The End of Days
The End of Days.
Polemic? According to the bible, the end of days is an interpreted prophecy that proclaims the end of the world. Ingredients to this prophecy are a variety of conditions that describe the process within eschatological narratives that says at a time of tribulations the end of days may be at hand; taken in its strongest context to be experienced as the end of the world.
Although these narratives can be taken just as a biblical, rabbinic, koran etc pronouncements located within the major religions of the world (Buddhism, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, islam) these narrative have little factual evidence to support them as a true prophetic view of the end of the world. Even though in some narratives apocalyptic precursor events are described leading to the end of the world or judgment day; any number of scenarios can be interpreted into these narratives which may not be futuristically factual. The prophetic strength of such narratives is, one might think, with a little elaborate literary extension, to have some relevance to the shaping and outcome of events today.
Obviously the end of days is not here yet, some think, but what happened on the ides of March 2009 came very close to it. It was the day when the world economy took another step towards the brink of an economic war, a war that could all too easily fall into the commencement of an actual one some 6 years later. And the cause of this war?
There have been a number of sage analyses that place the cause of war on territorial, ethnic and politically cultural conflicts. Some early conflicts were resource based with countries challenging for control over assets seen as necessary for wealth and survival for narrow vested interest and coordinated by individuals of influence. The last major wars of the 20th century were primarily of political ideology not actually necessary for asset acquisition or survival or for the direct benefit of a selected few. Since then, with MAD, consultative politics and the development of sophisticated marketing methods, assets have been more plentifully distributed and this may have helped avoid the need for forceful intervention for control of resources, allowing over recent years for peaceful negotiation to smooth short term limited distribution, albeit inequitable and subject to affordability. However a 21st century war may have its foundations lodged in the worlds most important countries and their inability to develop managed resourced economies, having been reliant instead on the created inimitable law of supply and demand and market forces; all imbedded in the wealth of powerful countries dictating the ‘rules’ by which others trade with them and providing an economic advantage that has repetitively enriched the ability of western capitalism into producing supremacy of financial structures upon which they all relied. Unfortunately the tenet of market forces and supply and demand is fundamentally flawed, dependent as it is on an unmanaged, wholly free market function and takes no account of resource diminution with additional global population growth and environmental survival dictates.
This economic supremacy was ultimately via a process of subsisting on the un-developed countries to undertake productive output required of the developed economies (seen as being more economic) and importing the finished cheaper produce back to provide for the expanding voracious western economic consuming demands. To some this was the effect of the benefit of a ‘global market’ as an active commercial policy driven by the demand of higher profit from lower cost. The belief in the global market and the profit derived from all its constituent elements caused countries (with disastrous effect particularly on the UK) to locate much of their productive ability to undeveloped ones, carried out since 1979 without any real governmental strategy other than blind compliance to “market forces”. In effect the western economies became users and borrowers to support a created lack of self sufficiency, complacency, waste and un-competitiveness of an opulent life style which was unsustainable; living beyond its means.
Though the internal structural deficiencies are disguised by accumulated wealth and the ease of replacement using external supply; the slow eroding of productive resources and the desire to maintain the status of world players will inevitably impact the social integrators that bind civil society together. These integrators that were built up over decades are being whittled away in favour of the ‘benefits’ of crude progressive economics that is being squandered in the pursuit of continuing power and prestige against the raising tide of sovereign wealth and cheaper producer outputs of others, with control of residual western wealth as such accumulating into the sphere of few undemocratic autonomous economic generators; all of which had gathered pace from the late 70s. From about this time arose the pressures of the economic decline and the demand pursuit of desperate resource acquisition?
If one looks at the extrication of the reality of economics and the political dogmas of the past 30 years, primarily that of the UK and the USA, one might think that the beginning of the end of days, in some format, is being finally unfolded now. For many years the UK and US have followed a path of political and economic mendacity that has wreaked the structural strength of both countries. Such culpable mendacity came to fruition during the 2006/9 period, with the virtual collapse of the banking and finance sector amply aided by commercial corruption, driven by their manipulated own gross self aggrandisement to extract unsupportable financial rewards unchecked by any political oversight. Although minuscule in comparison such corruption in executive power is also mirrored in the UK’s parliamentary miss appropriation of public funds for unchecked “allowances” on MP’s expenditures and futile miss-guided unnecessary international conflict excursions, all now being brought to the light. The disgust being bestowed upon the miscreants in the public and private spheres has never been experience throughout the UK / US recent political history, so much so that it is not too flip to say that very few people have anything good to say about any politician or banker, they are contemptible, without honour and untrustworthy. The vented antipathy of the public may be understandable and is bad enough morally but the long term collective implication of such created mendacity on public trust over decades by governments is little understood.
The USA has been with the UK the main proponents of laissez faire economics that allowed operators of the market economy to become unregulated and uncontrolled. The approach of laissez faire, get rich, fast, easy money by the financial sectors was fostered in the belief of the munificent tax receipts gained for government spends and was an uncomplicated win, rather than foster the application of good balanced fiscal policies and control. These two countries have been in vehement opposition to any form of oversight in the control of their own financial markets, productive capacity and energy or climate issues. The US for many years was reliant instead on its perceived dominance as the world currency, consumer power house and prominent economic supremacy; it had not to take serious examination of its contributory role in global affairs other than to bend it to its own needs. The lack of economic administrative control has now exposed it to the full force of the global market and is to possibly decimate its productive ability only to be counted by massive investment and import controls; none of which will ease the internal turmoil to unfold. The obvious recent reversal of political deniability exercised by the past Bush administrations has also opened up to the people of America the fragility and corruption of Wall Street against Main Street and within the UK the ‘City’ against the people. These neglected affairs are, in the balance of world activities considered of minor events but the implications of these and similar proceedings are the building blocks of unrelated causes that combine to create antipathy of politics and latent violent vexation.
Reaching this stage of created public antipathy has took a little while to mature, a point in time at which events started to assemble might be stated as 1979. This may have been the year when the ‘right’ wing movement both in political and economic terms thought it had achieved the strength to break down the wall of social authority and commitments that were derived from the social improvement desires of the previous four decades. Improvements that were driven by the outcome result of accumulated waste of two previous wars that took such a toll on the fabric of society in human, infrastructures and the productive capacity; such factors as these were in play predominantly for the UK and Europe. The obligation that was owed to the populations as a whole for the effort, pain and suffering forced upon it by class political manipulation of power blocks, too comforted in their own class richness to ever suffer privation, was overthrown after the wars to give rise to the social responsibilities to improve the equality, health and security well being for all aided by the induction of female participation into various spheres. This development to bring about a fair social constructed civil society was continually under threat from the affluent power players in the media, business, old rich and bought mendacious politics, all too embroiled in their own special pleading argument of essentially not wanting to share any wealth generation using instead the meritocracy argument for individual enhancement “the cream rises to the top”.
The constant interplay of the politics of the supporters and detractors for social fairness had its high and lows notable with the creation of the National Health Service, State Pension, Social Security, and compulsory free education, Employment Rights, FOI and Human Rights act. These were undermined by breaking of unions, enthusiastic application and belief in unbridled ‘market forces economics’, destruction of manufacturing, uncontrolled corporate and city excesses, deregulation, lax financial controls, retrenchment of universal benefits as of late, diminishing of governmental direction, taxation role back and derogation of state self sufficiency and good governance.
Overall it might be thought that during the whole of the 20th century the west had to a great extent manipulative control of the market condition it enjoyed while it was in a position to exploit weaker nations and by doing so had the ability to extract the necessary energy and natural resources to feed the insatiable expansion of its consumer base. While the terrestrial resources were plentiful and ‘cheap’ there was no need to really give consideration to the day when the natural resources would become diminished. The terminal years of the 20th century however are eventually forcing the rational of conservation before the full effects of the destructive resource consumption becomes irreversible. Resource management is increasingly a consideration in the policies and strategy of western nations. The poorer nations, not being the prime despoilers from resource consumption, do not have a powerful influence in the means of consumption other than as a provider of basic resources from which over the years they had gained a slow increased economic advantage; enough of an advantage to build up a socially limited infrastructure base that in itself could not survive without access to the very rewards of the resources that they were indebted to sell-out too the major consumer for their countries own survival.
Two decades prior to 2006 were seen as buoyant years, yet there were signs that such buoyancy was becoming subject to misguided optimism within political expediency shaping dogmas that were largely self serving. These early years may also perhaps be seen as the opening of the penultimate amalgamation of degenerative factors culminating later in the pre war collapse, part initially experienced in the effects of the “credit crises” of 2008/2012. In condensed terms the start of the credit crises period saw a small rise in interest rates as a precursor to slowing the concern of inflation, inflation which after a long period of low interest rates from 2000 was enough to begin to destabilise the credit borrowing market. The small rise of interest rate in 2007 together with the EU and US policy dash for bio fuel was enough to cause the diversion of grain to bio fuel production creating a market shortage and driving up cost of food. This trigger became self reinforcing, the markets linked it to energy – oil and gas and in 07 lifted a barrel of oil from $70 to $120 dollars per barrel within a year. This explosive energy cost strain with the small interest rise combined to put pressure on mortgage repayment and opened up the hidden over valuations of property assets and started defaults. The initial response was to let the markets sort it’s self out but as the scale of the corruption in credit derivates and hyped asset values became obvious, banks found it difficulty to fund day to day liquidity trading resulting in bank runs on Northern Rock, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and the collapse of Lehman’s and RBS, meant the game was up. It was only with forced governmental action of quantitative easing (QE) that some stability was injected into the world economy. This was a temporary relief as the essential mechanics of market operations and its global manipulation was not addressed. For all intent, the market economy controlled by the west was being unravelled and the populace little realise the implications of the long term ongoing affects.
Much is made of QE, pumping money into the market to stave off deep recession. Although not universally accepted as necessary by some countries that had not fallen into the corrupt derivatives and property gamble as the UK and US had, it was to varying degree supported. It, QE did a very necessary job for a short while but the creation of national debt, its effect on PSBR and as an increased unhealthy percentage of debt to GDP had to be rescinded at some time. However a withdrawal of government support at a time of low economic activity could be extremely counter productive generating a sharp depression. Countries with little financial reserve were particularly exposed and under server threat of defaults. The subsequent reaction to recover from the impact of the crises is for those countries with high debt, to raise taxes, reduce public expenditure, bear down on wages, create a helpful devaluation (which only works if there is an excess of exports over imports) and enter long term austerity.
In the UK the bank of England will be compelled to see inflation rise faster than an interest rate but are also locked into a duplicitous situation to maintain confidence in the pound and has to manage corresponding interest rate increases to check demand, in an unusual recessionary time. The UK government will be forced to sell high interest gilts for borrowing and operate a wage stabilisation policy effectively making everyone pay for the past excesses of the market as well as a reduction in public spending rounds across a whole range of areas generating infrastructure deterioration and cuts in public spending on social constructs. This will be a deliberate policy to redress the PSBR quickly and avoid having to go to the IMF all of which may work but for two reasons; it has no large productive capacity to export even with a devalued pound and no control over energy cost. It cannot control either and will become captured by imported inflation experienced by the rapid rise in energy cost as initially the global economy picks up but then slowed down. Yet the costs of energy will also driven high as energy constriction takes place feeding through to basic living cost which becomes a crucial factor in the attitude of peoples comfort dynamics with reduced living standards, depleted disposable incomes with the eroding of earnings and pension expectations. It will be disquieting to see the miscreants responsible for the CC still absorb generous remuneration.
The past departure of productive ability to off shore havens was a compounding mistake for the UK which had followed path of ‘service’ before ‘manufacturing’. A mistake not wholly emulated by others European countries or the US, never the less there will occur a broad overall development of harsh opinion towards many governmental political ineptness, mendacity and economic inequality of many countries as economic restructuring takes place that impinged on global living standards. Violent social pressure may start to break out in a number of areas over a variety of issues raising social fragmentation in desperate areas, on the lack of skills, loss of jobs to reduce ‘manpower’, decreasing wages by employers to buy competitiveness, youth disenfranchised, inappropriate immigration etc all of which were of a long gestation nature but were ignored in the high expansive credit days of 80’s – 90’.
Some of the key events that can establish the conditions under which the pressure to seek conflict to arise and could prompt the end of days war, stem from the insidious amalgamation of factors like the financial big bang, to sub prime credit crutch, the rapid rise in energy cost and the ‘fall out’ from growing social dysfunctional dynamics as society comes under pressure of reduced affluence and imported cultural influences. Of these causation elements it may be the social dynamic that is not understood to be the main driver in a change of attitudes that allows hostilities to develop. The functioning elements of the mechanics of war has focused around the mechanisms that propped up western wealth as a way of feeding economic growth of the post 2nd war era, cheap energy, higher profits, cheaper production, deregulation, apathetic governance and growing inequality. These procedure were at the expense of not developing a managed sustainable civilisation and social inclusiveness for all in society, it was a case of allowing market forces to dictate were investment was put to generate greater profits required by shareholders multinationals. The investment manipulators had come to expect a continuous rise in the expansion of output and earning capacity that took no account of the inherent damage being caused to their home consumer economies. The external transfer of mass production with less labour and cheaper cost to extract higher profit built up an increased collection of people that were surplus to requirements. Dissatisfaction in the civil expectations against the obvious concentration of wealth into fewer hands engenders an attitude move to enact protectionism to reverse the lost income, skills and employment, allowing extreme views to be generated and an undercurrent of frustrated anger within the overall reduction in cultural ambiance.
The spark that could cause a 2015 war to start will be a disproportionate stance taken over the constriction of population freedoms and growing impact of high energy cost. As no mechanism has been agreed in how to manage depleting resources and no control exercised over the way the market operated in setting a price or of how it is distributed; countries have started to act in individual ways to corner supply for their own use. Where the wealth of a country could not easily buy the resources, strategic measures are enacted to secure by tacit force, tariff levies, protectionism and eventually rationing in an effort to keep a balanced energy flow. Lack of confidence in the prime trading currencies particularly the dollar, pound and euro will produce volatilities and the incremental move by sovereign wealth countries (middle east / asia) to a created separate ‘reserve currency’ generating a break in the financial hegemony enjoyed by the west. The market may trade viciously to continue to generate profit and possibly force devaluation of the pound and dollar in 2010/2011. This causes concern in the markets holding and pricing value against these currencies allowing market apprehension to take hold. It will also exacerbate the raising cost of imported goods / energy. Discontent might grow in the public against the political class and the reduction of their living standards with higher consumer cost against worsening trade and social conditions. The UK is already resorting to exercising greater policing powers to maintain control and taking a step towards a national police force fracturing the historic consensual nature of local policing. This is also linked to the use of no jury trials which will be expanded to cover much more that “complex” or “jury tampering” situation.
The massive dependency on consumable resources that the west no longer can control, is becoming increasingly subject to the power of market forces, resources that it had previously, with its power and wealth, it had so successfully exploited to its own advantage. It was now at the mercy of new strategic supply and demand powers. The first real indication that the access to energy resources was a strategic weapon came initially from just before the credit crises of 2007 when the market for reasons mentioned jumped the price of oil and gas which signalled an increase in inflation and interest rise that exposed the asset bubble of the American property market, the UK and led directly to the ‘credit crises’
Energy, its cost and the supply of it is the driving attribute upon which all elements depend. A disagreement in 2007 over the cost of gas and payment for it between Russia and Georgia resulted in supply being interrupted. This affected key EU countries that took major supplies from Russia and caused some alarm. There was also increasing squabbles occurring over territorial rights within the arctic with disputes between Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, US & EU to the opening up of the Arctic and Antarctica for heavy geological exploration again with disputes of applied sovereignty. However the ability to influence energy availability was still left to the dictates of the market under the cost constraints of supply and demand and as no country had the strength to dictate its accessibility, supply or alternatives, all are to become reliant instead on the environmental arguments to start to nurse its use.
Of immediate and urgent concern of the time like the CC was the G 20 summits of 2009 that looked in to the abyss of financial melt down which more than any other experience of modern times indicated that the government practices of the past decades were no longer in control of market events nor in touch with the trends that had, for some time been allowed to propagate in the name of free market forces. These trends have, for a short time, been most beneficial in a political sense to the status that had been garnered from the wealth consumed from developing countries with their provision of cheap disposable labour and material resources, voraciously taken up by multi nationals exporting their own country manufacturing platforms for the sake of fast money and ever higher profit taking. The G20 was a failure in that it had little to contribute to the environmental challenges and the new debtor countries like the UK, America, Iceland, east Europeans and others could not rely on the creditors or trading surpluses continuing to bail them out. It also became obvious that some of those countries would have great difficulty to trade out of the situation as they no longer had control of the market mechanisms for productive ability. At the G20 meeting in Sept 09 there was a little attempt to redefine the mechanism of the global market economy, yet to recognise that the economic power was fast shifting to developing producer countries that were not directly caught up in the financial meltdown, it produce no realism of the west’s structural weakness or did it instigate attempts to control the generated high risk of global financial manipulators but crucially no paradigm shift was made to direct and manage an equitable deviation of power. The best effort of the western government against economic collapse was to shore up the banking system to prevent a melt down of the world economy and stabilised a defunct economic system. But the new disguised problem of currency confidence which had been caused by the printing of money to fund banks and isolate bad debt led to a slow ebbing of confidence in the ability of some countries to afford credit and fashioned doubt in the strength of previously strong currency.
In this situation the market will inevitable do what it is allowed to do and that is price commodity to the best advantage knowing that the commodity has to be acquired by any major consumer to survive. From this comes the application of overt political strategy pressure, with possibly Russia using its position as the European prime supplier of gas demonstrated by restricting supplies to Georgia and incidentally parts of the EU. This on its own was a wake up call to the west but when linked to the increasing ‘economic’ aggressiveness that China is taking in gaining influence into countries that have resources and building stock acquisitions, provides a crucial link in the view that market take in pricing in uncertainty. This is compounded with anything that interfered with the flow of energy creating a shortage, such as restricting supplies because of funding issues, temporary environmentally caused production blockages, high to low consumption and stock manipulations.
Although the immediate few years that will follow the CC may be relatively stable, due to the low liquidity of the economy of the west and slow western growth, economies are fragile with little overall economic growth, uncertain confidence in the strength of ‘hard’ currencies and raised unused labour is to impact fiscal policy. In time it will be the concern of ever higher energy cost that provides the drain on national resources and offers a spiral of decline. Slowly the price of oil can move from the accepted economic range of $40/80 to the high of $150 of 2008 and $220 of 2015. Not only is this deep recession making but it becomes a drain on countries ability to fund as the market was no longer ‘self correcting’ due to increased depletion of supply.
The reconstructive opportunity of the worlds financial crises in 2009 that saw the western governments buttress the banking system and market, was lost in the belief that things would get back to normal trading operations and to restrict the bank and finance housing too tightly would stifle potential growth. The hope by some was for the culture within the system would change to be more transparent and truthful with the expectation that ‘lessons will be learned’ to be better prepared to stop any created false exuberance of markets in the future. Of course nothing of the sort happens as both are ossified into super structures that could not change by voluntary arrangement. Lacking direct progressive intervention to bring about global managed economies, consequently economic and political influences are not prepared for the foreseeable disintegration. The markets continued to act irrationally aided by high frequency trading that offered no practical value to the stability of market trade.
As each month went by after the intercession by the Governments on banks with the injection of massive funds into the banking system by way of ‘quantitive easing’ it is becoming abundantly clear that no lesson will be learnt by the economic community. Disregarding all the previous hype about excessive risk taking, fraudulent market manipulation, and unjustified bonuses; the calls for restraint are going unheeded. There is a perverse argument that prompts the view that having restraint on the activity of the ‘city’ and its ‘key’ personnel will lead to a flight of business activity and people to other less regulated countries. It is an argument that is largely untested and is designed to promote fear of action to apply any controls – just in case. This idea, which purports the supremacy of those personnel of the financial markets, who will depart to other countries if their activities are scrutinised more and rewards are not substantially paid for taking risk, is risible. It is must unlikely that any one person alone holds all the market skill necessary to carryout a gambling deal in the city that is supposed to generate wealth. It is reasonable to suppose that behind every ‘key’ operator there is likely to be any number of unknown others equally able and willing to commit to a vacated role and make a success of it.
Likewise there are but a few corporate operations that would risk taking their activities off shore to avoid any controls or paying tax dues, for they require the security of a stable structure and defined laws in which to operate. There are of course some countries that can provide such comforts but mass relocations would only be tolerated if it is consider a balanced fairness in trade between countries and equitable to GDP. After the recent created banking fiasco, countries will be more watchful in the activities of financial markets inter trading across borders and cannot allow unregulated activity to impact on their own economies, legislative action will have to be taken. So the threat of an exodus from say London of the financial market to elsewhere is not credible but is still enough to stay effective restraint legislation. The paucity of corrective action that has typified governmental lassitude is understandable. There are possibly two reasons why no action has been taken nor will there be. There is still the unresolved dichotomy of allowing market economy to continue largely unrestrained to generate ‘wealth’ despite its clear failure in self regulation and laxity and its inevitable reliance on the providence of the lenders of last resort (taxpayers / governments) to create the right condition for it to be ‘free’ yet for governments to risk being much more forceful with it than hitherto, to instil controls albeit unilaterally or on a perfunctory global basis. The fear was and still is; would any such action ultimately harm or benefit one over another?
Even in late December 09 the financial institutions had no new legislation placed upon them. The banks were still willing to give out massive bonus for ‘value added’ of winning investment and the governments hesitates to enact controlling legislation. It is not difficult to see why as the fight and balance between booms and bust so pre-emptively ‘cured’ by G. brown has never been more tenuous and terrifyingly narrow. The aim is to push out an air of confidence onto the mechanics of the country that all will be well and depression manageable. It is a confidence that is as strong as a titanic opportunistic launch, not able to believe that without a change of course to regulatory control and productive consumption for domestic self reliance, that a greater collapse is underway, so the tack is to generated fiscal resources to cover the gap in GDP and the ‘balance of payments’ via tax gains, austerity and play for time.
By every measure the UK (like Iceland and Ireland) is reaching its own end of days, not that this is an idea that is commonly held for obvious reasons nor is it one that is open to dissection for any element of hard veracity by the media yet some element of the methodology for its creation is coming to light. The financial crisis is a major potent of weakness and stress for these countries and others like Greece , Spain, Italy and Baltics, also the UK is fracturing into separate political constituent parts and will eventually be too small and less powerful to have world influence on its own. In addition unlike other EU countries it has been too libertarian in resource management control, acquiring less ability now to trade out of the financial pit it has made or to command access to raw material resources and energy. Some countries are better place to cushion against the initial energy crunch but all cannot avoid the ease at which they will fall into conflict over energy, resources and environmental human fallout.
It still seems strange that civil society in some countries as constructed over the 20th century, though they retained the sovereign ideology that clearly had the inbuilt limitation of communal inactivity, and had made great strides towards concerted views on a European basis and to a less extent on a global platform; could when faced with the predictable pressures that impacted all, disintegrate the limited country cooperation at such a pace to allow a potential super powers war develop from localised ME/asian cultural disintegration. There were administrative structures with democratic reference, a move to nascent coordinated global management by the ‘developed world’ with its UN and other supranational structures, yet despite the sophistication of administration control and the wealth of verifiable ecological information many did not take the next constructive steps peacefully. To blindly go to the brink of destruction is a puzzles, with all the mechanism of the evidence in the failures from rampant economics, energy depletion, social disorder and climate change; why so little effort is put into the development of universal sociological cultural health the main driver of all major cultural awareness and the lack of which give collisions, remains obscured.
The ease at which the civil order brakes down and the rise of violent expression may be a reflexive condition of self preservation that stems from uncontrollable conditions or a dichotomy of opinions between countries administrative powers and popular powers and an inability to deliver acceptable solutions. As the veneer of civilisation is controlled by force it is not of sufficient in-depth strength residing within the human condition to be unshakable and events that strain individuals security and sense of wellbeing manipulated or ‘natural’ will break the veneer. The occurrence of events which could be seen to be degrading and life threatening may also bring about greater willingness to override laws of society to weaken the civility of human existence. In this there is the rapidly increased perverse attraction of conflict media entertainment. Why is it that there is such a fixation as is supported by books, DVD songs etc in the possibility of cataclysmic events portent to the end of days. Such nihilistic views are almost self fore-filling, this is not to say that it has not been a racial memory from some long forgotten occurrence of a pre history apocalyptic era that still resonates and generates a morbid fascination with created fictitious events. This nihilism seen by the rapid rise and volume of violent media exploitation via computer games and films although as yet not taken as having an influence on the formation of attitudes of impressionable youth, it has been noticeable that in all developed countries there was a incremental rise in the ease of males and females undertaking wonton violent actions in what ever cause. This is matched in the UK with the growing use of euphemism to describe and often hide unpleasant shifts in the way the states uses its powers to drive through socially controlling change and laws of duplicitous pronouncement to be perversely constructive about damaging actions. Changes that are redacting the terms of freedom of information, freedom of the press, super injunction, ignoring the human right act when it suits it, disregarding European court rulings and more use of euphemisms in the pursuit of its controlling forces such as the terms like collateral damage, kettling, robust policing, PC and the all encompassing euphemistic war on terrorism.
Although too late, each country will face the reality of having to developing a managed economy and the application of controlled energy resources, though it means substantial internal reconstruction of living standards and expectation and the imposition of import levelling controls, resource rationing; damage done to the social fabric by dismantling the decades of social integrators will prove to be the drive that stimulates a desire for change no matter what and in any form. A form of destructive self nihilism on a civil level will throw its weight behind any harsh diversion that attacked state controls and seeks outlet in minority differences.
All discordant actions can start to coalesce. There will panic in the political circles and large amount of unfocused civil disorder around the irritants of high energy cost, high unemployment, reduced social safety nets, increased criminal activity and ostracism (criminalise) of people that demonstrate on any issue. It becomes a fight of tensions between “them and us” that grows to feed the ease of focusing attitude onto an emotive single charge that carries onto war. A war of economic standards competing philosophy and resources, nothing could be done to avoid the tearing apart of old power blocks, for the vested interest of both political control and corporate pressures did not have the capacity to recognised that the traditional long held fundamental of economics were no longer useful. It was an anathema to consider that the world now needed a global managed system for the application of resources and economic fairness. Unfettered capitalism could not save millions from death. It become impossible to avoid the consequences of inflation / deflationary cycles with more out breaks of social order discontents and military skirmish to ‘secure’ undefined national resources areas. Even though there was an effort to invest in new sustainable energy and limited success in resource management via rationing, the implication could not be ignored any longer. Energy was crucial for survival and those that had it dictated the terms, the “market” could not be allowed to continue. In this pressured situation a war was hard to avoid.
The end of days may only apply to certain activities, attitudes or modes of behaviour embedded within maybe just some countries and it easy to see those that could be affected much more than others. Those particular exposed will be the ‘developed’ ones that have very high revenue and capital expenditure, little in the away of natural resources, low productivity and reliant on producer imports of goods, food and energy. Into this category must be placed inevitably the UK, Ireland, Iceland and east European members with huge parts of Asia and Africa with the USA following up the rear. It is difficult to see how they can ride out the economic and energy seismic shifts that clearly will impact them. The failure in reaching any strong CO2 limitation agreement at the 09 Copenhagen summit was in the medium term symptomatic of a compounded destructive outcome. For them the end of days had started.
The resource war, for that is fundamentally what it is, was not too be helped with the evidence that the AC was indeed slowing down and despite the “green house effect” for the northern hemisphere, a likely shut down of the AC can create much colder winter condition for northern countries requiring the use of more energy. All this may come to a head when in 2035 the weather system rapidly changes procuring dry and excessive reduced rainfalls, unseasonable vacillating temperatures in temperate zones, very hot summers to cold periods for the debtor countries and subsequent increasing demand for energy and food production. And then the evidence of sea level rise was inescapable, as it was occurring considerable faster than countries ability adapt, not a single continent escaped. Survival will then require a real world caucus.
It was not the end of days.
© Renot 2009
311220101625
Polemic? According to the bible, the end of days is an interpreted prophecy that proclaims the end of the world. Ingredients to this prophecy are a variety of conditions that describe the process within eschatological narratives that says at a time of tribulations the end of days may be at hand; taken in its strongest context to be experienced as the end of the world.
Although these narratives can be taken just as a biblical, rabbinic, koran etc pronouncements located within the major religions of the world (Buddhism, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, islam) these narrative have little factual evidence to support them as a true prophetic view of the end of the world. Even though in some narratives apocalyptic precursor events are described leading to the end of the world or judgment day; any number of scenarios can be interpreted into these narratives which may not be futuristically factual. The prophetic strength of such narratives is, one might think, with a little elaborate literary extension, to have some relevance to the shaping and outcome of events today.
Obviously the end of days is not here yet, some think, but what happened on the ides of March 2009 came very close to it. It was the day when the world economy took another step towards the brink of an economic war, a war that could all too easily fall into the commencement of an actual one some 6 years later. And the cause of this war?
There have been a number of sage analyses that place the cause of war on territorial, ethnic and politically cultural conflicts. Some early conflicts were resource based with countries challenging for control over assets seen as necessary for wealth and survival for narrow vested interest and coordinated by individuals of influence. The last major wars of the 20th century were primarily of political ideology not actually necessary for asset acquisition or survival or for the direct benefit of a selected few. Since then, with MAD, consultative politics and the development of sophisticated marketing methods, assets have been more plentifully distributed and this may have helped avoid the need for forceful intervention for control of resources, allowing over recent years for peaceful negotiation to smooth short term limited distribution, albeit inequitable and subject to affordability. However a 21st century war may have its foundations lodged in the worlds most important countries and their inability to develop managed resourced economies, having been reliant instead on the created inimitable law of supply and demand and market forces; all imbedded in the wealth of powerful countries dictating the ‘rules’ by which others trade with them and providing an economic advantage that has repetitively enriched the ability of western capitalism into producing supremacy of financial structures upon which they all relied. Unfortunately the tenet of market forces and supply and demand is fundamentally flawed, dependent as it is on an unmanaged, wholly free market function and takes no account of resource diminution with additional global population growth and environmental survival dictates.
This economic supremacy was ultimately via a process of subsisting on the un-developed countries to undertake productive output required of the developed economies (seen as being more economic) and importing the finished cheaper produce back to provide for the expanding voracious western economic consuming demands. To some this was the effect of the benefit of a ‘global market’ as an active commercial policy driven by the demand of higher profit from lower cost. The belief in the global market and the profit derived from all its constituent elements caused countries (with disastrous effect particularly on the UK) to locate much of their productive ability to undeveloped ones, carried out since 1979 without any real governmental strategy other than blind compliance to “market forces”. In effect the western economies became users and borrowers to support a created lack of self sufficiency, complacency, waste and un-competitiveness of an opulent life style which was unsustainable; living beyond its means.
Though the internal structural deficiencies are disguised by accumulated wealth and the ease of replacement using external supply; the slow eroding of productive resources and the desire to maintain the status of world players will inevitably impact the social integrators that bind civil society together. These integrators that were built up over decades are being whittled away in favour of the ‘benefits’ of crude progressive economics that is being squandered in the pursuit of continuing power and prestige against the raising tide of sovereign wealth and cheaper producer outputs of others, with control of residual western wealth as such accumulating into the sphere of few undemocratic autonomous economic generators; all of which had gathered pace from the late 70s. From about this time arose the pressures of the economic decline and the demand pursuit of desperate resource acquisition?
If one looks at the extrication of the reality of economics and the political dogmas of the past 30 years, primarily that of the UK and the USA, one might think that the beginning of the end of days, in some format, is being finally unfolded now. For many years the UK and US have followed a path of political and economic mendacity that has wreaked the structural strength of both countries. Such culpable mendacity came to fruition during the 2006/9 period, with the virtual collapse of the banking and finance sector amply aided by commercial corruption, driven by their manipulated own gross self aggrandisement to extract unsupportable financial rewards unchecked by any political oversight. Although minuscule in comparison such corruption in executive power is also mirrored in the UK’s parliamentary miss appropriation of public funds for unchecked “allowances” on MP’s expenditures and futile miss-guided unnecessary international conflict excursions, all now being brought to the light. The disgust being bestowed upon the miscreants in the public and private spheres has never been experience throughout the UK / US recent political history, so much so that it is not too flip to say that very few people have anything good to say about any politician or banker, they are contemptible, without honour and untrustworthy. The vented antipathy of the public may be understandable and is bad enough morally but the long term collective implication of such created mendacity on public trust over decades by governments is little understood.
The USA has been with the UK the main proponents of laissez faire economics that allowed operators of the market economy to become unregulated and uncontrolled. The approach of laissez faire, get rich, fast, easy money by the financial sectors was fostered in the belief of the munificent tax receipts gained for government spends and was an uncomplicated win, rather than foster the application of good balanced fiscal policies and control. These two countries have been in vehement opposition to any form of oversight in the control of their own financial markets, productive capacity and energy or climate issues. The US for many years was reliant instead on its perceived dominance as the world currency, consumer power house and prominent economic supremacy; it had not to take serious examination of its contributory role in global affairs other than to bend it to its own needs. The lack of economic administrative control has now exposed it to the full force of the global market and is to possibly decimate its productive ability only to be counted by massive investment and import controls; none of which will ease the internal turmoil to unfold. The obvious recent reversal of political deniability exercised by the past Bush administrations has also opened up to the people of America the fragility and corruption of Wall Street against Main Street and within the UK the ‘City’ against the people. These neglected affairs are, in the balance of world activities considered of minor events but the implications of these and similar proceedings are the building blocks of unrelated causes that combine to create antipathy of politics and latent violent vexation.
Reaching this stage of created public antipathy has took a little while to mature, a point in time at which events started to assemble might be stated as 1979. This may have been the year when the ‘right’ wing movement both in political and economic terms thought it had achieved the strength to break down the wall of social authority and commitments that were derived from the social improvement desires of the previous four decades. Improvements that were driven by the outcome result of accumulated waste of two previous wars that took such a toll on the fabric of society in human, infrastructures and the productive capacity; such factors as these were in play predominantly for the UK and Europe. The obligation that was owed to the populations as a whole for the effort, pain and suffering forced upon it by class political manipulation of power blocks, too comforted in their own class richness to ever suffer privation, was overthrown after the wars to give rise to the social responsibilities to improve the equality, health and security well being for all aided by the induction of female participation into various spheres. This development to bring about a fair social constructed civil society was continually under threat from the affluent power players in the media, business, old rich and bought mendacious politics, all too embroiled in their own special pleading argument of essentially not wanting to share any wealth generation using instead the meritocracy argument for individual enhancement “the cream rises to the top”.
The constant interplay of the politics of the supporters and detractors for social fairness had its high and lows notable with the creation of the National Health Service, State Pension, Social Security, and compulsory free education, Employment Rights, FOI and Human Rights act. These were undermined by breaking of unions, enthusiastic application and belief in unbridled ‘market forces economics’, destruction of manufacturing, uncontrolled corporate and city excesses, deregulation, lax financial controls, retrenchment of universal benefits as of late, diminishing of governmental direction, taxation role back and derogation of state self sufficiency and good governance.
Overall it might be thought that during the whole of the 20th century the west had to a great extent manipulative control of the market condition it enjoyed while it was in a position to exploit weaker nations and by doing so had the ability to extract the necessary energy and natural resources to feed the insatiable expansion of its consumer base. While the terrestrial resources were plentiful and ‘cheap’ there was no need to really give consideration to the day when the natural resources would become diminished. The terminal years of the 20th century however are eventually forcing the rational of conservation before the full effects of the destructive resource consumption becomes irreversible. Resource management is increasingly a consideration in the policies and strategy of western nations. The poorer nations, not being the prime despoilers from resource consumption, do not have a powerful influence in the means of consumption other than as a provider of basic resources from which over the years they had gained a slow increased economic advantage; enough of an advantage to build up a socially limited infrastructure base that in itself could not survive without access to the very rewards of the resources that they were indebted to sell-out too the major consumer for their countries own survival.
Two decades prior to 2006 were seen as buoyant years, yet there were signs that such buoyancy was becoming subject to misguided optimism within political expediency shaping dogmas that were largely self serving. These early years may also perhaps be seen as the opening of the penultimate amalgamation of degenerative factors culminating later in the pre war collapse, part initially experienced in the effects of the “credit crises” of 2008/2012. In condensed terms the start of the credit crises period saw a small rise in interest rates as a precursor to slowing the concern of inflation, inflation which after a long period of low interest rates from 2000 was enough to begin to destabilise the credit borrowing market. The small rise of interest rate in 2007 together with the EU and US policy dash for bio fuel was enough to cause the diversion of grain to bio fuel production creating a market shortage and driving up cost of food. This trigger became self reinforcing, the markets linked it to energy – oil and gas and in 07 lifted a barrel of oil from $70 to $120 dollars per barrel within a year. This explosive energy cost strain with the small interest rise combined to put pressure on mortgage repayment and opened up the hidden over valuations of property assets and started defaults. The initial response was to let the markets sort it’s self out but as the scale of the corruption in credit derivates and hyped asset values became obvious, banks found it difficulty to fund day to day liquidity trading resulting in bank runs on Northern Rock, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and the collapse of Lehman’s and RBS, meant the game was up. It was only with forced governmental action of quantitative easing (QE) that some stability was injected into the world economy. This was a temporary relief as the essential mechanics of market operations and its global manipulation was not addressed. For all intent, the market economy controlled by the west was being unravelled and the populace little realise the implications of the long term ongoing affects.
Much is made of QE, pumping money into the market to stave off deep recession. Although not universally accepted as necessary by some countries that had not fallen into the corrupt derivatives and property gamble as the UK and US had, it was to varying degree supported. It, QE did a very necessary job for a short while but the creation of national debt, its effect on PSBR and as an increased unhealthy percentage of debt to GDP had to be rescinded at some time. However a withdrawal of government support at a time of low economic activity could be extremely counter productive generating a sharp depression. Countries with little financial reserve were particularly exposed and under server threat of defaults. The subsequent reaction to recover from the impact of the crises is for those countries with high debt, to raise taxes, reduce public expenditure, bear down on wages, create a helpful devaluation (which only works if there is an excess of exports over imports) and enter long term austerity.
In the UK the bank of England will be compelled to see inflation rise faster than an interest rate but are also locked into a duplicitous situation to maintain confidence in the pound and has to manage corresponding interest rate increases to check demand, in an unusual recessionary time. The UK government will be forced to sell high interest gilts for borrowing and operate a wage stabilisation policy effectively making everyone pay for the past excesses of the market as well as a reduction in public spending rounds across a whole range of areas generating infrastructure deterioration and cuts in public spending on social constructs. This will be a deliberate policy to redress the PSBR quickly and avoid having to go to the IMF all of which may work but for two reasons; it has no large productive capacity to export even with a devalued pound and no control over energy cost. It cannot control either and will become captured by imported inflation experienced by the rapid rise in energy cost as initially the global economy picks up but then slowed down. Yet the costs of energy will also driven high as energy constriction takes place feeding through to basic living cost which becomes a crucial factor in the attitude of peoples comfort dynamics with reduced living standards, depleted disposable incomes with the eroding of earnings and pension expectations. It will be disquieting to see the miscreants responsible for the CC still absorb generous remuneration.
The past departure of productive ability to off shore havens was a compounding mistake for the UK which had followed path of ‘service’ before ‘manufacturing’. A mistake not wholly emulated by others European countries or the US, never the less there will occur a broad overall development of harsh opinion towards many governmental political ineptness, mendacity and economic inequality of many countries as economic restructuring takes place that impinged on global living standards. Violent social pressure may start to break out in a number of areas over a variety of issues raising social fragmentation in desperate areas, on the lack of skills, loss of jobs to reduce ‘manpower’, decreasing wages by employers to buy competitiveness, youth disenfranchised, inappropriate immigration etc all of which were of a long gestation nature but were ignored in the high expansive credit days of 80’s – 90’.
Some of the key events that can establish the conditions under which the pressure to seek conflict to arise and could prompt the end of days war, stem from the insidious amalgamation of factors like the financial big bang, to sub prime credit crutch, the rapid rise in energy cost and the ‘fall out’ from growing social dysfunctional dynamics as society comes under pressure of reduced affluence and imported cultural influences. Of these causation elements it may be the social dynamic that is not understood to be the main driver in a change of attitudes that allows hostilities to develop. The functioning elements of the mechanics of war has focused around the mechanisms that propped up western wealth as a way of feeding economic growth of the post 2nd war era, cheap energy, higher profits, cheaper production, deregulation, apathetic governance and growing inequality. These procedure were at the expense of not developing a managed sustainable civilisation and social inclusiveness for all in society, it was a case of allowing market forces to dictate were investment was put to generate greater profits required by shareholders multinationals. The investment manipulators had come to expect a continuous rise in the expansion of output and earning capacity that took no account of the inherent damage being caused to their home consumer economies. The external transfer of mass production with less labour and cheaper cost to extract higher profit built up an increased collection of people that were surplus to requirements. Dissatisfaction in the civil expectations against the obvious concentration of wealth into fewer hands engenders an attitude move to enact protectionism to reverse the lost income, skills and employment, allowing extreme views to be generated and an undercurrent of frustrated anger within the overall reduction in cultural ambiance.
The spark that could cause a 2015 war to start will be a disproportionate stance taken over the constriction of population freedoms and growing impact of high energy cost. As no mechanism has been agreed in how to manage depleting resources and no control exercised over the way the market operated in setting a price or of how it is distributed; countries have started to act in individual ways to corner supply for their own use. Where the wealth of a country could not easily buy the resources, strategic measures are enacted to secure by tacit force, tariff levies, protectionism and eventually rationing in an effort to keep a balanced energy flow. Lack of confidence in the prime trading currencies particularly the dollar, pound and euro will produce volatilities and the incremental move by sovereign wealth countries (middle east / asia) to a created separate ‘reserve currency’ generating a break in the financial hegemony enjoyed by the west. The market may trade viciously to continue to generate profit and possibly force devaluation of the pound and dollar in 2010/2011. This causes concern in the markets holding and pricing value against these currencies allowing market apprehension to take hold. It will also exacerbate the raising cost of imported goods / energy. Discontent might grow in the public against the political class and the reduction of their living standards with higher consumer cost against worsening trade and social conditions. The UK is already resorting to exercising greater policing powers to maintain control and taking a step towards a national police force fracturing the historic consensual nature of local policing. This is also linked to the use of no jury trials which will be expanded to cover much more that “complex” or “jury tampering” situation.
The massive dependency on consumable resources that the west no longer can control, is becoming increasingly subject to the power of market forces, resources that it had previously, with its power and wealth, it had so successfully exploited to its own advantage. It was now at the mercy of new strategic supply and demand powers. The first real indication that the access to energy resources was a strategic weapon came initially from just before the credit crises of 2007 when the market for reasons mentioned jumped the price of oil and gas which signalled an increase in inflation and interest rise that exposed the asset bubble of the American property market, the UK and led directly to the ‘credit crises’
Energy, its cost and the supply of it is the driving attribute upon which all elements depend. A disagreement in 2007 over the cost of gas and payment for it between Russia and Georgia resulted in supply being interrupted. This affected key EU countries that took major supplies from Russia and caused some alarm. There was also increasing squabbles occurring over territorial rights within the arctic with disputes between Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, US & EU to the opening up of the Arctic and Antarctica for heavy geological exploration again with disputes of applied sovereignty. However the ability to influence energy availability was still left to the dictates of the market under the cost constraints of supply and demand and as no country had the strength to dictate its accessibility, supply or alternatives, all are to become reliant instead on the environmental arguments to start to nurse its use.
Of immediate and urgent concern of the time like the CC was the G 20 summits of 2009 that looked in to the abyss of financial melt down which more than any other experience of modern times indicated that the government practices of the past decades were no longer in control of market events nor in touch with the trends that had, for some time been allowed to propagate in the name of free market forces. These trends have, for a short time, been most beneficial in a political sense to the status that had been garnered from the wealth consumed from developing countries with their provision of cheap disposable labour and material resources, voraciously taken up by multi nationals exporting their own country manufacturing platforms for the sake of fast money and ever higher profit taking. The G20 was a failure in that it had little to contribute to the environmental challenges and the new debtor countries like the UK, America, Iceland, east Europeans and others could not rely on the creditors or trading surpluses continuing to bail them out. It also became obvious that some of those countries would have great difficulty to trade out of the situation as they no longer had control of the market mechanisms for productive ability. At the G20 meeting in Sept 09 there was a little attempt to redefine the mechanism of the global market economy, yet to recognise that the economic power was fast shifting to developing producer countries that were not directly caught up in the financial meltdown, it produce no realism of the west’s structural weakness or did it instigate attempts to control the generated high risk of global financial manipulators but crucially no paradigm shift was made to direct and manage an equitable deviation of power. The best effort of the western government against economic collapse was to shore up the banking system to prevent a melt down of the world economy and stabilised a defunct economic system. But the new disguised problem of currency confidence which had been caused by the printing of money to fund banks and isolate bad debt led to a slow ebbing of confidence in the ability of some countries to afford credit and fashioned doubt in the strength of previously strong currency.
In this situation the market will inevitable do what it is allowed to do and that is price commodity to the best advantage knowing that the commodity has to be acquired by any major consumer to survive. From this comes the application of overt political strategy pressure, with possibly Russia using its position as the European prime supplier of gas demonstrated by restricting supplies to Georgia and incidentally parts of the EU. This on its own was a wake up call to the west but when linked to the increasing ‘economic’ aggressiveness that China is taking in gaining influence into countries that have resources and building stock acquisitions, provides a crucial link in the view that market take in pricing in uncertainty. This is compounded with anything that interfered with the flow of energy creating a shortage, such as restricting supplies because of funding issues, temporary environmentally caused production blockages, high to low consumption and stock manipulations.
Although the immediate few years that will follow the CC may be relatively stable, due to the low liquidity of the economy of the west and slow western growth, economies are fragile with little overall economic growth, uncertain confidence in the strength of ‘hard’ currencies and raised unused labour is to impact fiscal policy. In time it will be the concern of ever higher energy cost that provides the drain on national resources and offers a spiral of decline. Slowly the price of oil can move from the accepted economic range of $40/80 to the high of $150 of 2008 and $220 of 2015. Not only is this deep recession making but it becomes a drain on countries ability to fund as the market was no longer ‘self correcting’ due to increased depletion of supply.
The reconstructive opportunity of the worlds financial crises in 2009 that saw the western governments buttress the banking system and market, was lost in the belief that things would get back to normal trading operations and to restrict the bank and finance housing too tightly would stifle potential growth. The hope by some was for the culture within the system would change to be more transparent and truthful with the expectation that ‘lessons will be learned’ to be better prepared to stop any created false exuberance of markets in the future. Of course nothing of the sort happens as both are ossified into super structures that could not change by voluntary arrangement. Lacking direct progressive intervention to bring about global managed economies, consequently economic and political influences are not prepared for the foreseeable disintegration. The markets continued to act irrationally aided by high frequency trading that offered no practical value to the stability of market trade.
As each month went by after the intercession by the Governments on banks with the injection of massive funds into the banking system by way of ‘quantitive easing’ it is becoming abundantly clear that no lesson will be learnt by the economic community. Disregarding all the previous hype about excessive risk taking, fraudulent market manipulation, and unjustified bonuses; the calls for restraint are going unheeded. There is a perverse argument that prompts the view that having restraint on the activity of the ‘city’ and its ‘key’ personnel will lead to a flight of business activity and people to other less regulated countries. It is an argument that is largely untested and is designed to promote fear of action to apply any controls – just in case. This idea, which purports the supremacy of those personnel of the financial markets, who will depart to other countries if their activities are scrutinised more and rewards are not substantially paid for taking risk, is risible. It is must unlikely that any one person alone holds all the market skill necessary to carryout a gambling deal in the city that is supposed to generate wealth. It is reasonable to suppose that behind every ‘key’ operator there is likely to be any number of unknown others equally able and willing to commit to a vacated role and make a success of it.
Likewise there are but a few corporate operations that would risk taking their activities off shore to avoid any controls or paying tax dues, for they require the security of a stable structure and defined laws in which to operate. There are of course some countries that can provide such comforts but mass relocations would only be tolerated if it is consider a balanced fairness in trade between countries and equitable to GDP. After the recent created banking fiasco, countries will be more watchful in the activities of financial markets inter trading across borders and cannot allow unregulated activity to impact on their own economies, legislative action will have to be taken. So the threat of an exodus from say London of the financial market to elsewhere is not credible but is still enough to stay effective restraint legislation. The paucity of corrective action that has typified governmental lassitude is understandable. There are possibly two reasons why no action has been taken nor will there be. There is still the unresolved dichotomy of allowing market economy to continue largely unrestrained to generate ‘wealth’ despite its clear failure in self regulation and laxity and its inevitable reliance on the providence of the lenders of last resort (taxpayers / governments) to create the right condition for it to be ‘free’ yet for governments to risk being much more forceful with it than hitherto, to instil controls albeit unilaterally or on a perfunctory global basis. The fear was and still is; would any such action ultimately harm or benefit one over another?
Even in late December 09 the financial institutions had no new legislation placed upon them. The banks were still willing to give out massive bonus for ‘value added’ of winning investment and the governments hesitates to enact controlling legislation. It is not difficult to see why as the fight and balance between booms and bust so pre-emptively ‘cured’ by G. brown has never been more tenuous and terrifyingly narrow. The aim is to push out an air of confidence onto the mechanics of the country that all will be well and depression manageable. It is a confidence that is as strong as a titanic opportunistic launch, not able to believe that without a change of course to regulatory control and productive consumption for domestic self reliance, that a greater collapse is underway, so the tack is to generated fiscal resources to cover the gap in GDP and the ‘balance of payments’ via tax gains, austerity and play for time.
By every measure the UK (like Iceland and Ireland) is reaching its own end of days, not that this is an idea that is commonly held for obvious reasons nor is it one that is open to dissection for any element of hard veracity by the media yet some element of the methodology for its creation is coming to light. The financial crisis is a major potent of weakness and stress for these countries and others like Greece , Spain, Italy and Baltics, also the UK is fracturing into separate political constituent parts and will eventually be too small and less powerful to have world influence on its own. In addition unlike other EU countries it has been too libertarian in resource management control, acquiring less ability now to trade out of the financial pit it has made or to command access to raw material resources and energy. Some countries are better place to cushion against the initial energy crunch but all cannot avoid the ease at which they will fall into conflict over energy, resources and environmental human fallout.
It still seems strange that civil society in some countries as constructed over the 20th century, though they retained the sovereign ideology that clearly had the inbuilt limitation of communal inactivity, and had made great strides towards concerted views on a European basis and to a less extent on a global platform; could when faced with the predictable pressures that impacted all, disintegrate the limited country cooperation at such a pace to allow a potential super powers war develop from localised ME/asian cultural disintegration. There were administrative structures with democratic reference, a move to nascent coordinated global management by the ‘developed world’ with its UN and other supranational structures, yet despite the sophistication of administration control and the wealth of verifiable ecological information many did not take the next constructive steps peacefully. To blindly go to the brink of destruction is a puzzles, with all the mechanism of the evidence in the failures from rampant economics, energy depletion, social disorder and climate change; why so little effort is put into the development of universal sociological cultural health the main driver of all major cultural awareness and the lack of which give collisions, remains obscured.
The ease at which the civil order brakes down and the rise of violent expression may be a reflexive condition of self preservation that stems from uncontrollable conditions or a dichotomy of opinions between countries administrative powers and popular powers and an inability to deliver acceptable solutions. As the veneer of civilisation is controlled by force it is not of sufficient in-depth strength residing within the human condition to be unshakable and events that strain individuals security and sense of wellbeing manipulated or ‘natural’ will break the veneer. The occurrence of events which could be seen to be degrading and life threatening may also bring about greater willingness to override laws of society to weaken the civility of human existence. In this there is the rapidly increased perverse attraction of conflict media entertainment. Why is it that there is such a fixation as is supported by books, DVD songs etc in the possibility of cataclysmic events portent to the end of days. Such nihilistic views are almost self fore-filling, this is not to say that it has not been a racial memory from some long forgotten occurrence of a pre history apocalyptic era that still resonates and generates a morbid fascination with created fictitious events. This nihilism seen by the rapid rise and volume of violent media exploitation via computer games and films although as yet not taken as having an influence on the formation of attitudes of impressionable youth, it has been noticeable that in all developed countries there was a incremental rise in the ease of males and females undertaking wonton violent actions in what ever cause. This is matched in the UK with the growing use of euphemism to describe and often hide unpleasant shifts in the way the states uses its powers to drive through socially controlling change and laws of duplicitous pronouncement to be perversely constructive about damaging actions. Changes that are redacting the terms of freedom of information, freedom of the press, super injunction, ignoring the human right act when it suits it, disregarding European court rulings and more use of euphemisms in the pursuit of its controlling forces such as the terms like collateral damage, kettling, robust policing, PC and the all encompassing euphemistic war on terrorism.
Although too late, each country will face the reality of having to developing a managed economy and the application of controlled energy resources, though it means substantial internal reconstruction of living standards and expectation and the imposition of import levelling controls, resource rationing; damage done to the social fabric by dismantling the decades of social integrators will prove to be the drive that stimulates a desire for change no matter what and in any form. A form of destructive self nihilism on a civil level will throw its weight behind any harsh diversion that attacked state controls and seeks outlet in minority differences.
All discordant actions can start to coalesce. There will panic in the political circles and large amount of unfocused civil disorder around the irritants of high energy cost, high unemployment, reduced social safety nets, increased criminal activity and ostracism (criminalise) of people that demonstrate on any issue. It becomes a fight of tensions between “them and us” that grows to feed the ease of focusing attitude onto an emotive single charge that carries onto war. A war of economic standards competing philosophy and resources, nothing could be done to avoid the tearing apart of old power blocks, for the vested interest of both political control and corporate pressures did not have the capacity to recognised that the traditional long held fundamental of economics were no longer useful. It was an anathema to consider that the world now needed a global managed system for the application of resources and economic fairness. Unfettered capitalism could not save millions from death. It become impossible to avoid the consequences of inflation / deflationary cycles with more out breaks of social order discontents and military skirmish to ‘secure’ undefined national resources areas. Even though there was an effort to invest in new sustainable energy and limited success in resource management via rationing, the implication could not be ignored any longer. Energy was crucial for survival and those that had it dictated the terms, the “market” could not be allowed to continue. In this pressured situation a war was hard to avoid.
The end of days may only apply to certain activities, attitudes or modes of behaviour embedded within maybe just some countries and it easy to see those that could be affected much more than others. Those particular exposed will be the ‘developed’ ones that have very high revenue and capital expenditure, little in the away of natural resources, low productivity and reliant on producer imports of goods, food and energy. Into this category must be placed inevitably the UK, Ireland, Iceland and east European members with huge parts of Asia and Africa with the USA following up the rear. It is difficult to see how they can ride out the economic and energy seismic shifts that clearly will impact them. The failure in reaching any strong CO2 limitation agreement at the 09 Copenhagen summit was in the medium term symptomatic of a compounded destructive outcome. For them the end of days had started.
The resource war, for that is fundamentally what it is, was not too be helped with the evidence that the AC was indeed slowing down and despite the “green house effect” for the northern hemisphere, a likely shut down of the AC can create much colder winter condition for northern countries requiring the use of more energy. All this may come to a head when in 2035 the weather system rapidly changes procuring dry and excessive reduced rainfalls, unseasonable vacillating temperatures in temperate zones, very hot summers to cold periods for the debtor countries and subsequent increasing demand for energy and food production. And then the evidence of sea level rise was inescapable, as it was occurring considerable faster than countries ability adapt, not a single continent escaped. Survival will then require a real world caucus.
It was not the end of days.
© Renot 2009
311220101625
posted by Renot at 11:43 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home