http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/19-global-food-carte...

The question is, do we really have to repeat the Great Depression all over again before we apply the right medicine? I hope not, but I'm not optimistic, as I don't believe we have the right people in charge. Removing an entire layer of the 'ruling elite' and repacing them with better people, with fresh eyes and ideas, is probably impossible within our current economic, political framework.

The good thing about the collapse and the Great Depression was that the ruling elite was terribly weakened and lost respect, prestige and legitimacy. In the United States reform elements in the ruling-class understood that unless new methods were employed, the New Deal, one risked revolution, so better to try and save capitalism from itself than risk losing everything!

However, this New Deal strategy may not work this time. It was easier to create jobs through public works in the 1930's precisely because the overall level of technology was far lower than it is today. That's just one example. Then there is the massive level of personal debt in Britain. It's like a ball and chain around most peoples legs, turning them in close to slaves and restricting their movement.

Also we no longer really have much manufacturing industry left. No mines, no steel, no shipyards, but an awful lot of computers and services which are very vulnerable and very inflexable.

The debt blackhole vortex is probably many times the value of all the reserves of all the banks and states in the world, probably larger than the worth of all assets. If this massive debt hole collapses it'll have a tremendous effect on the world's economy. We are talking about several thousands of trillions. And if only a portion 'vanish' this will have consequences.

Finally there's the problem of whether Keynes actually worked at all, or was it the destruction caused by the second world war that really got us out of the Great Depressio? It's a scary and sobering thought in my opinion.

David,

You mention some unpalatable truths, relating to the massive growth in the world's population that is already built into the system and can not be stopped, that is if we rule out the return of barbarism, global warfare, plague or mass starvation. How on earth are we going to manage?

The challenge of just feeding so many people is going to be massive, yet they'll want jobs, education, homes, cars, fridges - all the stuff we have too. A world with nine billion people or even twelve and then fourteen and rising seems like an impossibility wrapped in a nightmare.

Yet politicians and leaders simply don't talk about this kind of thing, do they? It's a problem pushed into the future, for future generations to deal with. Our leaders are useless, incompetent and dangerously complacent. But isn't this about par for the course in relation to many other areas of civilization?

Fundamentally we have developed, or rather, a powerful and wealthy minority, a veritable aristocracy, have imposed an economic system on everybody else, that's close to insane. Capitalism, as it's configured today, is a kind of cult, quasi-religious in nature, something we worship. Yet we are being sacrificed on the bloody alter of the free-market like the victims of the Azteks, only we sacrifice millions and thousands of species in an ecological holocaust that's almost unrivalled in the history of our small, isolated, planet.

But without cancerous economic growth where would we be. Take Pakistan which we are pushing towards destruction. Its population is well over 160 million. At least half are under 25. They need 6% growth just to provide 4 million extra jobs a year, and this pattern is repeated all over the world.

I support markets too, but back in the marketplace, keep them out of the rest of society. I suppose we're going to have to install some kind of 'socialism' or we can look forward to an explosion of barbarism. Not a comforting thought.

actually, infinite growth IS possible (well, in every practical sense) - goods can be made with other materials, technology can develop, and higher incomes can be spent purchasing higher quality. (for instance there are more Mercedes and less Ford in Scandinavia). With increases in productivity in capitalist partnerships (cooperatives) feeding directly back to the workforces (instead of being hived off by multi-nationals and 'owners'), then the workforce can afford to purchase better, ie more efficient in production/use items.

if there was global free trade upon the principles of 'fair trade' and 'cooperative production', then the living standards across the world would rise - and if there is a demand for fridges, than fridges will be produced from suitable, sustainable materials. There is no need for them to copy old industrial styles of lots of metal for instance.

the only hold-up is a lack of power - or more accurately, control of power. But there is a huge potential for solar power focussing from deserts, which could fully power 200 civilisations if we utilised it correctly - and again, it is entirely sustainable.

about Keynesianism - it only works when the Govt pumps money directly to small, locally owned business. And when the majority of the economy is based upon that. It works because the Govt can grab its 40% or so of every pound spent going around and around the local economy, which means the tax income also increases.

but when the Keynesian investment gets given directly to multi-nationals (for instance the big building firms, or the agribusiness sector, or to prime UK schools for privatisation), then there is no multiplier effect from the local economy, as the money just immediately leaves it. Which of course turns into a greater drain upon the tax-payer, as well as the general economy.

carl: it is undoubted that a part of the global 'Elite' do indeed believe that over-population needs to be "culled", and there are indeed plans for that in development - and quite possibly already being field tested. (HIV springs to mind).

in large part though, this is due to a lack of understanding of alternatives, and also basic ecological systems.

for instance, trying to reduce birthrates through war, epidemics, or absolute poverty (leading to starvation, lack of access to basic medicines), has in virtually every case actually *increased* the rate of population growth! If the elites understood the processes, and were serious about cutting the world's human population into sustainable levels, they would be attempting to spread global prosperity, would be enormously investing in and pushing for female education around the world, would tell the Pope to shut his bloody trap, and would be putting aid into the Grameen Bank instead of into arms.

do you not honestly realise that the 'problem, reaction, solution' model is also used to convince members of the Elite as well? You don't seriously imagine that there is a Global Conspiracy, and every member of that conspiracy is fully up to spec on every little detail do you? People are told "there is no other way", and many believe it - both in the general population and also decision makers. They actually *honestly* believe it!

what is needed is to give alternatives, so people can look at the options, the arguments, and make their own minds up. This IS what Free Speech is all about, and indeed what it is for.

once again, democracy is the way out of this mess, getting People to understand what is going on, and allowing them to make rational choices between the options. People know there are problems, what they are often unaware of is possible solutions, underlying patterns and structures, and that decision makers are often as bewildered as they themselves (but believe they can't show it).