Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
He told you so!
I guess the sticking point for govs, will come when administrations have to try to keep their security forces 'onside' (later on when it gets much worse) i guess one way of ensuring that would be to prioritise the securitiy forces families food rations
its going to be tough to try to store more than one years worth, because Mrs Knees isnt exactly onside, about all of this, she seems to thinkthat i am not right, that Gordon will have it all under control......she delusionally says, the social structure won't collapse because she and others dont want it too....she seems to insanely believe that 'only i want it to' I dont want it to, i never have, i have criticised it cos i know it is not logical or right and thereefore not sustainable and the more faith that people have in it the more dependant and vulnerable they have all become.
Hence i have to keep stuff well out of the way out of her sight (she knows bout it but doesnt want to see it.
She also (rather foolishly says she'd rather die than live off the food im stockpiling) obviously she doesnt mean this but people who are in denial do say things that they dont really mean
rations run out.....of course this might be mistaken as i imagine that people who are without food would easily be able to nick food that is being grown.....growing food is difficult to hide its presence
Recession causes war?
will lead to people not staying in their houses to die without doing something.
This will all ramp up.....the more unemployed the greater the tax burden on those still working,,,,the less they have to spend, the less houses will be sold....more debt will become more toxic, banks and local and central authority will not relinquish much in their demands for money....and since they can impose the punishments the people will get annoyed......govs and authorities will do some cutting back of services but ...a 50% cut in services will not result in anything like a 50% cut in taxes......as less and less people can afford to live and as food suppliers and transportation starts to erode so food supplies will start to become erratic and yet this will result in much more unrest and violence than that which this article reports.
Unrest could be minimised by authorities safeguarding/ringfencing food production/storage and distribution from the vagueries of the market.......(at the moment your food supply depends on the speculation of the financial markkets) also ensuring supply of water and controlled regulated supply of power.........in addition the authorities should be wary of making too many people homeless due to repossession ...in fact they should stop this....or review every case
but it might more be about continental countries trying to staunch influxes of immigrants escaping shortage...there may also be a few resource international conflicts, but these will not always be on government's' minds as they will be very preoccupied with their domestic unrest/problems
Like World War 2, the ground for which was laid by the global effects of the Great Depression. It's obviously not a fully causal relationship, but wars throughout history have always had an economic basis, and scarcity / poverty combined with no prospects for masses and masses of young men do significantly increase the prospects of violent conflict, which then increases the chances of war.
I'm sure you'll appreciate the dodgy ground this logic is built on when I point out that the great depression was chronologically equidistant from both world wars. On that basis you could make a case both for war causing recession, or vice versa.
Also, wars go on everywhere, all the time. This is especially true of the last century. That's important, too.
the Great Depression began in 1929, and ended at different times in the late 1930's and early 1940's, different times in different places. It went on for a long time, that was part of what was 'Great' about it. World War 2 obviously began in 1939, so that fits in exactly with what I was saying.
Each World War was also followed by a boom period, as the victors enjoyed the spoils and resources were able to be returned to non-war production, so I really think you'd have difficulty making the case for war causing recession rather than the other way around.
Further, wars do not go on everywhere, all the time. There hasn't been a war in western europe or north america for 60 years, for example.
The places around the globe where wars do occur are often afflicted by harsh economic conditions, this is well established. It seems clear that the economic climate influences the possibilities for war to take foot. I really don't see the basis for you to dispute this.
First of all, my original point was that using the recession to explain either circumstance would be open to dispute.
Concerning your assertion that World War 2 began in 1939 - true, if you ignore the Spanish Civil War, the civil war in China, which itself overlapped with the conflict with the Japanese. Or any of the other shenanigans involving all the main participants of the 'war that started in 1939' that were raging all throughout the 20s and 30s.
Furthermore, how reaching do you have to be to characterise the process of putting back together your bankrupt and shattered nation after a war as a "boom period"? I wonder what the folk living in Russia, or any of the other nations still fighting immediately after the traditionally accepted date for the end of the Great War would think of this?
And while the places around the globe where wars occur are often afflicted by harsh economic conditions - last time I checked, there were very few places on the planet where people are totally solvent. And as you pointed out, the two greatest conflicts mankind has ever known saw conflict on the territory of the world's richest nations, which would seem to contradict your point as well.
If you look at a map of the world and put a little pin where there's been a conflict what you'll find is that the primary characteristic of these places isn't whether people have money or not, but mouldering religious or ethnic beefs.
This is why there are no Jews in Poland anymore, why Ukraine was such a shithole for most of the 20s onwards, why Turks hate Greeks, why the Irish aren't happy to be just part of the United Kingdom, why the Japanese did their best to massacre their way across most of Asia, why the population of ethnic Germans in eastern Europe went up then down during the intra-war period, why Jewish Russians have their own little state in the middle of a godforsake swamp near China, why people in the UK even know the word 'Tutsi', why Yugoslavia was never a real country anyway, and so on and so forth.
Try saying money explains any of that lot and I have a bridge to sell you.
Lastly, when I said 'wars go on everywhere, all the time' did you actually think I meant there is a global war transpiring indefinitely? For shame. Let me clarify: Somewhere on this planet, someone is prosecuting a war. This is the case regardless of the world economic climate. And it may interest you to note that even if there hasn't been a conflict on north American or Western European soil for 60 years, that hasn't stopped the nations of those areas from waging wars in other areas of the world, pretty much permanently, ever since then. That's what I meant.
the great depression and WWII's relationship was largely anecdotal as it required several other factors.
the facists rise to power was facillitated by the humiliation and restrictions placed on germany after WWI which was exploited along with the very deep emotions caused by the german hyper inflation, but they also used the large amount of anti communism and anti semiticism to increase their following...this coupled with extreme use of fear/terror, the promise of a better tomorrow (get yer chins up) sort of thing meant that hitler could only ever expand to keep the punters happy about his promises....he needed enemies or constant expansion (expanding horizons) for germany
in facisms rise
that is starting there will not be a recovery that preceded WWII
and thus not countries will be much in a state to start a war (maybe russia might be in a condition top do so)
However an unexpected and unpredicted (level or type) of war might be exactly the only sort of deus ex machina that might possibly save us from domestic wars between the people and governments everywhere.....because at the moment countries are deivided often having a clear enemy that can be struggled against together would be the only thing that would encourage people not to be concerned about the stuff that would not allow a recovery otherwise......people would at least be prepared to loose a huge ammount simultaneously in war.....in the way our society is dying it is happening little by little so imperceptably that you, and the govs and institutions seem to be unaware of the full implications...without you realising this could be the end of our current civilisations...thus no sufficient action will be taken...instead there is an obsession with trying to fix things....back the way they were (or close to it) rather than accepting that pensions are stuffed and doing an amnestuy on ALL debt worldwide.
Since the total amount of debt is probably about 10 times that of worldwide welath...if all debt were cancelled then although 1/10th will be lost 9/10 will be gained....basically rather than just kill all scoieties by trying to unravel a 10 fold debt which cant be done peacefully and equitably, all debt should be removed and only hurt human societies in one big go....equally and on people on the whole that can afford to 'most' (I know pensioners cant afford it but neither will they be able to afford it otherwise)
Seriously the current capitalism has really really screwed all societies now....it had happened before its just that for many many years people have been talking rubbish and constructed 'arguments' that could defeat objections to it....often people that objected were not 'against the system' they were just pointing out problems with it.....but if that interfered with the optimism and 2% annual growth brigade then they were treated as if they were 'against the system'