News 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 enviroment. 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 enviroment. 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).

 

[Vanadium 50]

but in any case, no, I wouldn't call $125 B in 1990 dollars "peanuts" compared to $750 in today's.

As well as that the $125B was a cost, but the $750B is a loan. Now, we might never see the $750B again, but it's a bit soon to write it off, I think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

We nearly lost the US, and even the global financial system. It appears that we may have averted disaster with the bailout, but we don't really know yet. Yes, it is much more dire than the seventies.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/view/

What do you use as a news source?

 

[Phrak]

"There are, however, some more loopy theories about Rome's decline, including lead poisoning caused by the use of lead pipes..."

Not too loopy. They made a sweetener where the acids in fruit reacted with a lead container. And how do you take the edge off of lead poisoning? By drinking wine brewed in lead containers, of course.

 

[Phrak]

While some think the current US and global economic crisis is just as bad at the Great Depression...

I can't tell. The relative indicator would be to quantify how many years of GNP was fushed-away in bad investments in each case. There is a significant difference between the 1930's and the 2000's. In the 30's interest rates were raised. The economy in the 2000's was, and still is, proped up with low interest rates, a matter of the FEDs open market trading of interest instruments. As a result, we kept on shopping, and kept on spending as we did prior to March 2000 under the delusion that nothing had changed to our own financial positions we had during the bedazzlement years of 1995 to 2000.

The low rates are a deferment, not a payment of debt. The deferment has walked from wallsteet to corporate debt, to housing and lending institutions--and now tax payers as Obama adn the congress critters will have their way. It's got nowhere left to go, that I can see. There's no one else left to leave holding the bag. The time has come to pay it off. You know, common labor. Activities that add real value.

Unlike the 20's, today, with all the new currency dumped into the system, things should be a little different. Maybe the fed will dump the paper money system if it should devaluate too far, and go to bits and bytes if it comes to a matter of keeping their frickin banking system solvent. The arm always bends inward.

 

[Karl G.]

"There are, however, some more loopy theories about Rome's decline, including lead poisoning caused by the use of lead pipes..."

Not too loopy. They made a sweetener where the acids in fruit reacted with a lead container. And how do you take the edge off of lead poisoning? By drinking wine brewed in lead containers, of course.

Interesting, but I don't think the decline of Rome can solely be attributed to lead pipes ... did you know, however, that Czar Ivan the Terrible's homicidal mood swings were probably caused by mercury poisoning? Ivan sufferred from terrible arthritis, and many of the drugs prescribed to him were full of mercury. Now this potentially changed the course of a nation: if Ivan hadn't been mercury poisoned he may not have killed his son, so Russia would not have entered the Time of Troubles, so there would be no Romanov dynasty, so there may not have been any Russian Revolution, no USSR ... but this is getting too speculative.

 

[russ_watters]

We nearly lost the US, and even the global financial system. It appears that we may have averted disaster with the bailout, but we don't really know yet.

So you're saying it was almost a disaster? Almost a disaster isn't a disaster. I've pointed this out to you before.

What do you use as a news source?

All news sources are pretty much the same at this point. Our differencecs in perspective are summed up perfectly by what you just said. You don't differentiate between things that could happen and things that did.

Now to some extent we're simply talking about differen things. You can say you're in a "crisis" (a word often used here) if there is the potential, for something bad to happen. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about comparing bad things that actually happened. And that's fine in some cases, but not here...

Going a step further, your method of comparison is flawed, but I think you like it because the flaws lend themselves well to irrational thought and you primarily approach this situation based on irrational fear - it permeates most of your posts on the economic crisis. But in particular, the flaws are:

1. There is no list anywhere of crashes that almost happened, so there is no way for you to compare the risk of collapse today with other crashes that didn't happen.
2. You're comparing things that didn't happen with things that did and putting them on equal footing with each other. But anyone who has been in a car crash will tell you that "almost died" is a heluva lot better than "died".
3. Similar to above, your method is biased toward the present. It is based on fear and predictions about potential that wear off with time. The further back you go, the less you can remember how much fear people had and the less information is available about it.
4. Your method isn't logically consistent, but assuming you even wanted it to be, you'd have to consider the possibility of a crisis that was almost averted. The economy was very shaky last year, but until September, it didn't really crash. A few more months of weathering the storm and it might never have.
5. Your method is based on assuming the absolute worst case is the most likely outcome of the crash that didn't happen. That plane that crashed on the Hudson was almost a disaster and could have killed everyone on board, which is how the media reports it, but the reality is that in situations like that, they almost never do.
6. Similar to above, when pressed for a real prediction, an good scholar will try to predict exactly how bad it could have been, but the fact of the matter is that it is still just a prediction.
7. Besides the method itself being flawed, in this case, you are basing your opinion on a very limited amount of information.

 

[Phrak]

Interesting, but I don't think the decline of Rome can solely be attributed to lead pipes ... did you know, however, that Czar Ivan the Terrible's homicidal mood swings were probably caused by mercury poisoning? Ivan sufferred from terrible arthritis, and many of the drugs prescribed to him were full of mercury. Now this potentially changed the course of a nation: if Ivan hadn't been mercury poisoned he may not have killed his son, so Russia would not have entered the Time of Troubles, so there would be no Romanov dynasty, so there may not have been any Russian Revolution, no USSR ... but this is getting too speculative.

Not too speculative. The present is... more influenced by the influential, than the not-so influential.

Re: Rome. Not lead pipes, or course, but lead cooking vessels. You've got to get that lead into digestible form. Plain water is too neutral.

The Romans citizens also deviated from the winning, and time honored tradition of conquering and bleeding new subjugate states, leaving that businesses to mercenaries of conquered provinces, while discovering the good life, supported by a slave population that far outnumbered the citizens. (Four to one, wasn't it?) Enchantment with the status quo declined. The Roman citizens, as they partied on, were outnumbered. They were conquered by those they conquered. Kinda like what's happening in France, Britain, and the US.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Chrysler?

The money going to the banks are loans and is coming back w/ interest as we speak. The money spent on the stimulus bill, the homeowners bailout bill, and the new bloated budget is not coming back.

 

[mheslep]

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.

If 'much' is at least 50% and the period is a century or so, then I doubt that's true in any pocket, anywhere in the US, regardless of how remote.

 

[kyleb]

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.

I have long been familiar with all of this, and I hope you might reconsider my position with that in mind.

 

[Zdenka]

Did Rome really fall or did it actually pave the way for the western powers which dominates the world today.

 

[Astronuc]

Did Rome really fall or did it actually pave the way for the western powers which dominates the world today.

I think one has to look at what elements of Rome survived and were assumed by the barbarian successors, namely the Church and educational institutions.

 

[Burnsys]

We had a kind of situation here in Argentine in 2001.
The economic crisis was so bad that people rioted in almos every city (including me ),
The police killed 25 people during the riots, and we had 5 presidents in 2 months!
I don't think any economic crisis could turn the people so violent as to overthrow an entire government and install anarchy, The weapons are in the hand of those in control (The state) And finally those who has the guns has the power.
Worst case scenario is a Police State / Dictatorship, not he other way.

 

[mheslep]

Did Rome really fall or did it actually pave the way for the western powers which dominates the world today.

Administratively one could say the western empire fell with the 410AD sack of Rome by the Visigoths, and the eastern (Constantinople) fell in either 1204 w/ the sack by the Crusaders or by 1453AD, the final defeat by the Ottomans. If we date the start of Roman civilization to the founding of the republic in 509BC, and count continued influenced until 1453AD, that gives them a two thousand year run.

 

[Jacob Perry]

Wow, it just hit me how goofy and pointless these systems of society are. How should I start this? I'll do this in the form of a question that I know I will probably be misunderstood over but... what is the point of owning land? There is obviously enough for everyone. Another thing proving the pointlessness would be money... whos idea was it to create such a thing? School, a requirement if you want to be fortunate enough to be healthy a.k.a not be poor. The problem is they teach you a bunch of stuff that shouldn't even matter. College, if they really wanted everyone to be educated and contribute to the world, wouldn't they just teach for that reason and not for a coins and paper? Government, the ultimate liar and holder of secrets that they are afraid to expose for whatever reason. Keep in mind I'm talking about every country not just America. Engaging in war, perhaps the stupidest thing of all, the religion/belief induced battles.


The root of all evil is not actually money, but rather people's lust for power and their greed. Perhaps competition among people has influenced this stupidity. People, from what I know, want to know everything and are just as nosy as cats.

That was pretty bias of me to say I admit because if we had an anarchy it would be total disorder because of the same reasons of war, beliefs. Plus other reasons such as jealousy, desire, wanting to be the best.

It will be interesting to see the response of everyone on what I just said.

That seemed kind of off topic, probably should have put it in philosophy but, it needed to be said.

 

[Zdenka]

If we date the start of Roman civilization to the founding of the republic in 509BC, and count continued influenced until 1453AD, that gives them a two thousand year run.

That's about 3000 years less than the Greeks, a western civilization, which is arguably the longest continuous civilization in Mankind's history, and probably contributed to the modern world as much as Rome did.

 

[Niles]

That's about 3000 years less than the Greeks, a western civilization, which is arguably the longest continuous civilization in Mankind's history, and probably contributed to the modern world as much as Rome did.

I guess that it the same for Persia/Iran (although not the "western"-part, but middle-east).

 

[mheslep]

That's about 3000 years less than the Greeks, a western civilization, which is arguably the longest continuous civilization in Mankind's history, and probably contributed to the modern world as much as Rome did.

3000? How do you get past the Battle of Corinth? Other than the language, modern Greeks has about as much in common with ancient Greeks as the modern Italians have with ancient Rome.

 

[Zdenka]

I think the Greeks today have obviously modernized over their ancient counterparts. I mean today we all use computers but back then, there were other methods of calculating.

 

[Vanadium 50]

3000? How do you get past the Battle of Corinth?

Or the Dorian invasion a millennium earlier.