Reposted, Chris Martenson Presentation, with slightly more context.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

http://www.goldmoney.com/video/martenson-presentation.html

Chris is about the best at summing up the major future implications of our past and present economy that I've seen. This video is a presentation by him, which sums up much of what he has put in his "crash course."

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

It's a bit over an hour, so if responses come in prior to around 8:00 Pacific time, we know that the writer didn't watch the whole thing. :)

Really there is alot to talk about regarding this, from exponential money creation and growth, to Energy Returned on Energy Invested, etc.

Very interesting stuff, and very well founded on fact, not actually much politics involved, though politics ideally should be based on fact, though it often is not. Feel free to bring politics into the mix. This is a very good description of some of the biggest problems that we face, and that we depend on political will to help to resolve.

This was posted earlier but was deleted. Frankly, I don't think it's the poster's responsibility to make certain that people that can't access the video (or choose not to) are able to get the entire context. There is an incredible amount of material here, and it could spawn interesting discussion. Putting the thing into a nutshell so that people can comment on the nutshell, and not on the actual content, is pretty well counter-productive.

In any case, Chris's rough claim is that "The next 20 years will be nothing like the last 20 years." He goes over the concept and examples of many exponentials / non-linear relationships that we experience in the real world, focusing on Energy and Materials, primarily.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

No time before I have to go to sleep, so here it a picture.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'll accept that.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Wait, you haven't done a quote on your LJ yet.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. And I've been around long enough to know that sometimes people won't do as I ask. :)

It's ok, I won't feel too guilty for taking up a bit of space on LJ to pass across a pretty amazing sum-up of the World that we live in.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Perhaps sadly, I almost never watch anything on the computer that lasts over 4:22.
Heck, I rarely read any single thing that goes beyond one page. (which explains why I have no desire for an e-reader.
I realize this may be a fatal flaw in my character, but I don't expect to live long enough to miss real books.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Well, if you ever find that you can spare 1:15:00, or so, might fill it, nicely.

What Chris describes is a coming collapse of financial markets, and I actually don't entirely agree with a near-term collapse. However, what he describes are the REASONS for the situation that we're in right now, as well as the kinds of things we need to be thinking about for survival into the next 20 years.

There, a nutshell.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I don't think it's the poster's responsibility to make certain that people that can't access the video (or choose not to) are able to get the entire context.

That's fine, but it means the only discussion will be for people willing to put in an hours time because Random McInternetguy sez: "hey watch this!" If you give the context then people might think "that's an interesting theory, I would like to know more!" Even Adam Sandler movies have blurbs, even when you know it's going to be a movie about a man child with poor impulse control making fart and doodle jokes.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Oh, also, not going to comment on the content of the video considering you haven't really put any effort into giving your opinion.

Naw, OK, just for you I'll put in as much effort as you:

I don't agree with some of the points, but others are salient.

Good way to start a conversation eh?


(seems I have my grumpy pants on today, nothing personal)

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

When has the next twenty years ever looked like the last twenty years? To say that is to risk very little.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

And you said a total of 21 words, which, when put together, say nothing at all. Did you even bother to click a link? Nope, just typed words.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Just FYI, you can order the DVD, and really it's worth it. I actually bought a bunch of copies for distribution a couple years back (of the "Crash Course.")

He's not a survivalist craze, he's a data guy, but he paints a consistent picture of how Economy is tied to Energy, and Environment into one whole, from end to end. Hard to describe in just a few words (or even many). It's an unpleasant story in many ways.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> This was posted earlier but was deleted. Frankly, I don't think it's the poster's responsibility to make certain that people that can't access the video (or choose not to) are able to get the entire context.

Perhaps it isn't - on Ontd_political.

> There is an incredible amount of material here, and it could spawn interesting discussion.

I'm glad! And I sure hope for such a discussion.

> Putting the thing into a nutshell so that people can comment on the nutshell, and not on the actual content, is pretty well counter-productive.

You could still outline the main points, and the rest (who have access to the vid) could expand on them by watching it - if they want.

Personal analysis, or at least an issue being sifted through the personal prism of the OP, is essential here. On Ontd_p - maybe not so much.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Jeez, you again?

"I'm glad! And I sure hope for such a discussion."

Then read the comments above. I've spent time commenting, probably a freakin' hour. In that "discussion" I've laid out more points in description.

"You could still outline the main points, and the rest (who have access to the vid) could expand on them by watching it - if they want."

And I have. YOU chose to spend your time on the original posting to complain about the thinness of my commentary, thus wasting your time, moderator's time, and my time; and now again you continue to grade my practice of community etiquette, wasting your time and my time, when not only can you see additional description of the content, but you might as well have just watched the thing rather than spent the time complaining about the presentation, which, after all, is actually only about three vertical inches of your precious video landscape. You could have scrolled, but you had to make a point to disrupt.

"Personal analysis, or at least an issue being sifted through the personal prism of the OP, is essential here."

You can basically keep your opinion of essential, and I'm not going to spend more time with you, because just as your choice was to not spend an hour watching the video, which is absolutely fair, my choice is not to spend another one of my minutes worrying about your interpretation of what words to put in a post.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why I should trust your word that "it's very interesting" and dedicate an hour and a half of my time to watch a video, just to be able to have a conversation with you. I don't think you're getting the point, so there.

/Scroll-scroll-scroll-scroll/

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Hey, did you know that when you click play on a video, that as it progresses you retain the option to stop it, or even skip forward, as you wish? Really, it's not a contractual obligation to spend the whole hour.

LOL!. Sorry, that was mean, but this whole thread has made me cranky, and yes, part of it was my fault in presentation. And the content is lost in the process, which sucks, but oh well; happens sometimes.

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

I watched it, found it interesting, he's a good talker and gives some very good data points about the depletion of energy resources. He doesn't speculate much on the future of economies in the talk. It will be interesting to read more in depth what his economic theories are (if any). I'm not sure that he is indicating a collapse in the markets, I mean commodities no matter how scarce are going to be capitalized in trading, and equities are only boosted by debt monetization. Maybe you mean a collapse in prices? I'm not sure, anyway he does say that it's impossible to "invest" in the traditional sense, presumably because everything is priced and moved in volume by market players (they basically determine the prices of equities and commodities in order to make their positions profitable).

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I think that he thinks that equities are going away. I don't know that he's right in that conclusion, I really hope not, anyway. He's long on physical gold and silver, and well-describes energy impacts on the economy.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I disagree with pot being banned in my place, but still you won't see me smoking pot on the street.

By joining a community you've essentially agreed with the terms of the "contract" that are written on its profile. I assure you there's a very good reason for each of them, in that they're shaping said community in the way its members want it to be shaped. If 99.9% of people agree that personal opinion is a key part of its face, then your reluctance to put some effort into doing what everyone easily does, is a problem that is not theirs, it's yours.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what's going on in this post, so here's a picture of Darth Vader pouring water into a bottle.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Geez dude, I feel for you. If you had written the video up, then people would complain about WHY ARE YOU MAKING ME READ WALL OF TEXTS! WHY ARE THERE A THOUSAND LINKS. WHY DIDN'T YOU FORMAT THIS NICER. WHY WHY WHY!!

People can be so fickle.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. And perhaps putting links to copy-pasted sources is also too much pain, I don't know.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Snark aside, I think there's nothing fickle in the requirement for personal analysis here. You know very well the purpose of that.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

And, on afterthought, I was being a spaz. Sorry to all involved (not that many don't love the opportunity of an easy target. lol!).