar.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


Ah. Well it is pointless to think the dollar is going to be the reserve currency after everything shakes out, but currencies are not what I am talking about when I use the term globalists. They arent nationalists in any sense of the word. They have no loyalty to any nation and its people. They just want to be richer, and will go where they can be safe with their wealth and they dont mind moving around. America and Europe have long been their physical homes, but if the economy does collapse, I suspect they will go elsewhere to wait out the chaos.

Fortresses in South America perhaps. Parts of Asia maybe. Who knows.

The globalists are the ones interested in tearing down national borders (although they leave the name and the dotted lines on the map) and what they call "economic integration." Which is the opposite of nationalism, as I understand the term, which is having strong meaningful boundaries around your nation and dictating terms to those who want to cross them.

Edit to add,

And I could not disagree more that what is going on will end up benefiting the US worker, no matter how stable the world currency is. Its going to me a permanent reduction in standard of living for the first world common people.

Our currencies could have remained stable if the globalists hadnt been manipulating our economies.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

That is a common misnomer. "Globalist" is a term that gets thrown around a lot in ATS-esque circles, often in contradicting fashion.

And while lots of terms do get misused on ATS, "Globalists" and "globalism" arent "misnomers" they have real meaning. Here is a brief speech that I love to quote because the speaker makes clear so much of the globalist agenda, its short sightedness and delusional thinking, and the real costs to people in such a short concise little package.

www.iie.com...

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander




Our currencies could have remained stable if the globalists hadnt been manipulating our economies.

On what do you base that very bold claim?

The race to the bottom for the workers of the world (which includes those in the us) is at the benefit of the Corporations. The corporations benefit when there is no world governing body to regulate them, only rogue nation states making up the rules as they go.

I am not defending your definition of 'globalism'. I am challenging to you to reexamine some of your assumptions about what that term actually means.

AS I understand it they want a global petro dollar
NOT a NATIONAL US dollar..which is a debt based currency and so has to collapse eventually
Not one "debt based" fiat currency has survived the accumulation of compound debt...
ever

By regulating the supply of oil by using the US nato/west armies
(to the benefit of obama's biggest contributers like BP and goldman sachs...etc)
to invade every sovereign currency country like Libya Iraq Iran...etc
and by controlling the refining..
China is apparantly refing much of the
Iraq to Israel to China ...to US gas
the Us has not built ONE refinery since the seventies....
( can't get the gas to build up their own dollar)

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


You are the 'snip ' that decided "globalism" was some misnomer for "nationalists"

No, i didn't. You're confused. I stated that what you were calling 'globalism' wasnt necessarily.

which you then defined as "wanting the US dollar to be the reserve currency" and in fact, thats not what "nationalism" is, and reserve currencies had nothing to do what I was saying on globalism.

You are now conflating 'nationalist" with 'nationalism". A 'nationalist' in this context, is the opposite of a globalist. IF you refuse to understand that distinction, that is your choice.

I'm sorry you are unable to understand the distinctions I was trying to illustrate for you. The name calling is not necessary.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds


No, i didn't. You're confused. I stated that what you were calling 'globalism' wasnt necessarily.

Oh really? Whats this?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
That is a common misnomer. "Globalist" is a term that gets thrown around a lot in ATS-esque circles, often in contradicting fashion.

It is the "Nationalists" who want to ensure that the US Dollar remains the dominant currency for world trade, not the 'globalists'.

I wasnt talking about reserve currencies, I was talking about globalism and globalists, and I was using the word properly.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
You are now conflating 'nationalist" with 'nationalism". A 'nationalist' in this context, is the opposite of a globalist. IF you refuse to understand that distinction, that is your choice.

Really? You want to pretend that someone who supports "nationalism" wouldnt be a "nationalist?" Where did you learn about the proper application of suffixes? I actually DO know a nationalist is someone opposed to globalism, and I also know nationalism is not primarily about which currency will be the reserve currency. I also know, which you seem not to, that "nationalism" is what "nationalists" believe.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
I'm sorry you are unable to understand the distinctions I was trying to illustrate for you. The name calling is not necessary.

I understand the distinctions that are there in fact just fine. I got an A in international business, and in economics.

What I cant understand is YOU. And why? Because you try to draw distinctions where there are none, (pretending nationalists are something other than people who promote nationalism) and because you randomly insert topics, (reserve currencies) into discussions where they previously werent while trying at the same time to insinuate that I dont know what globalism is and and using it incorrectly.

And................Im not.

And as for name calling, you are a fine one to talk. I have co-opted one of your tirades into my signature I found it so amusing.

If you want better exchanges, write better. Ive interacted with you enough, unfortunately, to know you live in your own head. I used to think you were deliberately using disinfo tactics when you would pretend people were arguing other than they were, but now I just think you are an overly emotional and disorganized thinker who knows some topics fairly well, but doesnt know what he doesnt know.

So if money is collapsing, he becomes a peasant?

reply to post by zookey


No he likely owns lots of land and other things that have intrinsic value. But if the collapse of the global economy means no one will uphold property claims, lots of rich people could end up peasants. They need armies and police forces to uphold their claim to property around the world, and if they cant pay their armies and their cops, they could lose their claim on stuff to people who just take it.

the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
if the global economy collapses, you will wake up the next morning, breathe in air, and survive.
its not like they will go door to door shooting people and gas everyone, I mean, who's gonna serve them coffee?rich people cant cook or do laundry.

Um my arse just made a funny noise this must be an omen. It all just has to mean something it just has to. My imagination tells me so cause it wants something to do. Good the worlds economy needs to collapse. This fascist capitalist crap was unsustainable and completely vulgar. Things needed to be shaken up. Its about damn time!

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


It is the people who believe in the free market who have turned power in the U.S. over to bankers/ICs.

This is only a temporary situation. As the easy to get oil runs out, it will no longer be economically feasible to make goods on one side of the planet, and ship them to the other side of the planet. The technology is already here to mass produce on a small scale, and with the end of cheap oil, people will start to put this tech to use, and most manufacturing will be done on a small scale, which means bye bye giant corps.

Vast amounts of assets are about to become worthless.

Here is something to remember, hang on to your scrap metal, old motors, all that stuff.
Here is a good article from the guys at the straight dope that addresses the situation fairly well.

www.straightdope.com...

How much energy will that take? In 2002, Nocera points out, the global energy consumption rate was 13.5 terawatts. What will it be in 2050? If everybody were to burn through the juice at the current U.S. rate, Nocera calculates, we'd need 102 terawatts — seven times as much. Chances of our producing that: zero.

Instead, Nocera conservatively pegs annual global energy usage circa 2050 at between 28 terawatts — which assumes average consumption at the same rate as in present-day Poland — and 35 terawatts, roughly the rate now seen in Samoa. You may say: Samoa sounds like a lifestyle I could get used to. That’s sporting of you, but it still means we'll need about 15 to 20 more terawatts of energy than we're consuming right now.

Chances are that we will be lucky to maintain our current energy capabilities, as the easy to get oil burns out.

The answer is that we must become far more energy efficient, which means an end to planned obsolescence, and the global economy. These massive urban sprawls around the country are going to be in serious trouble, probably within a decade.