The Crash Course - By Chris Martenson

Just finished watching this over the weekend - really opened my eyes to quite a few things and has got me more than bit scared. Recommended viewing.

When you look at his logic and the data trends coupled with the bailout action currently taking place - it seems like there is only one way this can all end. Nasty.

Interesting to see how inflation and GDP are measured in the US and how they are under and over-stated respectfully. Does the Aussie govt use the same trickery to arrive at their respective figures?

derty said:

Interesting to see how inflation and GDP are measured in the US and how they are under and over-stated respectfully. Does the Aussie govt use the same trickery to arrive at their respective figures?

Click to expand...

While ago there was article about Australian calculations, that mentioned money saved on rent by owners living in their own homes, as addition to other income, lifting household total income.

What implication would that have?
Possibly because it is tax-free it reduced the % that is taken out as tax.

I've got no doubt the Australian Govt understates our inflation as well.

I listened to the whole course last night, and most of it I already understood but was good to get a few different ideas on some topics.
Does make you wonder where is the best place is to try and preserve your hard earned capital. I would love to have enough capital to buy a big farm outright, but unfortunately due to a divorce and a stupid investment decision I am no longer in position to make this possible in the next 2 years. Might pick up some Physical Gold as a hedge against high inflation.

A good hunting rifles might come in handy also,, as we have plenty of feral animals that make good eating in tough times..

The explosion in human population seems unsustainable, I am sure glad I am not living in India or china.

I watched the crash course last night.

The logic seems sound, except for one area.... Martenson focuses on the problems of exponential growth, yet does not mention the possibility that renewable energy sources will also grow exponentially. In fact, it is highly possible that the 'hockey stick' of renewable energy will be diametric to the crash of oil supply.

Also, most popular opinions see the world population peaking at 9 Billion in 2050. The birth rate in developed countries is slowing (for example, in Australia we have negative growth without immigration), and developing countries will either a, struggle to feed their populations (natural selection) or b, see a slowing birth rate.

The biggest problem I see, is whether the collapse (more likely correction) of debt based money will result in either Inflation (BAD) or Defaults (good).


At the moment, these constant bailouts are just spreading the debt load over us all, contributing to inflation. The people who were responsible for generating bad debt are the ones who need to suffer, not the following generations.

Unfortunately, because of the large amount of $US held in foreign reserves, other countries see it as prudent for them to support a measure which will prevent the absolute collapse of the US dollar, albeit if it means devaluing all currencies in the process.

That said, for how many generations will the world have to pay for the excesses of the USA?

wallyt99 said:

I watched the crash course last night.

The logic seems sound, except for one area.... Martenson focuses on the problems of exponential growth, yet does not mention the possibility that renewable energy sources will also grow exponentially. In fact, it is highly possible that the 'hockey stick' of renewable energy will be diametric to the crash of oil supply.

Also, most popular opinions see the world population peaking at 9 Billion in 2050. The birth rate in developed countries is slowing (for example, in Australia we have negative growth without immigration), and developing countries will either a, struggle to feed their populations (natural selection) or b, see a slowing birth rate.

Click to expand...

This part is much batter covered in this lecture, I posted on growth thread.

Here is another documentary, perhaps one of the teachers of Chris Martenson?

Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's presentation on "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd-VGYX3-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-X6EpvWWu8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3y7UlHdhAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyseLQVpJEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoiiVnQadwE


The point is growth based system on a finite planet has a fundamental flaw, it cannot go on forever.

I think nanotechnology will provide the next great leap forward as far as energy goes. It has the potential to supercharge the renewable energy route and I am sure there are discoveries in the science that will revolutionise the world as we know it and usher in the next great human age. They have already made inroads with the ability to produce extremely cheap and efficient solar tech and carbon nanotubes have the ability to transmit electricity at virtually zero resistance over huge distances.

The question is how long before the science can step up to the plate? And how much pain will we go through before it does?

mayk said:

This part is much batter covered in this lecture, I posted on growth thread.

Here is another documentary, perhaps one of the teachers of Chris Martenson?


The point is growth based system on a finite planet has a fundamental flaw, it cannot go on forever.

Click to expand...

I have not time to watch this, (exam tomorrow) however, Martenson's equation that growth is not equal to prosperity is also flawed, it implies that growth cannot be linked with prosperity, however improved efficiency yields both growth and prosperity.

For example, if it used to take 100 litres of water, 100 kilowatts of energy and 100 square metres to grow 100 bananas - and improvements mean the same energy, land and water can be used to grow 500 bananas, or half the land, to grow twice as many bananas this provides both growth and prosperity.

I think that one of Mathesons problems is he equates falsified (paper money) GDP growth, with real growth in productivity. He talks about false growth in GDP, yet does not factor this into his growth versus productivity calculations.

wallyt99 said:

I have not time to watch this, (exam tomorrow) however, Martenson's equation that growth is not equal to prosperity is also flawed, it implies that growth cannot be linked with prosperity, however improved efficiency yields both growth and prosperity.

For example, if it used to take 100 litres of water, 100 kilowatts of energy and 100 square metres to grow 100 bananas - and improvements mean the same energy, land and water can be used to grow 500 bananas, or half the land, to grow twice as many bananas this provides both growth and prosperity.


I think that one of Mathesons problems is he equates falsified (paper money) GDP growth, with real growth in productivity. He talks about false growth in GDP, yet does not factor this into his growth versus productivity calculations.

Click to expand...

I agree that improvements in technology, which have improved growth/production, lead to prosperity. I think the main point he is trying to convey is that unhindered growth is not sustainable, hence this prosperity is also short lived.


P.S. Best of luck with exams

Have watched all 20 now.

Must say it finishes in a typical (perhaps American), transparent, way. Requesting we all send him money. ..... Went straight from 8/10 to a 6/10 for me.

Chris has spent most his savings putting this presentation together and 4 years of his time. Come on! We already knew most of this. How the Reserve Bank prints the money and how it was once pegged to gold was an education to me. But his conclusion is obvious, put any saved money in several banks and buy some gold.

Of course Australia is different. Our Reserve does not have these debts. Our debt “The Australian debts” are held by consumers (not government) and who holds these debts? Banks.... and the risk "their depositors" (However, the Australian government now guarantees the banks) Had to follow other parts of the world in their lead, had little choice....

Government bonds still have priority over banks for me. Always have. And that's free information......

Leveraged investors, investing in leveraged companies, selling to leveraged consumers.... ummmm

I guess if one waits long enough one will always be right. Where did most of "our" debt originate? Property. Either direct or from its equity.

Thought this analysis from Chris Martenson was worth a reboot.
Exceptionally well researched economic analysis of where we are going.
It's regularly updated

• The Crash Course

The Crash Course has provided millions of viewers with the context for the massive changes now underway, as economic growth as we’ve known it is ending due to depleting resources.

But it also offers real hope. Those individuals who take informed action today, while we still have time, can lower their exposure to these coming trends — and even discover a better way of life in the process. We’ll show you how.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/

CAB SAV said:

Next time I'm in Perth I'm going to the mint to buy some gold and then maybe be able to buy a beer.

Click to expand...

Shame I only just read this now instead of 8 years ago.... otherwise I might have done just this in June 2018 when in Perth.
Can't wait to get back there....

Thanks for the revival link, Bas.