I do believe that massive, systemic changes are going to be forced upon us by the end of the gravy train that civilization enjoyed thanks to the totally unappreciated gift of really cheap fossil fuels.

I just don't think that the only possible outcome is a complete collapse of society. Many of the things that we value, do not require massive amounts of cheap energy. Those that do, however, are going to have to change. Cheap airfare to tropical vacation destinations, grocery stores stocked with exotic produce imported from somewhere across the ocean, really cool big trucks that seldom do any actual real work, and ordinary consumer goods brought in from China come to mind.

It would be interesting to see an economic analysis that shows the incremental effect of making various changes to our lifestyles that eliminate unnecessary sinks of energy and resources.

What would be the cumulative effect if:

• The cost of flying went up by a factor of 3-5?

• We stopped importing produce that is not grown in the US

• We just stopped producing Toy SUVs, and only made SUVs for people who actually need them for work

• We started making ALL of our own basic consumer goods again, and let China sell what they make to Asian customers

My point is that at some point, these things probably will happen due to changing economics. And if things change again, that will force still more choices. Ultimately, if renewables don't pan out, there is nuclear energy. It is not my first choice, but it does have TREMENDOUS stored energy that we already know how to utilize. Nuclear energy absolutely could replace cheap fossil fuels. Yes we would have problems with disposing of nuclear waste, just like we have problems disposing of CO2 waste. Our solution? Defer to future generations of course.

I bet that most people would be willing to accept widespread usage of nuclear energy before they would accept the complete collapse of civilization. And even if they weren't willing, it probably wouldn't matter, it would happen anyways.

I agree with your statement:

...greatly hike taxes on the rich but give generous tax breaks to business owners who hire people in this country or make capital investments in this country.

____

As a nation what we want to encourage is investment, not the efforts of every citizen to build their own little financial dynasty by whatever means possible. There should be a profound distinction between how we treat taxation on wealth that comes from investment versus wealth that comes from speculation. Their both allowed of course, but because one of them serves the best interests of the country AND the individual, while the other only serves the interests of the individual, they get very different treatment at tax time.

I realize that is more complex than just good investment/bad investment, but clearly there are some types of investment that will never create anything but profit for the speculator. Why on earth would we want to give tax breaks on that kind of wealth when we have the Mother of all Debts to pay off? Seriously if we HAVE TO CHOOSE between taxing someone who just wants to hoard their money and live high on the hog, and someone who wants to invest in their nation, who should we tax first?

It even sounds patriotic: Although you aren't risking your life to defend your nation, you are risking your capital to support the economy of your nation. One of your fellow citizens might even get a job because of your investment!

You have become pessimistic for the sake of pessimism.

Take a breathe and get back to discussing realistic outcomes, not merely possible catastrophes. We all know that in the worst case scenario we all suffer horribly, then die, but there are a lot of other possible outcomes.

They don't all suck, some of them are tolerable, and a few of them are even kind of good, so stop this obsession with asserting that the worst case scenario is the most likely outcome based on the last magazine article that you read.

You usually have more substantial ideas to offer than that.

Some of the other articles in HTWW attract posts from people talking about catastrophic changes to the economic system and our way of life. I am instead inclined to think there may be a significant, but manageable change in our overall lifestyles. To me, part of that means everything gets looked at from the point of view that taxpayer money needs to be spent wisely on needs, not wants. That means linking cities that need to be connected to do actual business, not host weekend bachelor parties.

If the casino owners are still feeling bullish about the future, they can spend their own damn money to shuttle the suckers in for their fleecing. If the economy tightens up a bit more that train would just be a toy used by the few rich people that can afford to go piss away money in an artificial oasis in the desert.