October, 2008:

Many people and the media are portraying the present economic woes as a consequence of greed and poor loans made to people that can’t afford to pay them. It is certainly easier to see the collapsing banks in this way, than to start looking deeper, and asking what really is causing this. Even ‘green’ forums and websites are discussing this as though it is simply greed and stupidity and nothing to do with peak oil.

But, here is an article on the Oil Drum, reprinted from 2007, that tries to predict the impact of peak oil, and it looks very similar to what is happening.

What if we don’t find technological solutions?

We can’t know for sure what will happen, but these are some hypotheses:

1. Initially, higher prices for energy and food items and a major recession.

If the supply of oil lags behind demand, we can expect rising prices for oil and gasoline and possibly other types of energy. Prices for food may also rise, because oil is used in the production and transportation of food. Recession is likely to follow, because people will cut down on their purchases of discretionary items, so as to be able to afford the necessities. Layoffs will follow. People laid off will find it difficult to pay mortgages and other debt, so banks and other creditors will find themselves in increasing financial difficulty.

2. Longer term, a decline in economic activity.

With fewer resources, economic activity is likely to decline. We will need to find replacements for many products in a relatively short time frame — heating fuel, transportation fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, fertilizer (currently made from natural gas), and asphalt, among other things. Living standards are likely to drop, because we don’t have infinite resources for replacing all the things that are declining in availability.

A graphic representation of how this might happen is shown in Figure 3. Real gross domestic product (GDP) gives a measure of how much goods and services the United States is producing in a year, in constant (year 2000) dollars. The “Fitted” line in Figure 3 shows the expected growth in real GDP, if growth continues as in the past. Scenarios 1 and 2 show two examples of how limitations on oil and natural gas might impact future real GDP. Scenario 1 shows a fairly rapid decline, starting very soon. Scenario 2 shows a slower decline, starting in 2020. If the downturn is still several years away, we have longer to plan, and a better chance that the decline will be more gradual.

3. Transportation difficulties and electrical outages.

Since transportation generally uses petroleum products for fuel, a reduction in the amount of oil available is likely to cause transportation difficulties. These difficulties may extend to all forms of transportation–automobile, trucks, airplanes, boats, and railroads, to the extent that fuel is unavailable due to shortages, cost, or rationing.

If natural gas supplies decline, electrical outages are likely, especially during high-use times of the year. Electrical outages may also result from interruption of transportation of other fuel, such as coal, to power plants, because of petrolum shortages. Outages may be one time events, or may be planned outages at certain times of the day, to compensate for an inadeqacy in the fuel supply.

4. Possible collapse of the monetary system.

This is perhaps the biggest single issue, and the most difficult to understand.

There is a huge amount of debt in the world today. When loans were made, the expectation of the lenders was that the economy would continue to grow as in the past–that is like the “Fitted” line in Figure 3 above. If this continued growth occurred, people, on average, would be a little better off financially when the time came to pay off their loans than they were when the loans were taken out, so they would have a reasonable chance of paying off the loans with interest. Corporations would continue to grow, and because of this continued growth, most would be able to pay off their debt with interest.

What happens if a scenario like that shown as Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 on Figure 3 occurs? When it comes time to repay the loans, people and corporations will be on average, worse off, rather than better off, than when they took them out. It is likely that many people will be unemployed, and cannot pay back their debt. Companies manufacturing goods that are no longer in demand are likely to be bankrupt, and thus will be unable to repay their debt. Organizations holding this debt, such as banks, insurance companies, and pension funds will find themselves in financial difficulty, because of the many defaults on the loans that are the assets of these organizations.

Two possible outcomes of widespread defaults come to mind. One is that there is so much debt that cannot be repaid that banks, insurance companies, and in fact the whole monetary system fails. The other alternative is that the government guarantees all the debt, so that the institutions do not fail. The latter approach would likely lead to hyper-inflation.

In either event, people and businesses would lose their savings, because money either wouid either be no longer available (first approach), or would be worth very little due to inflation (second approach). In either event, foreign countries would be unlikely to accept our currency in trade. Simple transactions, such as purchasing food or paying an employee, would become very difficult. Eventually, some approach would likely be found to circumvent these difficulties–perhaps a more barter-based approach–but this would be a huge change from our current system.

5. Failure of economic assumptions to hold.

We have been raised in a world where supply and demand are generally in balance. An increase in demand results in a greater price, which in turn leads to a greater supply. If the particular item isn’t available, substitution is generally available.

Once we reach geological limits, these basic principles seem much less likely to hold. An increase in energy demand isn’t likely to translate into greater supply. Distribution of the limited available supply seems likely to reflect considerations other than price, such as rationing and long-term alliances. There may also be military conflict over available supplies.

6. Changed emphasis to more local production.

Two factors are likely to encourage local production and discourage international trade. One is the higher cost and/or unavailability of fuels used for transportation. The other is difficulty with the monetary system–either hyper-inflation or complete failure of the system. If there are monetary system problems, other countries are likely to want actual goods in trade, rather than IOUs or money. This requirement is likely to greatly reduce the amount of trade with foreign countries.

Food production is likely to be more localized, since this insures a continuous supply, and reduces the amount of fuel needed for transportation. If there are problems with shortages, people may choose to have gardens, so as to grow a few of the foods they need themselves.

7. Reduced emphasis on debt.

Once it is clear that future production is likely to be less than current production, as in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of Figure 3, it will be very difficult to find any lender willing to provide long term loans, since if the loan is paid back at all, it is likely to be paid back in money that is worth very much less than it was at the time the loan was taken out.

If governments still have debt at this point, they will find it difficult to sell new bonds to replace the ones that mature. Businesses desiring to build new plants may find it necessary to accumulate resources for new plants in advance of their construction. Mortgages may not be available for prospective home owners, either.

8. Reduced emphasis on insurance and pensions.

If there are difficulties with the monetary system, insurance companies and pension plans will be among the hardest hit, since thy take in funds and invest them, and pay benefits later.

It is possible that a limited form of Social Security coverage may continue, but this is by no means certain. If a high level of inflation occurs (see point 4 above), benefits that have been promised to date will be worth very little. If a new monetary system is in place, it will be up to the government at that time to determine the level of benefits. Because total goods and services will be lower in the future (Figure 3 above), benefits to retirees will almost certainly be lower as well.

9. More people will perform manual labor.

As the amount of oil and natural gas becomes less available, more work will need to be done by hand, since the fuels to run machines will be less available. In order to encourage people to take jobs involving manual labor, manual labor will pay better in relationship to desk jobs. Because food is such ain important commodity, farming may be particularly highly valued, and may pay especially well.

10. Resource wars and migration conflicts.

If there is is an inadequate amount of a resource (water, oil, natural gas, or food), countries may fight over the limited supplies that are available. Conflicts are likely to spring up regarding areas where resources are plentiful.

Alternatively, people may choose to migrate from an area if resources become less abundant–for example, migration may occur if water supplies dry up, or if land is flooded due to global warming, or if declining oil supplies limit transportation. Receiving areas may not welcome the newcomers, leading to more conflict.

11. Changes in family relationships.

Families are likely to see more of each other, because of reduced transportation availability. Families may work more closely together, tending gardens and running small family businesses. Co-operation may be more highly valued by society. Divorce rates may decline.

12. Eventual population decline.

The food supply produced in the world today is many times greater than the food supply 100 years ago, before oil and natural gas were used in tilling crops, pumping water for irrigation, making fertilizer and pesticides, and transporting food to market. As oil and natural gas become less available, the food supply is likely to decline. Eventually, world population is also likely to decline, reflecting the lower food supply.

Conclusion

We cannot know exactly what the future will hold, if technology is not able to overcome the many issues associated with a finite world, including declining oil and natural gas supply, decreasing fresh water supply, and climate change. Whatever changes occur are likely to differ from location to location, as the world activity becomes more localized.

We tend to think of governments as fairly stable, but these too may change. Countries may subdivide into smaller units. Some have even suggested that groups of states may break away from the United States.

Educational institutions will most likely change. Fewer students will probably attend colleges and universities, and the subjects of interest will likely change. The sciences and agriculture or permaculture are likely to be topics of interest. More students may want to live on campus, if transportation is a problem. Adult education may become more important, as people seek to develop skills for a changing world.

Businesses will also change. Local businesses will become more important, while multinational companies recede in importance. Manufacturing will become less important, and recycling will become more important. Providing necessities will get top priority, while nice-to-have items will not sell well. Barter, or a new monetary system that substitutes for barter, may be the way business is done.

People may choose to live closer to work, or may work at home, so as to minimize costs associated with commuting. Some people may choose to live with relatives or friends, so as to save on utility costs. Eventually, many homes in undesirable locations may be left empty, and the parts of these unoccupied homes that can be used elsewhere will be recycled.

The next 50 years will certainly be interesting ones. Perhaps, with technological advances, some of the potential problems can be avoided. But we will need to work hard, starting now, to develop ways to work around the problems which seem to be ahead.

Written by Jan Lundberg on Culture Change.

The technological world is going to fall and disintegrate, much like the financial house of cards appears to be doing. We need to embrace this reality and start living in a reasonable, responsible fashion, because we cannot escape it even if we can try to prepare. Hoping that the government will solve the problem of greed is like hoping the fox no longer hungers for fresh raw chicken. Similarly, hoping for a graceful exit from the entropic inferno of techno tyranny is to imagine we can be teleported to a better planet. So we must draw upon the do-it-yourself principle, as rebels and free people have always done in all aspects of human existence.

This essay examines the why and how of technology’s fall, and also the post-technological future. My own biases aside — I have a love-hate relationship with technology — I believe we can think outside the box (and abandon the box), and gain perspective even in our world of addiction to material, manufactured and disposable things. Why is this important? The reasons are ecological — we cannot avoid the scientific facts — and there are moral reasons as well.

Mother Nature does not give second chances. “We are not exempt from extinction“, says paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey. Extinction is part of evolution of all life, so we must face that humans are nothing special. In fact, their cleverness in manipulating the environment was helpful only up to a certain point in our “pre-history”; it has resulted today in our going over the ecological precipice. As we continue today’s mass extinction we are pretending it’s not important, perhaps so we can cling to our convenient and alluring technology, and put off rebelling until the floor is caving in.

Weighing all I know and feel, I believe we are looking at the technological world starting to crash to the ground. We will experience it falling around us and upon us. We have not seen much of this yet. For those who are not sure, let’s consider what happened when humanity left behind the simplicity of relying almost solely on hunter-gathering and burning downed logs for fire for cooking, light and warmth.

• We began soil-depleting cultivation agriculture, whose high food production allowed population growth.
• We engaged in coal-burning — a result of clearing Western Europe’s forests for more agriculture — with the various machines and processes for maximizing the use of this polluting, non-renewable “resource.”
• We developed nuclear power which is inseparable from nuclear weapons technology.
• We became dependent on petroleum in all its forms and the net-energy bonus that allowed for exponential population growth.
• We developed plastics from petroleum which are wonderfully convenient and apparently cheap, but are killing much life in the oceans and are taking an invisible but deadly toll on us as well. Some of the problems: endocrine disrupters, poisons from manufacturing, from burning, etc.

The post-technological world

If technology and the cultivation-agriculture that made it possible is perhaps our worst mistake, and is going to be mostly phased out as “growth” implodes, what will our future without massive technology look like?

I’m not the only one wondering. I’m also not the only one willing to see the historic crash sooner rather than later, because we see it as inevitable and made worse by buying a little time for more climatic destruction via unfettered industrial and agricultural activity. No one in his or her right mind looks forward to a violent collapse. It would be a mistake to label an “anti-technologist” as lacking compassion for dependent populations, when the anti-technologist or “Luddite” may believe in a better possible future through simpler, equitable living.

Because the reasons for petrocollapse and world-wide famine have been well explored in Culture Change and elsewhere, suffice to say that the end of abundant petroleum will trigger collapse. It is already happening, no matter what name is put on it (e.g., meltdown). The economic/industrial/agricultural infrastructure is entirely based on petroleum, and now that it has clearly begun its final dwindling through depletion we find there are no substitutes for petroleum — neither in sufficient scale nor point of readiness.

So we are on the cusp of our entire system’s collapsing and eating itself alive. The process will be quick, as the “run on the energy bank” is set to happen momentarily, according to this petroleum-industry analyst as well as Matt Simmons, energy investment banker. In his presentation at the annual Association for The Study of Peak Oil and Gas (USA chapter) last month, he referred to food-supply disappearance within one week of our fuel tanks topped off due to oil market concerns. The 400 attendees gave Simmons a standing ovation, even though most of them entertain less extreme scenarios for peak oil’s impact.

Therefore, within days, modern society finds itself with a staggering number of technological products whose days are numbered. They always were numbered, as the landfill was the ultimate destination. But without cheap energy for modern populations, we will start to see (1) an immediate cessation of much activity we take for granted today, whether it be transportation or operating the disgusting number of questionable, redundant appliances in our homes, and (2) the final usage of items that require power from batteries, for example. We will soon run out of “good” batteries, as the trucks will at some point soon fail to bring more. As soon as this historic process starts (call it peak oil), people will scramble for survival based on what they have hoarded (food, water, materials such as batteries, etc.) and can seize in desperation.

This column has already explored why and how petrocollapse’s bloody and however long or short phase of deprivation and die-off will take place. How will the survivors live? Some of you readers cannot bear to think about petrocollapse, and some deny it’s possible, so the aftermath is pretty much unexplored today. But let us stipulate that in some parts of the world some communities survive petrocollapse with no disaster or discontinuity.

Humans are the technology species, and always will be. But life and history go in cycles, such that the agricultural and industrial revolutions will pass. They are being quickly ushered out by the plug being pulled on petroleum supply. The consequence of petro-gluttony and individualistic consuming will result in a crash of all petro-fed populations. The technology that remains will fit into a non-petroleum lifestyle. Much petroleum will remain in the ground, but will no longer be accessible when the oil industry is crippled by collapse. Humpty Dumpty will not be reassembled. So our technology will be low-tech almost exclusively, or at least decentralized completely.

When we think of technology nowadays we typically think of the fancy laptop computer I’m reluctantly typing on. But there’s a whole range of technological products and systems that fall into the category of short term, and into the category of sustainable. Short term would include the continental electrical grid, with its reliance on extreme computerization and financial-sector vulnerability. Any small systems running on battery power may fail unless there is pedal-power generating, solar photovoltaic cells, wind generation, or the like. But these means, and the products running on them, are subject to breakage and non-replacement of parts.

Therefore, the long-term or sustainable technologies are what can be created and maintained from local resources. They must be renewable, such as wood, leather, stone, bone, and cosmic magic. (We’ll have to see about the last one; I was joking.) Scrap metal and plastic will probably be maximized for as long as possible. But they will suddenly no longer be applicable on a massive scale with constant resupply via trucks using “unlimited” petroleum. As for biofuels and other “solutions” that aren’t scalable for anything resembling today’s economy, they will be on a limited basis and constrained by the first priority of producing food.

From Culture Change Letter #201′s list of sustainable systems and organizing principles:
Ecovillages, intentional communities, anarchist collectives, Community Supported Agriculture, bicycle culture, animal husbandry, natural building techniques, biochar, sail transport network, and the path of the peaceful spiritual warrior. And more…

Moral argument for abandoning complex and destructive technology

When a house is rotten and falling down, it is past time to leave and create something better. “Better” should mean the new shelter will be more sustainable and therefore simple — less technological.

Techno-dependence may be inseparably tied to acquisitiveness and greed. So the tendency to get more technological products to help build one’s little castle or empire has to do with taking from others: the Earth and its myriad species, and peoples whose lands are devastated by extractive industries. Then there’s the running of endless machines and gadgets that depend on the grid and other support materials. This implies greenhouse-gas emissions, that on a large scale spell pain and death for others — and ultimately the self. So the life-style of techno-dependency and trashing the useless or semi-recyclable waste is selfish and short sighted.

In fact, generating dollars from reliance on technology and the sweat of others’ labor is just our old fashioned Babylon civilization’s extension to date. Somehow the “march of history” and the thousands of years of wars, invention, “progress,” and art serve to excuse or redefine the old Babylon syndrome, so as to let it continue — and see what tomorrow’s television news and other diversions might bring.

Passively witnessing techno-destruction can be argued to be as unacceptable as watching a heinous crime against a defenseless old lady and doing nothing, or perhaps running one’s SUV a couple of blocks to buy some unnecessary, self-gratifying, processed goodie.

Techno fears, frustrations, and the ethical dilemma

On Oct. 4th I took a bus to Arcata to catch a ride going to an Earth First! reunion of activists celebrating the departure of Maxxam Corp. from Humboldt County. The company, owned by Charles Hurwitz, a Texas-based corporate raider, had liquidated most of the last ancient redwood trees in private hands in two decades. The Oct. 4 event was billed as Hurwitz Out of Humboldt. I was to pass the word and come play some songs and lend my presence. But after waiting two hours for a ride at the designated spot with three other carless activists, I changed my mind when a car materialized. I decided to stay local and not be in a car hurtling down the highway, two hours each way, with off and on rain, in order to get my jollies and see friends.

In retrospect, missing out on seeing Dana Lyons, Julia Butterfly, Darryl Cherney, and many other friends and characters, I regret not going. I also should have honored the work of many unsung heroes and heroines who over the years braved cops, loggers, bad weather in forest conditions with minimum supplies and equipment, fierce animals, tree-sit dangers, and more. I could only tell myself I didn’t want to get into some car and subject myself to the long ride and come all the way back that evening. Car-pooling was apparently not arranged, and I would have liked a more accessible venue. In waiting around I began to feel the event might not be worth my while. The next day when I heard about the big party and the music, and that a girl had yelled out for one of my songs, I realized I had made an error: if I’m a serious musician, I have to travel to gigs, and I was expected (although not really needed). Upon further reflection — considering this article’s focus on technological dominance crashing to the ground — I’m left with my realization that I let my fear and hatred of techno-dependence and dangerous roads make my decision. As a career activist (against cars and roads mostly) I may have erred, and I blew it socially and musically. But I have long thought there’s no real lasting community when people are driving great distances — especially in our imminent future without plentiful liquid fuels with which to burn up the planet (no matter if for a good cause).

Conclusion

Can we modern humans graduate, from accepting we have financial collapse, to contemplating energy collapse and worse, in time to salvage a little of our dwindling capability to steer the ecological ship? Such questions are weeded out from public media with a vengeance, even as the ship hits the iceberg of societal and ecological collapse. Therefore we must as do-it-yourselfers raise the real issues of the day primarily by word of mouth. Our task is to reach out to all sectors for all who might be finally open to a radical critique and getting off our butts: to walk away from a failed experiment, on to a sustainable future that relies on community and nature’s health.

says Richard Heinberg, at PostCarbon

Several of us who have been watching the world oil production and depletion picture closely for the last few years are now concluding that the world has now seen the highest rate of production ever. Matt Simmons agrees: It’s all downhill from here.

The worldwide financial crisis, and the decline in available energy, mean that we may also have seen the final year of aggregate world economic growth.

This is a breathtaking statement. I found myself uttering it yesterday at a strategy meeting of some environmental and economic justice organizations organized by the International Forum on Globalization; I surprised even myself, and immediately began wondering whether what I had said could possibly by true.

There are obvious objections. Perhaps the wealthy nations could still wring out a few years of growth by increasing global economic inequality. But this is essentially what they did over the past two decades with the strategy of corporate globalization—and that strategy is losing steam because of high transport costs due to Peak Oil.

Perhaps economic growth could still be maintained by smoke and mirrors—in either a good or a bad way. All that would be necessary is a little fiddling with the definition of “growth.” Just look at how the US government has altered its way of defining “inflation” over the years by largely excluding energy and food prices: if the old rules were still in place, the country would be seeing double-digit inflation. The same has happened with “unemployment.” Why not “growth”?

On the other hand, growth really should be redefined. Many organizations have been pressuring governments and official agencies to measure growth not with GDP, but with a mixture of indicators related to public health, education, environmental integrity, and so on (the Genuine Progress Indicator is one suggested alternative scheme). If world governments decided to redefine growth this way, and then actually funded improvements in public services, perhaps growth could indeed continue.

A final objection has to do with regional impacts of the economic crisis. Some would argue that the growth momentum of China is such that it cannot be stopped immediately, and will therefore continue to contribute to overall global growth for the foreseeable future. Others might point out that the oil exporting nations are likely to continue experiencing high rates of growth as prices of fuel eventually resume their stratospheric climb. But will China or Saudi Arabia be able to offset the economic collapse of the US and Europe? And will China be immune for long?

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that my blurted comment may be right. Growth is gone. Over. Kaput. Finished. Get used to it.

If so, there will be an ocean of consequences. For those in the tiny universe of environmental NGOs, one of the consequences is this: The time for arguing against economic growth may be over. Yes, everyone who understands our human impact on the environment, and the disastrous implications of our economic growth imperative, knows that it is absolutely essential that the world find an alternative to growth; that instead, the human economy must contract to a point that it no longer threatens the viability of ecosystems. This is the essence of sustainability.

But imagine yourself talking to someone who has just lost her job. You tell this person, “You need to voluntarily further reduce your income and standard of living.” How’s that likely to go over?

Effective strategy demands recognition of the opportunities and limits of the unique historical moment. It seems that we have just moved from one historic moment to a very different one. In this situation, it’s more helpful to tell people (including policy makers) how to effectively deal with their immediate problems in a way that is consistent with long-term sustainability. Anything else will be irrelevant at best, extremely unwelcome at worst.

Growth is dead. Let’s make the most of it. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

The end of economic growth for the sake of economic growth, profits and the enrichment of a few.

If you aren’t already doing so, its time to start thinking about REAL growth. Trees, heirloom veg, community links, family ties, a new culture…. we could hopefully see a huge diversity of natural growth, orchards appearing in cities, window boxes of veg, new farmers…. embarce this collapse it gives a little hope that capitalism (and the destructive subsidies it thrives on) might not kill the planet.

Ready to learn everything you need to know about the economy in less than two hours?.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

INTRODUCTION

My belief is that massive, unprecedented change is coming. No, I believe that it is already underway. When the dust settles in one, five, or twenty years, the economic landscape will be utterly changed. Another belief is that by taking steps now, both small and large, you can significantly minimize disruptions in your life that so many others will experience. While we will all end up in the same
place in twenty years, I want your path to be as gentle as possible. By undergoing voluntary change, you will have more opportunities to shape your path than those who find change involuntarily forced on
them. Where others will someday reach a cliff face that needs to be scaled all at once, my goal is to walk with you up the side trail.

The Crash Course is my main offering and each Martenson Report is designed to reinforce those lessons with my goal being to help you navigate the changes ahead.

BELIEFS

It all begins with beliefs. I created the Crash Course to provide all the intellectual evidence anyone could possibly need, laid out like an air-tight prosecution with the following conclusion: The next twenty years will be unlike the last twenty years. But if your underlying beliefs are in opposition to this message, you may find yourself taking no actions at all. Examples of such beliefs might be:

Technology will arise that will blunt or maybe even reverse the impact of Peak Oil.
If this is one of your core beliefs, then it won’t really matter how well I lay out the case that Peak Oil is not
only real, but frighteningly near. So you won’t take any actions. You’ll continue to live at drivable distances from where you work and play, and you won’t bother to bolster your food security or maneuver
your portfolio holdings away from exposed industries and companies or do anything else.

This is just a normal recession – we’ve faced them before, and they don’t last that long.
If you hold this belief, then you are open to the typical broker’s suggestion that the best strategy is to ´buy and hold for the long-term.’ You might also be tempted to tune out all the current market information as ‘noise’ that provides no value to your understanding and is probably harmful in its potential to alter your outlook.

So, it can be said that beliefs drive our actions. Somebody else said it even better:

Your beliefs become your thoughts
Your thoughts become your words
Your words become your actions
Your actions become your habits
Your habits become your values
Your values become your destiny
~ Mahatma Gandhi

So I structured the Crash Course specifically to enable you to open up your beliefs to examination. Not because I have any particular assessment or judgment about whether you hold the ‘right ones’ or the
‘wrong ones’, because I don’t. I did this because at key turning points, such as the one we are at right now, it is vitally important that you know what your beliefs are, so that you can be aware of the
ways in which they are guiding, enhancing, or inhibiting your actions. It is a dead certainty that at a major point of change, most people will be holding limiting beliefs rooted in the status quo, while a smaller number of people will hold enhancing beliefs providing them with greater opportunities to take advantage of the changes when they arrive.

Exactly. Chris’s course is a great introduction to economics, and what is happening now, if you don’t understand.

James Howard Kunstler’s Clusterfuck Nation.

Even at this point, the current crack-up in world finance makes the 1929 crash and the events of the 1930s look in comparison like an orderly small town auction of somebody’s grandmother’s effects. Back in that sepia day, America had plenty of everything except ready cash. We had, especially, plenty of our own oil, and — you’re not going to believe this but it’s true — the stuff was selling for as little as ten cents a barrel, it was so abundant. And yet still, America in the 1930s plunged into a dark depression of inactivity, loss of confidence, and impoverishment.

This time around, things could get more disorderly. Personally, I think we may be beyond the reach even of fascist authoritarianism, because unlike the programmed industrial masses of the 1930s, we are unused to regimentation, to lining up at the factory gates and the movie theaters. Back then, society was so regimented that everybody wore uniforms in-and-out of the military. Look at movies from the 1930s. Every man-jack wore either a necktie and hat or overalls. The industrial masses behaved like termites. Once unemployment hit, they were waiting to be told what to do, to line up for something. It worked fabulously for Hitler, who took every advantage of this mentality. Luckily, the US went for Roosevelt (both FDR and Hitler entered office the same winter of 1933, by the way). FDR was more like everybody’s kindly Uncle Frank, and his reassuring persona enabled Americans to suck up their bad luck and altered circumstances. Many of them retreated to the family farm (which still existed then) and waited things out — and, anyway, the melodrama of the Great Depression soon resolved in the Second World War when Hitler’s love of regimentation led him into military misadventure. He shouldn’t have picked a fight with someone who had so much petroleum — end-of-story.

Okay, what happens here and now? To this point (9:am Monday October 6, 2008) events have been proceeding under a veneer of still-just-barely-credible authority. We (as represented by congress) have allowed Mr. Paulson to advance and activate his remedies. As things unspool further, he will be out of credibility, perhaps in a few days, and it’s unlikely that his successor will have any either. Mr. Bernanke has simply gone AWOL. Notice, he has vanished from the media landscape. We may soon be hearing the declaration of various “emergency” measures involving the allocation of food and the rationing of oil products. The Big Bailout of last week may be partially rescinded as it becomes obvious that it has had no effect — I believe about half the $700 billion has already been allocated, which is to say: lost. I realize these things sound pretty extreme. But forces have been set in motion and momentum rules. One thing for sure: the American public is about to undergo a severe mood adjustment. There will be fewer American Idol fans and worshippers of Donald Trump by the close of business on Friday.