to Morning Report. Sometimes I get a tad frustrated.

Listening to a ‘report’ of John Boscowen speaking to 35 faithful, with extensive quoting, I just shook my head. This is endenic bias. If it isn’t the need to get some return from sending a reporter to a meeting he’d been invited to… which is still unacceptable – decisions should be about presenting balance and truth.

get this right please – re: economy, economic growth, OECD, productivity,‏
From: MurrayJennie GrimwoodUpton (
Sent: Monday, 3 May 2010 8:46:23 p.m.
note – I’m sticking this on my blog, and will refer to it if in the future, if knowledge of the content is denied. Nothing personal, I’m just out of patience.

Time your researchers investigated some facts.

*  All ‘investment’ requires a return. Coupled with the to-date bank approach of charging for ‘monies’ loaned (the loaned portion is a zero-sum game), the result is a need to enlarge the system by the underwriting of the interest/return, each go-round. (given that it couldn’t continue to be underwritten, the Fed at zero is telling).

*  This increase is a percentage, and therefore exponential. Not linear. Be very clear about the difference.

*  Being exponential, it could only continue indefinitely if it were virtual.

*  It is not virtual, at the end of the chain you buy things physical, which are in turn underwritten by energy.

* So, at the point where energy supply peaked (Hubbert’s estimate for ‘Peak Oil USA was out by 3:3.4, but it made a mere 3 months difference in 14 years) so too has economic growth.

* Global average, of course. China can go up, if someone else goes down, but the sum total will now descend under a sinking lid.

* Meaning that, on average, investments must all decrease from here on, again winners and losers, but under a sinking lid.

* I picked the crash of 2008, to the decade (2000-10) in 1980, and to the year in 2002. I did so using physics – the real.

* Your reportorial mistake, is to interview, quote and/or believe, economists. They were taught in, and gurus of, a short-term scenario – where the exponential ramping of activity was capable of being underwritten by cheap (easily obtained) energy, stored over aeons. Not only has the physical extraction rate of that peaked, but the ERoEI (energy return on energy invested – note, a dollar irrespective concept) is declining also – a compound decline.

* That ramping period is over, at least in terms of having no more ‘doubling-time’ (please investigate and understand this concept) left, certainly can’t peak later than 2016, and most of us who research it, believe it peaked in 2005, and is currently traversing a bumpy plateau.

* In that scenario, the only valid goal is attaining a state of equillibrium to hand on generation-to-generation. Any other approach collapses within a decade.

* Comments about competition with other countries, comparisons with the OECD, and talk of ‘productivity gains’ or ‘the economy’, must be made with this overarching proviso in mind.

* Meaning that reporting 35 people listening to Boscowen, and taking a similar time to do so, as to cover 40,000 marching, is unbalanced. The questions are whether an ETS will actually address the target problem (physically) and whether mining – irrespective of site – is a valid approact to setting up a sustainable society to hand on.

* Big-picture, we are chewing into the finite resources of the planet at 3 times the sustainable rate (to underwrite the need to increase consumption exponentially). Turn that upsidedown – there are 3 times too many homo sapiens on the planet. That is at subsistence level, of course. To maintain an equillibrium at your (not my) level of indulgence, the planetary carrying capacity is estimated to be a mere 1 billion. 1/6th of the present number. We will be there (1-3 billion) by 2050. Ask Colin James – I believe he’s of a similar mind on that.

* Please investigate the above, I’m happy to help – free – and ask our current political/business ‘leaders’ the serious questions. We simply have to get to that state of equillibrium, while we have the fuelled time to do so.

* Your approach (and that of pretty much all the NZ media) is not helpful in terms of informing the public about what essentially should be your domain – the truth.

Murray Grimwood.

And I bet nothing changes……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: