SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On our current trajectory, the report warns, "planetary and human systems [are] reaching a 'point of no return' by mid-century, in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order."
The only way to avoid the risks of this scenario is what the report describes as "akin in scale to the World War II emergency mobilization"—but this time focused on rapidly building out a zero-emissions industrial system to set in train the restoration of a safe climate.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
2050 is When Analysts Suspect Widespread Global Strife Will Begin
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 121 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
Boys, you have ALL been selected to LEAVE th' PLANET in 15 minutes!!
(Score: 3, Troll) by Snotnose on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:02AM (12 children)
Various insurance companies give me a 50/50 chance of seeing 2030, with the odds quickly getting worse as time goes on. No kids, no family I care about.
So Woo Hoo! I can keep fucking up the environment all I want until I die! Yay me! Go boomers!!
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:04AM (2 children)
Al Gore still wants to reach into your pocket.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:39AM (1 child)
The Gore's have 4 children, need I say more?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:16PM
Less would be better
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:46PM (3 children)
Could accelerationism be the key to getting boomers to pay for their mistakes?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:17PM (1 child)
Well, such accelerationism seems to be making billions of people less poor whether or not it's paying for anyone's mistakes. Doesn't seem to be breaking down capitalism either.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:46PM
The definition is very loose now:
Also taken to include "some men just want to watch the world burn" or supporting Andrew Yang to force a reset that may lead away from socialism.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 16 2019, @03:01PM
LOL collective responsibility again? first commies then nazis then gretophiles? But what are you blaming them for? For getting a nice car? and maybe you are typing this on your high end cellphone that you will scrap in one year.
Pollution was a way to establish dependence. Environmentalism is a way to establish dependence.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:23PM
I'm exactly where you are. I'm puttin' on the popcorn and am ready to laugh my ass off.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday June 16 2019, @12:13AM (3 children)
Was wondering how this would get moderated. Last night I was a troll, then this morning I was +4 interesting (who the hell moderated my statement like that?) Now I'm back to being a troll. I was expecting either troll or funny, 50/50 on which. So I'm having fun.
Anyone who thinks I was serious just hasn't paid attention to my prior posts.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:09AM (2 children)
Your comment ain't even wrong. What's the consequence, you get sent to hell (Azuma descends into the convo)?
It's not a surprise that a non-stakeholder wouldn't care.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:25AM (1 child)
Some things are worse than hell
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:30AM
I'll say. Most real places are worse than imaginary ones, as imaginary ones don't exist.
Take New Jersey for example. Or Alabama.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:04AM (22 children)
That would be right about the time people currently in their 20s and 30s start to dominate political offices.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:45AM (19 children)
Hmm... I was going to call hysterical bullshit on the entire FA but you may be on to something there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:26AM (18 children)
Except that every generation in their 50's and 60's says the generation in their 20's and 30's is going to ruin everything.
I am, of course, in my 40's, so I can laugh at both of them.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:43AM (16 children)
I doubt it, people in their 20's and 30's now were fucked by the boomers by outsourcing and other things. I, for one, welcome our new millennial overlords and fully support their legislation for incoming death-panels.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:17AM (15 children)
I sometimes wonder if they know just how very much they were fucked by the boomers. They never lived through the 60's and 70's, and the very few of them that watch old movies/tv shows would get a very distorted view of what it was like back then. They mostly seem to accept that this shit is just the way things are.
Most people assume that the future is going to be pretty much like the present, and conversely, that the past is pretty much like now. Sure you can point out gadgets and say that's new, but they assume that the basic structure of society is the same, and that it always has, and always will, suck.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:32AM (9 children)
It "ain't always the same" for me, but I'm sure that's a typical story - You're a kid and you go to granny and grampa's house and they told you they bought it in the '70's for 70,000 dollars. The house sells a few years ago for $600,000+ dollars or more depending on the neighborhood. Meanwhile, you can't find a job because your grandparents' sons and daughters gutted our manufacturing and outsourced 90% of our tech.
There went the American dream. You don't have enough money for a family, you can barely afford car payments and you have to live with roommates, so the one luxury you can look forward to is India pale ales with avocado toast on the weekends. Oh, and you're 60,000 dollars deep in student loan debt working for Fry's with a STEM degree. Then dad pulls up in his new Corvette and tells you to stop buying those Starbucks and that avocado toast because that's why you have no prospects for a well-paying job of starting a family, because you chose to spend the only remaining $20 per week you have on something you actually enjoy.
I was going to praise the Mexicans here, because they live and die as families, but when you talk to Mexico Mexican ladies, they're all single moms.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:37AM (6 children)
You really want to hit them with the house price thing, you need to take inflation out of the equation:
40 years ago you could buy a house outright with 4 of 5 times a basic laborers yearly wage. Now it's 20 to 30 times.
The interest on that means that you will never own it. 30 year mortgages where 95% of what you pay each year is interest. How many families go 30 years with no expensive personal emergencies? The whole bullshit system is designed to bleed you forever and then steal the house back
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:17AM
Glad you pulled that out, because I was lying in wait for some dumb motherfucker to challenge me with muh inflation. Nobody here did. I guess these sonsabitches on Soylentnews do have some semblance of intelligence. There may be hope for us all yet.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:31AM (1 child)
Another fun metric is to ask them how much of their monthly income went to paying for their apartment or mortgage. Most people I talk to (parents, grandparents) had 1/6 to 1/4 of their income go toward housing. The same property, and the same wage (adjusted for inflation) would now take 1/2 or more of that income.
Another thing that is killing millennials right now was cash for clunkers. Right or wrong, it removed the glut of used cars on the market and took them permanently out of circulation. Instead of being able to get out of high school and pick up a beater for 500 bucks or 1k that would last you a few years, you have to pay 2-3k for something that doesn't have a bad head or a slipping tranny, at least in my area.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:35AM
That fits.
Go from a one income to two income family, and from (1/6 -1/4) to 1/2 of income : 2 x ( 2 to 3) = 4 to 6
Matches pretty well with: (20 to 30 years) / (4 or 5 years) = 4 to 7
So either absolute housing values have gone up by a factor of at least four or wages are now less than a quarter of what they were.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday June 16 2019, @10:43PM (2 children)
You might be right about the ratio of income to payments, but this has nothing to do with how a mortgage works.
With a 30 year mortgage, you own the home after 30 years, assuming you can make all the payments. Incidentally, an initial monthly payment that is 95% interest corresponds to a rate of roughly 10%. A typical home mortgage rate for a 30 year fixed is under 4%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:29PM (1 child)
You're not exactly contradicting me there.
So I didn't bother working out the math exactly. I should have typed ">95% of what you pay is interest". 30 year mortgages are still becoming common and are blatant usury.
It also isn't much more than 30 years since interest rates were higher than that. Going to bet the farm that they won't go up again within 30 years?
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Monday June 17 2019, @11:57PM
I’m not contradicting you. I fundamentally agree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think mortgages are worth including in the discussion. The structure of a 30 year mortgage hasn’t changed in generations. It’s really the interest rate that matters, hence why I picked on your math. When interest rates were up around 18% in 1980, you could forget about even getting a loan, let alone making the first payment. Nowadays the problem for new buyers is their income relative to the price of the house. Likely a bigger and longer term problem than a spike in interest rates which has to be squashed by the Fed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:01AM
Depending upon where you live it could be even more. Here in Seattle, my parents paid $28k for their house in the mid '70s and the land alone is worth over $600k. The lot next door was bought for $700k knowing that it would be knocked down pretty much immediately to build a new house in place of the crappy old one.
Millenials are unlikely to find a deal like that pretty much anywhere. The places where property prices are that low are mostly in dying areas where there's no possibility of properly values ever skyrocketing like that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:01AM
WRONG. Incredibly incredibly wrong. You forgot, Donald J. Trump is President. Unemployment LOWEST( best ) in 50 years. Wages going up much faster than inflation. Consumer "confidence" highest (best) in 19 years. Shopping on the rise. Oil prices going up very strongly. Tremendous GROWTH. Economy ROARING like it's NEVER EVER roared before!! foxnews.com/us/us-retail-sales-rose-0-5-in-may-led-by-online-shopping [foxnews.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:47AM (4 children)
Sounds like we should wonder about you as well. It's just first mover advantage. Boomers, at least the early boomers were first into those houses and such. Thus, they got a great ride on home prices. That's most of the wealth difference in a nutshell. Same goes for so much of the rest of the paraphernalia of modern societies.
Then add in that the effects of globalization such as developed world workers competing with workers who cost a fraction, and you have a recipe for subsequent generations not doing quite as well. So what?
Why isn't that the accurate assessment of the situation? At some point, you'll need to adapt to the situation. Blaming other people isn't going to make your life any better.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:25AM (3 children)
Well Said Mr Khallow! If the peasants have no bread, well then, let them eat cake!!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:02PM (2 children)
The "peasants" of the developed world have a hell of a lot more than just bread or cake. It's not even remotely close.
The real peasants of the developing world meanwhile are experiencing the best improvement in the human condition ever. Look at what's going on now rather than recycle cliches that have been out of date for centuries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:33PM (1 child)
They do indeed Mr Khallow. Why, some of them even have the skills and resources to build such useful tools as guillotines.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:06AM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:39AM
Most of them have been correct.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:48PM (1 child)
First order of business: Closing the Congressional Prayer Room and replacing it with an Agnostic Safe Space.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @11:44PM
Eh? I wasn't aware that agnostics were such tender, fragile pantywaists. Learn something new every day, I guess.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:22AM (10 children)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:19AM (9 children)
You may have been modded troll because that video is unavailable.
Here try again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OyBtMPqpNY [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:33AM (5 children)
Runaway was probably modded "Troll" because most of his posts qualify for that moderation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:40AM (2 children)
Which is a pretty blatant misuse of mod points.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:26PM (1 child)
Nah, people see you in the thread and it is a safe assumption!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 15 2019, @11:36PM
Epically weak. Try training up on a school playground when the third graders are on recess.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:01AM (1 child)
So it's an ad hominem moderation. Classy.
(Score: 2, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:46AM
Trust me, they all are. That's what the "moderation" is for. It's about who gets banned and, who doesn't. Enough bad, or "Down modes" and somebody can't tweet anymore. Look at Profile of Cocaine Overdose. That's right, there was somebody that had Cocaine Overdose as his (Fake) Name. And so many folks were very jealous because they couldn't afford a Coke habit. Many Down modes until he got the "comment posting has temporarily been disabled." Temporarily as in, he hasn't tweeted in over a year. Sad!!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:16PM (2 children)
Sorry - was it a geo-block?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:42PM
Dunno. Could be, I'm not in the US. Just gives the name and says "This video is unavailable".
Somebody really doesn't like you though, they modded my post troll as well, just for getting yours modded back up. lol.
(My link goes to a different video of the same song.)
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:04PM
Probably. Played fine for me and I'm currently in the USA.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:25AM (16 children)
The same conclusion was already reached in the early 1970's and described in "The Limits of Growth" by the club of Rome [wikipedia.org]. It was also confirmed in 2008 by Turner (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.05.001) by comparing the previous simulations with 30 years of real data. Now, we are further along the time-line and nothing changed in our behavior. The original simulations suggest a rather dramatic turning point somewhere around 2025-2040. This is in line with the 2050 estimate. However, I'm not so sure that we can change fast enough to do any real difference anymore, at least not with the current population size. We are most likely doomed; well, the young ones anyway, while the old ones will be dead and burried.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:48AM
New Your Times described the research "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Such a wonderfull times indeed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:51AM
Such as massive drop in human fertility worldwide, empowerment of women, a huge increase in the education of the population, and becoming concerned about a variety of societal and environmental problems that poor people of the past never cared about.
I think it'll be educational how that doesn't happen. My own projection is that by 2040, we'll have about a third or so of the world by population in the developed world and the trend will be to massive increase in that percentage over the next few decades.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday June 15 2019, @09:03AM (13 children)
Limits To Growth is known as a TOTAL AND COMPLETE CON. An absolute Crock. They said, "oh no, we'll run out of Gold by 1981." WRONG! I built Trump Tower in 1983 (started '79) and I put in gold everything. From the Marquis to the T.P. holders -- NO PROBLEM. And even today, I have no problems getting the gold. Zero. Because I have the money!!!!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Saturday June 15 2019, @10:27AM (12 children)
Anyone positing growth limits on the basis of resource starvation doesn't get it. The actual limit is energy - at worst, you have to recycle everything, and use a lot of energy in doing so. Unfortunately, the planet is blessed with relatively easy access to more energy that we can currently make use of - oil isn't drilled out yet, there is still a lot of coal in the ground, we are already exploiting shale, and the Athabasca Tar Sands are available, plus all the wind and solar you can use, not to mention nuclear energy: when the chips are down, fast breeder reactors make better use of uranium reserves than current processes.
Burning fossil fuels is not good for the environment, for many reasons, but current practices can carry on for way beyond 2050. Yes, ecosystems will be destroyed, and coastal cities will be inundated - in fact, entire countries will go underwater, and we are not talking about just minor island states - but none of this is a killing blow to the current approach of energy and resource use. I can see automated machine gun posts and minefields being set up along borders to prevent mass migration due to flooding. The haves will ruthlessly suppress the have nots to maintain their relative advantages.
The end game is when China and Russia run out of food and use their nukes to provide a migration pathway for their populations. Eurasia and Africa will eventually have a Han Chinese majority population.
[I'm grumpy and
cynicalpessimistic today. Having a cold doesn't do much for my mood](Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:24PM (2 children)
Let's not panic yet. First, the idea that Russia is full of teeming hordes of communists is quite outdated. Today Russia, the largest country on Earth by area, has 144 million people, or less than half the population of the United States.
Second, China has 1.4 billion people but they are heavily concentrated in about 1/3 of its territory in the East and South; the North, West, and Southwest (Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Gansu, Tibet, Yunnan, etc) are practically empty. China's the third largest country in the world, so that's a lot of territory that could accommodate a lot more Chinese. In fact their overall population density puts them at 81st in the world.
Third, if the Chinese felt like they did need more room then Eastern Siberia is where they'd go, not Europe or the Middle East.
Fourth, India and Pakistan (and Russia, let's not forget) have nuclear weapons too, so they'd probably have something to say about Chinese territorial expansion at their expense.
Fifth, Siberia is really huge and really empty. All those aforementioned could nuke each other silly and still have giant tracts of non-radioactive land to inhabit.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:42PM (1 child)
Climate changeglobal warming could make Siberia and Canada into prime real estate. Warmer temperatures, lots of water, better agriculture. More bikinis. Could kill Pleistocene Park though.Russia is currently very stagnant. China is projected to have population decline to 1 billion or less, due to the lingering effects of the One/Two child policies, demographics, and the trend of birth rates absolutely plummeting in the developed East Asian countries.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:46PM
I've always harbored a fantasy of living in Kamchatka [thinkingnomads.com]. Rendering it a bit more clement would be fine by me.
Siberia [wordpress.com]'s no slouch either. It would not be such a bad thing if we all went to live there.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:57PM (8 children)
"Unfortunately". Well, why not just burn the bad energy sources while they're still in the ground? That way we get the best of both worlds, increases in pollution combined with zero human progress. Then we can hasten our progress towards the automated machine gun nirvana you want so much.
Because? You do realize that a) we already would run out of food, if it weren't for our habit of making more food? And b) Russia's population is in decline while China's population growth has declined massively over the past few decades? Sure, they're polluting a lot at present, but they won't always be polluting a lot. Reality isn't following this exciting story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:29PM (1 child)
You ignore is the predictions of the children visionaries of Garabanal, something worse than a thousand earthquakes that will instill a fear like fire into the hearts of all believers and unbelievers is on the way: worldwide communism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:20AM
Which isn't saying much. For example, I live in an area that generates hundreds of barely detectable earthquakes each year. Sure, worldwide Communism would suck, but it's not going to happen in the next few generations. Capitalism and democracy are succeeding too well for that to happen.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:41PM (5 children)
I don't actually want an 'automated machine-gun nirvana', I'm just not in a good mood right now. Probably shouldn't be posting.
Yes, Russia's population is in decline, which is why I envisioned the end-game as being Eurasia and Africa having a Han Chinese majority. However, Russia still has a significant arsenal of workable nukes, and is unlikely to lie down quietly while the migration of hungry Chinese takes place. The Soviets were not confident of preventing a Chinese incursion in 1969: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict [wikipedia.org] , and I don't think the balance-of-power has improved much in the Russian's favour since then.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:14AM (4 children)
What hungry Chinese? Reality isn't following the narrative, remember?
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday June 17 2019, @04:46PM (3 children)
Well, if there are to be no hungry Chinese, one or both of two things needs to happen:
1) The population needs to decrease* faster than anticipated agricultural losses due to climate change ( http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2017-07/28/content_30275360.htm [chinadaily.com.cn] )
2) The Chinese government needs to abandon its policy of food self sufficiency and is able to buy food in from elsewhere.
*Actually the total daily energy intake need of the Chinese population needs to remain below agricultural losses due to climate change. This is easier if the population decreases and/or yields are improved. For any given population, agricultural yield improvements needs to match any climate change losses. Obviously, climate change means some currently unproductive areas can be brought into production. Whether that gets you out of the 'Malthusian hole' is another matter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @07:38PM (2 children)
There are two things to remember with that. First agricultural losses are likely to be negative due to increased agriculture at higher latitudes combined with only a modest decline at near equatorial latitudes.
Second, we would only need modest technological improvements (most which are already developed and merely need to be implemented in the developing world) to keep up with the residual population growth of the entire world.
Which wouldn't be a hard problem should they choose to do so.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Monday June 17 2019, @08:50PM (1 child)
On the agricultural losses, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I suspect climate change will affect agriculture profoundly in ways we do not suspect right now.
On the food self-sufficiency, it's a funny thing, but getting people to change their mind when it is an ideological change can be rather difficult. However, you could well be right: as long as China maintains a massive trade surplus, it will have the cash to buy food. If the alternative is a restless population that threatens the political power structure, I can see rules being bent to allow reliance on foreign food supplies to maintain public order. Of course, if sufficient food can't be bought...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 18 2019, @10:39AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:36AM (40 children)
2024 is when the US treasury predicts that all new debt will be used solely to pay off interest on the old debt. I'd be a bit more concerned about that than these obvious distractions.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:57AM (34 children)
Oh please! The "debt" is a lie! It''s all Hollywood accounting. They just say that shit to renege on social security and sell austerity.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:07AM
The US federal budget is now legally all lies: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/secret-government-spending-779959/ [rollingstone.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:16AM
https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @06:00AM (31 children)
Austerity happens when you don't have to sell it - no spendthrift will ever buy austerity ever. Your foreign creditors have gained enough power over you to just force it down your throat without your choice in the matter. One way to prevent that is to not be in debt at Greece levels of debt.
As to reneging on Social Security, it's not just a good idea, it's going to happen. The questions rather are to what degree, and how much of the US will be left when the Social Security beast finally gets gelded? Will it be a modest amount like 25-30% drop in benefits, which apparently is enough to stabilize US Social Security for several decades? Will it be a near complete default on the obligations of Social Security (along with much of the rest of the US's activities and obligations)?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:29AM (23 children)
You're just saying silly shit in your banal appeal to authority. We've heard it all before. It was nonsense then, and it still is. Really, who's buying your shtick?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:37AM (1 child)
You sound just like someone I'm denial about buying into a Ponzi scheme, hint: the winners are those who get out first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:35AM
Thanks Boomers!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @01:59PM (20 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 15 2019, @07:10PM (19 children)
These phrases have meaning.
That depends on who you are talking to.
You know the meaning of the phrase, but are again trying to deflect. You take everything the authorities say at face value and run with it simply because they are the authorities. It is the direct opposite of the ad hominem. In more common parlance: You're just brown nosing the boss. I'll assume your paycheck and desire for preferential treatment depends on your compliance and "cooperation". You sound like a regular zombie mouthpiece for them. The only unknown is whether you actually believe the stuff you post, or just hoping to be the last one to be eaten.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @08:14PM
You too: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=32120&page=1&cid=856054#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 18 2019, @11:18AM (17 children)
Sure, the biggest fantasy out there is the bookkeeping. But it's not Hollywood-style accounting where profitable films are recast, books-wise, as money holes, but Enron-style accounting where vast liabilities have been outright ignored or hidden.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 18 2019, @11:11PM (16 children)
I've thought about this and there just isn't a US authority that would admit to any intent to default on Social Security.
Do you know how dumb it would be to make such a public admission, even if it were true? Obviously you didn't give it much thought, except to find unwarranted criticism.
And social security is an earned benefit, not an "entitlement", though we are entitled to collect after paying into the system.
And you are only projecting your own disdain towards it with your bullshit about cuts being necessary. Looks like the bankers are the authorities you snuggle up with.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 19 2019, @12:44PM (15 children)
Do you know either? Of course, you do just like I do. Let's stop asking stupid rhetorical questions.
Sigh, in other words, it's another entitlement. Stop wasting time with the word mincing.
Do you actually disagree with me? I find it remarkable how little you've actually said in this thread. My take on the US budget mess is that Social Security and similar entitlements should be outright ended with a great big "fuck you" to the many recipients who voted for con men for the past 80 years. I think ending Social Security, Medicare, and at least halving the US military budget (with similar level cuts in most other government agencies) would be enough to get the US government budget into a space where we can control it via the 200 million steering wheels voting booth. Else it's just going to continue to get worse. There's way too many places for the roaches to hide, and there's way too much entitlement bribe going to the voters.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:53PM (14 children)
People who paid into are entitled
Nope, it has to keep running. The problems are all due to corruption by the people you admire and appeal to the most. So that great big "fuck you" shall be directed in your direction for your total lack of respect.
Whatever, you spread lies, you're just being an ass, trying to provoke people, which is not really a problem unless they start taking you seriously and believing your banker friends' fiction about "budgets". Sacrifice must start at the top. That's where you make the first cuts, with the most extreme prejudice. Free up all the money trapped inside the useless currency/financial markets (so many trillions!), and you will find more than enough for social security, medicare for all, food stamps, adequate shelter, etc, etc, etc... and still have plenty left over for national, even planetary, defense.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:06AM (13 children)
Social Security is a pyramid scheme as is Medicare and many other entitlements - early participants get more and eventually the program slides below break even. It's not worthy of my respect. And the people who have ignored these glaring flaws for many decades? What respect are they due for their foolishness?
Truth is an absolute defense against such accusations. Just because you choose to ignore these serious problems, doesn't make them lies.
So how do the mechanics of a modern country's economy operate? Maybe somebody has feelings and somehow those feelings become reality?
I guess you'll figure that out eventually.
What money? Weren't you just bullshitting me about "budgets"? Either there's something concrete to the budgets thing, or it's imaginary and there isn't anything useful "trapped" in that.
Because we'll grow fat and happy on credit default swaps.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @05:44AM (12 children)
Because we'll grow fat and happy on credit default swaps.
That only comes from the corruption in the financial markets. It has nothing to do with government services, aside from its role in propping up the financial industry.
Truth is an absolute defense against such accusations.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with you?
What respect are they due for their foolishness?
I guess I shouldn't expect you to respect things you just don't understand. So you lie about them instead.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 20 2019, @11:43AM (11 children)
In a non-corrupt financial market, CD swaps wouldn't be empty calories?
For example, rebutting the claim that one "earns" US Social Security by noting the "earners" not only get more out of Social Security than their descendants ever will (along with the many othe problems of Social Security such as surpluses getting dumped into the US federal government's general fund and being squandered), an advantageous situation for the elder generations, but voted to create that situation. It's a straightforward theft of resources and opportunities from future generations, and part of a long term pattern (such as zoning to protect residential real estate values and creating a medical system with ballooning costs).
Sounds to me like I understand those things just fine. Respect isn't earned just because one is understood.
I find it interesting how you earlier this year presented a pretense of caring for democracy. But suddenly take that back when it comes to your piece of the sugar. Corruption of democratic systems doesn't magically occur. The voters have to be bought off too. Things like Social Security and Medicare do that just fine for the US system.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:53PM (10 children)
You speak from the crooked financier's point of view. Your austerity is bullshit. It represents the real theft. But seeing as that it is your 'piece of sugar', we can see why you would defend it so vigorously.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 21 2019, @04:45AM (9 children)
That leads to the second observation, which is that the fraction of revenue coming in relative to the money spent on beneficiaries has steadily declined to the point where the program has reached break even and is positioned to decline into permanent deficit territory. That's typical of a pyramid scheme. Early participants do well at the expense of later ones. And as in this case, the later participants usually end up losing money on the affair.
It also means that the nature of the program has changed from something that has added revenue to the federal government to something that takes away. For the moment, the deficits are small enough that it can hide in the bond mechanism. But when it gets too big for that, then it's going to be a straightforward trade off between Social Security, and paying for the needs of the US. I imagine that will be settled in a very incompetent and destructive matter, probably involving an unhealthy amount of inflation.
Fourth, these problems and the fundamental nature of Social Security were known from the very beginning of Social Security, yet little has been done to fix them - by any party including the voters. The claim that one has "earned" Social Security benefits is bogus. Sorry, you got conned by people long dead, I'm not interested in honoring contracts made in bad faith by them and by you.
Fifth, Social Security makes a great deal of sense from the crooked financier's point of view. Promises are much cheaper than honoring them. The people who made all those bogus promises to sell Social Security in the first place are long dead.
Sixth, you made the claim that the rich are going to fund your desires ("social security, medicare for all, food stamps, adequate shelter, etc, etc, etc..."). That is an admission that you can't fund it without them (and I might you probably wouldn't be able to fund it even with their wealth, trillions of dollars of vaporous financier wealth is pretty worthless) and a strong indication you don't deserve those desires.
Sorry, I only give respect when it is earned. It's clear you haven't thought about the problems with programs like Social Security or worse, know of the problems and are willing to sacrifice the future of the US (or your society) for your own swag. I can't say how corrupt you are relative to a crooked financier, but it's not looking good.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday June 21 2019, @05:00AM (8 children)
Well, I merely need to be right.
:-) Yeah, but you aren't...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 21 2019, @12:38PM (7 children)
What exactly is your claim here? Why should the rest of us care that you made it?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday June 21 2019, @05:35PM (6 children)
Perhaps we should go through my arguments and find out where this lack of rightness allegedly occurs?
You can if that's what floats your boat. You have no argument worth further discussion. You are simply wrong, overwhelmed by personal bias. "Argument" is a waste under such conditions. But hey, by all means, go nuts...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 22 2019, @01:08AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 22 2019, @03:19AM (4 children)
Maybe somebody else can argue with biased propaganda, I can't.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 22 2019, @11:40AM (3 children)
I think it's telling here that you can say all this is propaganda and lies, but you can't or won't say how it is. I see this way too often on the internet. People who can tell me I'm wrong, but are unwilling or unable to try to explain why I'm wrong. Don't be part of that problem.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:50PM (2 children)
unwilling or unable to try to explain why I'm wrong.
Pearls to the swine, wasted effort... It has been explained and proven many times, but for you, it's water off a duck's back. You should be grateful that you get any attention at all :-)
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 23 2019, @03:37AM (1 child)
I've heard that before. That mean ole khallow disagreed with me once, so it's wasted effort to even try to present a coherent argument ever.
I have found that saying things doesn't make them so. Not to mention that I don't know what "it" is anymore.
But why shouldn't it be? There's a lot of opinions out there. Can't agree with all of them.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 23 2019, @03:44AM
:-) I admire your stamina...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @12:03PM (6 children)
How much of the US debt is social security obligations?
I can tell you now they will be the last thing defaulted on, for two reasons.
1. Default on the payouts and there is no way to keep collecting the inputs. They may not be enough to cover the payouts, but it is still a massive revenue stream.
2. Because if they do default, politicians and bankers will be strung up from the trees. If you think the backlash that elected Trump was bad, if they default on SS it will be a shooting war.
This is also the real reason they are panicking about low inflation. They are counting on inflation to erode the debts.
- - - - - - - -
And the more they keep complaining about the debt, the more likely people are to demand a full accounting of who is owed what. I expect at that point, there will be nationalisation of the Fed, and targeted erasure of international debts.
Or the government might mint a few thousand coins with a face value of ten billion dollars each, and pay off the debts. After all, despite giving the right to print money to the 'international banker cartel' they did retain the power to mint coins.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:05PM
Inflation is theft from the middle and lower classes. And admittedly, deflation is worse.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 15 2019, @02:07PM (3 children)
Further, you can't kill politicians to get back to prosperity. Once it's gone, with most of the responsible politicians long dead in the grave, it's just pointless thrashing and blaming.
So what? Same goes for those people pulling on Social Security benefits. They had a long time to fix this.
Remember inflation is default by a different name.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:41AM (2 children)
Normal inflation is the slow mitigation of debt by devaluing the amount owed, without actually decreasing the numerical amount. It mostly hits the middle class, who are the only ones with a significant portion of their wealth in cash, and the poor because wages always lag prices.
If Trump decides to mint a few coins and use them to pay the debt, it will hit the 'banker cartel' who are currently owed those trillions of US debt. The screaming would be epic.
In any case, the obvious answer to US debt is to nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no reason why the US should give all the money it prints to the international consortium of bankers who currently own the bank. At the very least they should revoke the Fed's right to print money, and return it to Treasury where it belongs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:59AM
+1
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @03:13AM
And all those poor and middle class people who were dependent on dollars. At least the 'banker cartel' can move their assets out of dollar valued stuff.
For what reason? You're already proposing hyperinflation of the dollar because you have this mistaken impression that a 'banker cartel' will get hurt worse than most US citizens.
Because that would make it easier for you to attack that 'banker cartel' via printing money? Sounds like a good reason not to "return" said "right" to the US Treasury.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Sunday June 16 2019, @01:09AM
The problem with inflation though is if inflation goes up, so does the interest rates, and if interest rates go up, the cost of servicing the debt goes up too. Look at how much servicing the debt costs today, and imagine what would happen if interest rates doubled. It would be a disaster. And historically, even if rates doubled, they wouldn't be that high (see: late 1970's - early 1980's).
There are certainly those that want inflation to go up to inflate the debt away. But the forces that want the interest rates kept low are winning at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @05:59AM
Why not do what the liberals did in Australia?
Cut back funding and services for a few years, stop paying or increasing wages of public servants, claw back every cent to get back into the black?
I mean, afterwards you have a whole public service pissed at you and a public who are frothing at the mouth over the lack of decent services but hey people will forget. In time. This year they forgot right on time for the 2019 election.
Pillage your own funding sources to pay out debt at the cost of your ethical stance? Win/win!
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Saturday June 15 2019, @03:37PM (3 children)
I don’t understand what you mean by “new debt”. Do you mean payments to service the overall deficit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 15 2019, @04:07PM (1 child)
See page 19: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/quarterly-refunding/Documents/q12019CombinedChargesforArchives.pdf [treasury.gov]
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:15PM
I appreciate the link, but I’m sorry, I’m still not getting it.
When I look at the graph on page 19, I see that the blue segments in the bar graph are above zero for the years before 2024, zero on 2024, and then positioned below zero subsequently. I presume this what you’re talking about, but I still don’t understand what it means, or why it’s labeled “Primary Deficit (LHS)”.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @12:06AM
Pretend you have two credit cards that allow cash advances up to a limit, but demand a minimum % payment on the 1st (card 1) and the 15th (card 2) of the month.
Month one. Have a few nights out, buy a new TV, a few fighter jets. You run up some debt.
On the 1st, you get a cash advance from card 2 and use it to pay card 1. On the 15th you get a cash advance from card 1 and use it to pay card 2.
Month two. You use the cards to buy your old folks a nice dinner, get yourself a set of matching Abrams tanks, and add some credit card interest. You run up some more debt.
On the 1st, you get a cash advance from card 2 and use it to pay card 1. On the 15th you get a cash advance from card 1 and use it to pay card 2.
Month three. You buy dad his expensive meds, pay the rent on their condo, splurge on an aircraft carrier, and add some more credit card interest. You run up some more debt.
On the 1st, you get a cash advance from card 2 and use it to pay card 1. On the 15th you get a cash advance from card 1 and use it to pay card 2.
... ... ...
Month 2024. You buy a new iPhone, go shopping at costco, fund a war in the middle east, and add some more credit card interest. You run up some more debt.
On the 1st, you get a cash advance from card 2 and use it to pay card 1. On the 15th you try to get a cash advance from card 1 and use it to pay card 2, but you have hit the cash out limit and can't do that anymore.