Is the World really headed for another Dark Age?

[Zdenka]

I'm talking about the World economy becoming so bad that it'll ultmately lead to revolts in every country and then the ensuing anarchy, which will bring down all the governments and authority.. reverting us back 300 years into another dark middle age.

Before you answer, please give my question serious thought, as I think it's really possible it could happen.. I mean the economy is seeing no sign of bottoming out, isn't it?

Thanks in advance for your opinion!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let's see.

The last time the GDP was this low was 2007.

Yup. Sure looks like a Dark Age to me.

 

[neu]

I thought this subject was in reference to climate change. How is the economy going to get that bad? It's bad yes, lots of people lose their jobs get repossed, it's terrible but it's happened before, it's the logical conclusion of free market unregulated Friedmanite capitalism.

People get richer while others get poorer, and people should get angry. They had a week of riots in Greece, a few upsets in France, some English people reverted to rascism and blamed foreign workers for taking their jobs, but it's hardly a sign of an impending "dark age" is it; that is until you factor climate change into the equation

 

[Zdenka]

So you all seriously think the tumbling world economy won't lead to the end of civilization as we know it?

I'm not worried about 'climate change' the Earth has seen more dramatic climate change in the past and many species managed to survive, let alone humans.

 

[russ_watters]

Lets flip it around: why do you think it could? And ask yourself just how far the economy would have to fall to get there.

 

[neu]

I'm not worried about 'climate change' the Earth has seen more dramatic climate change in the past and many species managed to survive, let alone humans.

You forgot to put QED

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

People get richer while others get poorer.

I think that's PETA's complaint.

 

[neu]

I think that's PETA's complaint.

You're right to mock that sentence. It's nieve isn't it? To think that wealth is in itself a sign of exploitation? Yes, now I agree, one needs to understand the world better to realize that being rich is a good thing and should be celebrated. So that when we are confronted with those who are very much worse off than we are we can say we've done nothing wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's see.

The last time the GDP was this low was 2007.

Yup. Sure looks like a Dark Age to me.

What was the GDP during the dark age?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What was the GDP during the dark age?

Two sheep and a bushel of wheat.

 

[Andre]

Two sheep and a bushel of wheat.

Actually, during the dark age in the little ice age, it was too difficult for wheat to grow. It was half a bushel of rye.

http://williamcalvin.com/readings/Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA.htm

By the beginning of the fifteenth century, most northern European farmers had abandoned wheat cultivation altogether. Wheat was a tricky crop at the best of times in the north, requiring constant tilling, frequent and careful manuring, and meticulous rotation from field to field. English visitors to a Danish wedding in 1406 commented on the widely sodden ground and lack of wheat fields. In Norway, where the cold weather and plague had reduced the population by two-thirds over the preceding century, upland farms lay deserted. By the 1430s many district tax yields had fallen to one-quarter of their level in 1300. Many poor families ate rye bread, which, a French doctor wrote in 1702, "is not as nourishing as wheat and loosens the bowels a little."

 

[drankin]

I thought this subject was in reference to climate change. How is the economy going to get that bad? It's bad yes, lots of people lose their jobs get repossed, it's terrible but it's happened before, it's the logical conclusion of free market unregulated Friedmanite capitalism.

People get richer while others get poorer, and people should get angry. They had a week of riots in Greece, a few upsets in France, some English people reverted to rascism and blamed foreign workers for taking their jobs, but it's hardly a sign of an impending "dark age" is it; that is until you factor climate change into the equation

I'm not clear on this. Are you saying the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer? Or are you saying that some are getting poor and some are getting rich?

 

[LowlyPion]

Let's see.

The last time the GDP was this low was 2007.

Yup. Sure looks like a Dark Age to me.

Considering that Bush was President then, maybe you are on to something?

 

[Werg22]

So you all seriously think the tumbling world economy won't lead to the end of civilization as we know it?

...no

 

[Astronuc]

So you all seriously think the tumbling world economy won't lead to the end of civilization as we know it?

No! The future is bright. Get some

 

[rootX]

Yes, the time has come. We all are doomed to die. It's the end and Jesus is coming to save his people only

 

[glueball8]

This might be off topic but once I heard that the dark ages were actually "dark" caused by the environment. Is this true?

 

[Karl G.]

Ach! Here we are, facing a recession arguably less worse than the '70's and we have people saying doomsday!

 

[Karl G.]

This might be off topic but once I heard that the dark ages were actually "dark" caused by the environment. Is this true?

I do remember watching something on the history channel about this. But it seems that
you have your ages confused ... the dark ages are attributed to the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent lack of unity and the chaos derived therefrom. Many problems in European history during the medieval period can be blamed on prolonged winters caused by vocanic eruptions.

 

[kyleb]

From my studies of history I get the impression that the fall of Rome was due to an affinity for sophistry. Put simply, the ruling class so caught up in the ability to propagate their own self-serving ideologies though rhetoric that society eventually lost grasp of reality. We are clearly on that path today with the financial crisis being just one example, and while I am hopeful we can turn this ship around, I don't see it happening yet.

 

[edward]

Ach! Here we are, facing a recession arguably less worse than the '70's and we have people saying doomsday!

I must have missed the part about the government bailing out the big investment banks during the 70's.

It isn't going to be doomsday but there isn't going to be a payday for a lot of people for a long time.

 

[Karl G.]

From my studies of history I get the impression that the fall of Rome was due to an affinity for sophistry. Put simply, the ruling class so caught up in the ability to propagate their own self-serving ideologies though rhetoric that society eventually lost grasp of reality. We are clearly on that path today with the financial crisis being just one example, and while I am hopeful we can turn this ship around, I don't see it happening yet.

While this continues to be a hot topic of debate among historians, the Roman Empire 'fell' for many reasons. (I put qoutes around fell because Rome really didn't collapse overnight- even well into the 1000's, many of its institutions still existed. To be precise, Rome experienced a decline, sometimes gradual, sometimes quickly, as when Rome's last emperor was overthrown by a barbarian army). Some reasons outlined in Cullen Murphy's interesting book Are We Rome? (which compares America to Rome) include government corruption, overexpansion of empire, decline of military, and said barbarian problems. Furthermore, late Rome was often plagued by emperors who seized power by force ad only lasted on average for several months. Also, another problem that Rome faced in its decline was runaway inflation (sound familiar?) and other economic problems. There are, however, some more loopy theories about Rome's decline, including lead poisoning caused by the use of lead pipes, gradual loss of the mental faculties of the aristocracy due to generations and generations of incest, male infertility due to hot baths, etc.

 

[Astronuc]

While this continues to be a hot topic of debate among historians, the Roman Empire 'fell' for many reasons. (I put qoutes around fell because Rome really didn't collapse overnight- even well into the 1000's, many of its institutions still existed. To be precise, Rome experienced a decline, sometimes gradual, sometimes quickly, as when Rome's last emperor was overthrown by a barbarian army). Some reasons outlined in Cullen Murphy's interesting book Are We Rome? (which compares America to Rome) include government corruption, overexpansion of empire, decline of military, and said barbarian problems. Furthermore, late Rome was often plagued by emperors who seized power by force ad only lasted on average for several months. Also, another problem that Rome faced in its decline was runaway inflation (sound familiar?) and other economic problems. There are, however, some more loopy theories about Rome's decline, including lead poisoning caused by the use of lead pipes, gradual loss of the mental faculties of the aristocracy due to generations and generations of incest, male infertility due to hot baths, etc.

Peter Heather has produced an interesting narrative on the decline of the Roman Empire. He points out that they way one became emperor was to assassinate the emperor one was replacing.

Clearly the successive barbarian invasions and subsequent break up had an adverse impact. Rome split between east and west, and the western empire fell apart much more rapidly. Certainly we are not in that situation.

Communication is much more extensive now than then, and so is public education. On the other hand, we do seem to be in a rather unstable situation at the moment, and we are by no means in the clear just yet.

While some think the current US and global economic crisis is just as bad at the Great Depression, many in Washington acknowledge that the current crisis is the most severe since the Great Depression. It's clearly not that bad overall, but to those without a job or home, it is as bad as it was in the 1930's. Of course, few in the US have it as bad as the majority of those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq, . . . .

 

[Karl G.]

Peter Heather has produced an interesting narrative on the decline of the Roman Empire. He points out that they way one became emperor was to assassinate the emperor one was replacing.

Clearly the successive barbarian invasions and subsequent break up had an adverse impact. Rome split between east and west, and the western empire fell apart much more rapidly. Certainly we are not in that situation.

Communication is much more extensive now than then, and so is public education. On the other hand, we do seem to be in a rather unstable situation at the moment, and we are by no means in the clear just yet.

While some think the current US and global economic crisis is just as bad at the Great Depression, many in Washington acknowledge that the current crisis is the most severe since the Great Depression. It's clearly not that bad overall, but to those without a job or home, it is as bad as it was in the 1930's. Of course, few in the US have it as bad as the majority of those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq, . . . .

Agreed! I'm tired of hearing 'our society is going to collapse' rhetoric. Compared to the times of the Roman Empire (even compared to the early 1900's!), we are infinitely better off today. Life expectancies have skyrocketed. Income has drastically risen. Crime has fallen. Etc!

 

[Astronuc]

Life expectancies have skyrocketed. Income has drastically risen. Crime has fallen. Etc!

Well life expectancies on average have increased, but one can find pockets in the south and places like the Appalacian mountains and Indian reservations where it really hasn't risen that much.

Incomes are (proportionally) up for many people, but for many people the costs have kept ahead of any income increase.

Similarly crime. The aggregate rates are down, but I can take you places where it is relatively high, e.g. parts of LA, Chicago or any other urban or rural area.

For most - it's out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I must have missed the part about the government bailing out the big investment banks during the 70's

But you might not have missed the same with S&L's in the 80's.

 

[edward]

But you might not have missed the same with S&L's in the 80's.

The S&L bailout was peanuts compared to the current situation.

 

[Karl G.]

Well life expectancies on average have increased, but one can find pockets in the south and places like the Appalacian mountains and Indian reservations where it really hasn't risen that much.

Incomes are (proportionally) up for many people, but for many people the costs have kept ahead of any income increase.

Similarly crime. The aggregate rates are down, but I can take you places where it is relatively high, e.g. parts of LA, Chicago or any other urban or rural area.

For most - it's out of sight, out of mind.

True, but I'd rather live in impoverished Appalachia than be a peasant in Ancient Rome.

 

[misgfool]

Well life expectancies on average have increased, but one can find pockets in the south and places like the Appalacian mountains and Indian reservations where it really hasn't risen that much.

Incomes are (proportionally) up for many people, but for many people the costs have kept ahead of any income increase.

Similarly crime. The aggregate rates are down, but I can take you places where it is relatively high, e.g. parts of LA, Chicago or any other urban or rural area.

For most - it's out of sight, out of mind.

While doing some cherry picking, this quote came up.

"In 1980, the average income for a man in his 30s was $39,109; today, Pew estimates it is $34,676."

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0902/gallery.five_measures_new/3.html

 

[russ_watters]

I must have missed the part about the government bailing out the big investment banks during the 70's.

How does that have anything to do with the statement you were responding to? The govt bailed out the investment banks during the early 90s recession (and this one is worse) but didn't during the great depression (and that one was much worse). All that tells you is that recessions have different causes and the government reacts differently in each case. It doesn't tell you that bailout = really bad recession.

In any case, you seem to be implying that the current situation is worse than the 1970s recession. By what measuring sticks would you conclude that? Unemmployment rate? GDP drop? Inflation?

The S&L bailout was peanuts compared to the current situation.

...which adds to the uselessness of your point, but in any case, no, I wouldn't call $125 B in 1990 dollars "peanuts" compared to $750 in today's.

Anyway, we won't know we've hit the bottom until long after we're on the way back, but there were some seriously encouraging signs last week (which is why the markets are up 10% since then).