They have understood our leaders ??

[bpval]

For simplicity

Getting rich by selling to the poor
The "poor potential" threshold has been reached

Remain the "very poor"
Wait, I think ... what response to purchasing power in the face of the real accumulation of wealth ... capitalized ... not redistributed ...
Accumulation who serves who, for what
Ah, and a little ad for the last green car

"So much for the jug in the water ... that in the end it breaks"

Hello

[Former Oceano]

As indicated in the video, you need a quantity I / (I + P) of people to seize ...

So these poor people who are going to be seized are an integral part, even are necessary for the system and its proper functioning.

[bpval]

Hello

In one of the previous posts I had to say the following nonsense about the sub_primes

"the system collapsed for lack of poor people ..."by evoking the PYRAMIDAL real estate sales system

You pay interest for 3 years
Before these 3 years you sell with added value
And ... you start again
Not beautiful life !!!!

Shit and more poor

Hello

[C moa]

What has remained of the internet bubble? Nothing more than if it had not taken place (computers and the Internet and webservices).

Likewise on subprimes, what remains? Buildings, which are now there anyway even without speculation.

Well, I'm not a fan of bubbles, whether in the Internet, real estate or green energy. Indeed, a bubble as its principle indicates consists in earning a lot of money quickly without paying too much attention to the content and the overall purpose. And in principle, these bubbles are not regulated !!!
For example, during the Internet bubble, it was enough to say "I want to make a website on the wind" to raise millions of dollars. Neither the designers nor the people who funded cared for the content and how it worked, the goal was to sell the site fast enough to dig deep. This is how we saw online sales sites being created when they had no products in stock, we saw sites without content saying that they would be profitable in 5 years. without having made a real business plan.

It is because of all this that we have seen companies create head offices in chic districts of Paris with rest areas, masseurs who came to relax the programmers ... when there was nothing behind.

Of course there was the emergence of google, ebay and other sites which were well thought out and with a "normal" organization but overall we witnessed social chaos with many people unemployed overnight. , solid companies found themselves in difficulty because they had bought phony companies ....
And finally when the second generation of net companies arrived, better thought out, better organized and without the madness of grandeur, it was very hard for them to find funding.
When we look at subprime today, what I see is mostly empty housing because unsaleable with right next to whole families on the street.

All bubbles bring their share of human disasters and it will be the same with an environmental bubble !!!!

However, the same is not true of a possible green bubble. Because the urgency is such that it is indeed necessary that a "green bubble" is formed to leave infrastructures of sufficient scale to overcome the end of hydrocarbons, and which will not be present without this massive influx of capital.

Like I said, I think the same flaws will come with a green bubble.
You say there will be major infrastructure. Either but which ones ?? It is not because we will have funding that we can consider that it will be well used.
Imagine that this bubble appeared with the development of agrofuels ?? What would have happened ??
The principle of the bubble is that it develops in an anarchic way, without control and especially without logic the objective is to enrich quickly.
Is it desirable for huge installations of PV solar panels to be installed in Brittany or Normandy? I do not believe it however it is on that small clever ones will succeed in making elected officials and investors believe that it is interesting.

Is it desirable even for the environment ?? What will we do with these panels built in China with dangerous and polluting products ?? What will we do with it when the company has closed and the site has to be dismantled? Will it be up to society to do it?

Now if a movement towards green energies allowed us to obtain financing to develop Laigret I would be the first content but I have the weakness to believe that Laigret goes in the right direction of sustainable development.
The question is how many Laigret against how many eccentric projects ??

Now there will surely be speculation and bankruptcy, even in the renewable energy market. Human stupidity will impose these (its?) Convulsions, as in the past.

Unfortunately, there is no need for a bubble.

[Remundo]

It is because of all this that we have seen companies create head offices in chic districts of Paris with rest areas, masseurs who came to relax the programmers ... when there was nothing behind.

However, the same is not true of a possible green bubble. Because the urgency is such that it is indeed necessary that a "green bubble" is formed to leave infrastructures of sufficient scale to overcome the end of hydrocarbons, and which will not be present without this massive influx of capital.

Like I said, I think the same flaws will come with a green bubble.
You say there will be major infrastructure. Either but which ones ?? It is not because we will have funding that we can consider that it will be well used.
Imagine that this bubble appeared with the development of agrofuels ?? What would have happened ??
The principle of the bubble is that it develops in an anarchic way, without control and especially without logic the objective is to enrich quickly.

I think for France, in ascending order of importance:
- the development of wind power on the West and North-West facade
- the development of small hydro
- the creation of biomass collection and recovery structures
- the modernization of the electricity network welcoming decentralized productions from each household
- development of thermodynamic offshore solar energy in the Mediterranean

And for Europe and its big neighbors (Mediterranean + Near East), projects like DESERTEC.

Otherwise, I quite agree with you, but I would like to add a nuance of size.

"bubble" is not always synonymous with spittle and biased and hypochritical economic models

Financial good-for-nothing defines the bubble as:
"blaze the price of assets (stocks, real estate) unrelated to value real of the goods concerned."

Because it's what they do every time to put their pockets in it. They are clowns who rot everything they touch. Basically, the internet and real estate sector is really useful and has been ransacked, even if they recover each time because they are useful, even even absolutely necessary.

But at the base, a bubble is:
"Increase the price of assets unrelated to value current of the goods concerned. "

As you describe, when goods have no value because they are backed by non-viable models, it's spitting.

However if the goods do not yet have a frankly current value (currently, renewable energies are not competitive with oil, gas, and even more coal), but will certainly have a great future value because based on a model economically viable (in 30 years), then the bubble does not burst.

This is why I think that a renewable energy bubble would bring in enough capital, and would still be beneficial given the urgency of building sustainable and ecological energy infrastructure, with a guaranteed return on investment in the medium and long term.

A bubble is what you make of it: moderately inflated and well launched, it takes off, too swollen, it bursts miserably.

@+

[Ahmed]

Remundo a dit:

"A bubble is what you make of it: moderately inflated and well launched, it takes off, too inflated, it bursts miserably."

I'm sorry, comparison is not right! A metaphor can be used to illustrate a demonstration, not to replace an analysis.

"... and would still be beneficial given the urgent need to build sustainable and ecological energy infrastructure."

Undoubtedly, with regard to urgency, but what are the chances of infrastructures built for speculative purposes and / or under the effect of various pressures to meet real needs?

[Remundo]

Good evening Ahmed,

What do you propose ?

[jonule]

anyway, it is not a "novelty" as they try to make us believe.
the system is just trying to make money, with taxes and its associated lobbies.
the problem of water and global warming have existed for a long time and almost nothing has been done, it is not by speculating jobs and money that it will change, just powder in the eyes of electoral campaign.

[Ahmed]

@ Remundo:
I will try to answer * your laconic question: "What do you suggest?"
Let’s take a look at your question first (you know I’m much more interested in the questions than the answers!).

What you are looking for is a way to compensate for the inevitable exhaustion of current sources of energy, in order to continue to live as well, if not better, than what they have allowed.

There, I will be very clear, there is no solution, no plan "B". Why?
It’s a simple question of measure, or rather of excess (you remember thehybris Greeks you thought were overwhelmed?); the energy used to transform the world, there are 2 points to consider: the entry (quantity of energy) and the exit (modification of the environment, consumption of natural resources except energy, pollution…).
For a small quantity at entry, the consequence at exit is marginal; on the other hand, in the opposite case, there are two limits. Therefore, solving the problem of input is making the problem of output worse.
After this rapid synthesis, we must go further in the analysis of the question, because no question is innocent.

In my opinion, the serious ecological problems which are unanimously recognized (although to varying degrees), although legitimately worrying, are not the most serious since they are, in the end, only consequences, symptoms.
The cause or the ultimate causes are undoubtedly very complex and perhaps a large work would not exhaust its meanings.

However, I would stick to the most obvious and which struck me when reading a summary of the thesis of an English economist (a German author published a variant of the same vein shortly after), according to him, it is possible to assess the price of environmental degradation. Eg. the costs that will result from the absence of measures to fight against RC, in terms of medical costs, climatic damage, drop in agricultural production, etc.
It was very clear that moving from ecological ideology ** to economic accounting was the prerequisite for official recognition and respectability of environmental issues.
There was the crux of the problem, only the economic dimension could be taken into account and this shows that more than an addiction to oil, simple means, we have (not all, but many: Westerners in the broad sense, as well as all those who are tempted to imitate them) developed a great addiction to the economy. So much so that in order to solve the problems caused by the economy (and this is quite obvious with the financial crisis) the human mind seems incapable of imagining anything other than a new economy, a more "virtuous" E. another "green" E. So, that too much economy will be cured by more economy still.
I do not develop further, contenting myself here with suggesting the idea; I would only add that there is currently no political force capable of carrying it.

The future crisis is not energy, it is systemic. We are in an extraordinarily complex civilization, which results in a certain number of advantages but also a growing risk due to its great fragility. There are, of course, some regulators, but too modest to control a situation which, from an initial dysfunction could evolve into chaos by "domino" effect.

Consequently the practical problem of energy would be second compared to the vital needs. We are hardly prepared for these situations (which we tolerate very well when they occur far from home), we who take offense at the financial crisis, when it does not really affect (not yet?) The majority of us (I'm not saying it's harmless, only that there is much worse).

My choices in terms of energy (Remundo: finally!), Food and habitat would go towards everything that ensures greater autonomy for people, not in the sense of a selfish withdrawal, but of the local, of the directly controllable. This would allow two things: restore the dignity of people by no longer reducing them to the role of "economic agents" and would ensure greater stability to the model.

Villepin declared at noon that the solution in Iraq and Afghanistan was not military but political, similarly, the solution to the current crises is not economic but political ***.

* As my signature indicates, I hate closed answers, preferring to let the imagination of others react to my words and follow their own path. As this Zen thought rightly says, which Lietseu would not deny: "In the journey, the important thing is the path".
** this word has no pejorative connotation for me.
*** this word is not taken here in the sense of political politics.

[Cuicui]

A bubble consists in making believe that a thing has value. We bait buyers by making them believe that they can then resell more expensive. When it turns out that it has no value, the last buyers lose everything, their others get rich with the money from the last buyers.
This explains why banks have sold equity-based investments to their customers. They knew these stocks were going to lose their value. Banks have enriched themselves at the expense of their customers. But they too ended up being tricked, because, in the hope of enriching themselves even more, they bought other products which were only the wind.
Speculation is immoral because it is always done at the expense of someone.