Wealth 85 richest equals wealth 3.5 billion poorest.

[Enemem]

Fish guy and net guy will just stop buying bananas if their base price becomes too high or the interest is unaffordable. They survived fine before bananas and will survive without them. This will force the price of bananas down until the economy reaches equilibrium.

Obviously, that's the conclusion. Doesn't explain where the wealth is invented, but does explain why prices come down. Looks like interest rates may be an issue. Any interest charged on loans/overdraft, creates a lack of cash quite quickly.

How many consumers do you think there are in North America than don't already know that organic large flake oatmeal is a healthier breakfast than an Egg McMuffin or a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles? Or eating steamed or baked fish for dinner is healthier than a fried steak or a hotdog?

I'd venture to say that most people have a pretty good idea about what is healthy and what is not, and are making choices based on their own needs, wants and desires. I have friends who eat horribly and will die young without a doubt, and all the facts and figures and logic in the world will not convince them to eat better. They like what they like and are willing to trade off the uncertainty of a long and healthy life, with the certainty of greater enjoyment today from eating pizza and fries on a regular basis.

Of course there is propoganda, of course businesses are trying to sell you stuff and accentuating the positive aspects of it and ignoring the negative, but there are few consumers out there that don't have at least a basic knowledge of what is good for them and what is not. I don't buy the brainwashing or propganda argument for why people make the food choices they do, they are simply doing what consumers do, making the best choice for them...not what you think is the best choice for them.

Really? Want a smart meter?

 

[Famine]

Already got one - the old zinc disc couldn't cope with the solar panels and was running backwards for half the day unless I turned on the washing machine and all the PS3s. Not that I'm totally sure what it has to do with the topic.

Be good if you could find the edit button, by the way, so we don't have to keep merging all your double-posts.

 

[Danoff]

I just did the maths, assuming the starting position as fish-1 net 2 bana 0, then banana guy ends up running the island, net guy owes goes overdrawn first. And there's still $3. I don't care what the value is put on a fish, net or a banana, the money stays the same.

When the banana guy starts charging interest, then the **** hits the fan. Consume less than you produce and you're a winner.

And yes, I know that it was just an example. But I take your point.

Nope

Starting Condition

Fish Guy: 0.5$
Fishing Net Guy: $2.5

Tuesday (transaction, fish sold at $1 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5

Thursday (transaction, fish sold at $1 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $2.5
Fishing Net Guy $0.5

Monday (transaction, fishing net sold at $2 to fish guy):
Fish Guy: $0.5
Fishing Net Guy $2.5

...etc.


A wild banana guy appears


Starting Condition

Fish Guy: 0.5$
Fishing Net Guy: $2.5
Banana Guy: $0

Tuesday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1
Fishing Net Guy $2
Banana Guy: $0
(this is the starting wealth spread you assumed)

Thursday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $0

Friday (transaction, 2x Banana sold at $0.5 to fish and fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1
Fishing Net Guy $1
Banana Guy: $1

Monday (transaction, fishing net sold at $1 to fish guy):
Fish Guy: $0
Fishing Net Guy $2
Banana Guy: $1

Tuesday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $0.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $1

Wenesday (transaction, 2x fish sold at $0.5 to banana guy)
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $0

Thursday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $2
Fishing Net Guy $1
Banana Guy: $0

Friday (transaction, 2x Banana sold at $0.5 to fish and fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $0.5
Banana Guy: $1

Monday (transaction, fishing net sold at $1 to fish guy):
Fish Guy: $0.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $1

Tuesday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1
Fishing Net Guy $1
Banana Guy: $1

Wenesday (transaction, fishing net sold at $1 to Banana guy)
Fish Guy: $1
Fishing Net Guy $2
Banana Guy: $0

Thursday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $0

Friday (transaction, 2x Banana sold at $0.5 to fish and fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1
Fishing Net Guy $1
Banana Guy: $1

Monday (transaction, fishing net sold at $1 to fish guy):
Fish Guy: $0
Fishing Net Guy $2
Banana Guy: $1

Tuesday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $0.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $1

Wenesday (transaction, 2x fish sold at $0.5 to banana guy)
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $1.5
Banana Guy: $0

Thursday (transaction, fish sold at $0.5 to fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $2
Fishing Net Guy $1
Banana Guy: $0

Friday (transaction, 2x Banana sold at $0.5 to fish and fishing net guy):
Fish Guy: $1.5
Fishing Net Guy $0.5
Banana Guy: $1

(look up, this friday condition existed before)

So, in conclusion, my example was nothing short of perfection itself. Also, if it had not been perfect and not worked out - I could have come up with one that did. I invented this off the top of my head and spent about 30 seconds working the math out on my fingers. The real point is that fish and fishing net guy would work out the math to make sure their prices allowed them to buy bananas.

 

[Joel]

Obviously, that's the conclusion. Doesn't explain where the wealth is invented, but does explain why prices come down. Looks like interest rates may be an issue. Any interest charged on loans/overdraft, creates a lack of cash quite quickly.

How can you not see the created wealth? Before everyone had fish and either owned or rented a net. After, everyone has bananas and fish and the other 2 have either ownership or rental of a net. The net wealth of the island increased by bringing in the bananas where there previously were none.

You're still getting caught up by the dollars, it's the goods and services that matter.

 

[Danoff]

How can you not see the created wealth? Before everyone had fish and either owned or rented a net. After, everyone has bananas and fish and the other 2 have either ownership or rental of a net. The net wealth of the island increased by bringing in the bananas where there previously were none.

You're still getting caught up by the dollars, it's the goods and services that matter.

Exactly.

Each person has more purchasing power than they did before. Value has been created, especially banana guy's, which was zero before. The example shows how new goods/services get introduced without robbing anything (money or goods) from the existing economy. The net value of the economy has grown (as measured in goods), deflation has occurred, banana guy created wealth and all of society benefited (rather than having to give up part of their slice of the pie).

 

[Enemem]

First of all the maths is not the issue. Already conceded that point, (although maybe the bananaman didn't like fish and hated water.)

Smart meters - good thing or bad?

My point being it's a new technology, do you have a view?

And where did you get that view from?

If I were a hacker and knew you're IP address for your meter, I could switch your power off, or maybe even increase your bills. Maybe I could turn off the whole city?

 

[niky]

That's a tangent too far. If you would like to discuss it, it's probably better to discuss it in a separate thread.

Because hacking smart meters to bring down a power grid or to get free electricity doesn't really have much to do with the social divide.

 

[Enemem]

That's a tangent too far. If you would like to discuss it, it's probably better to discuss it in a separate thread.

Because hacking smart meters to bring down a power grid or to get free electricity doesn't really have much to do with the social divide.

You're right it doesn't. However it does have a bearing on brainwashing? And that's why I asked.

[Edit - hacking comment added, is for entertainment purposes only]

 

[Zenith]

Economics 101. Wealth can be created, economics is not a zero sum game.

Not Talking out of Your Rear 210. Bringing the world to its knees with "hacking" is BS.

Know what you're talking about before you start typing up utterly useless posts.

 

[Johnnypenso]

First of all the maths is not the issue. Already conceded that point, (although maybe the bananaman didn't like fish and hated water.)

Smart meters - good thing or bad?

My point being it's a new technology, do you have a view?

And where did you get that view from?

If I were a hacker and knew you're IP address for your meter, I could switch your power off, or maybe even increase your bills. Maybe I could turn off the whole city?

A smart meter is neither good nor bad, it's a tool. I never look at the tools in my truck and say, "I wonder if these tools are good or bad". Like any tool it can be used for many purposes. I objected to the implementation of smart meters in Ontario because of they way the provincial government wants to structure the rates. The stated goal was to charge different rates for different times of the day so we could alter our consumption patterns and take advantage of lower rates they can provide in off-peak hours. Sounds great in theory.

The reality is, they proposed dramatic price increases from 7 am - 11 pm, you know, the time of day when most people are awake and doing stuff, and proposed slight cuts in pricing from 11 pm to 7 am. You know, when people are sleeping. I don't know anyone that's going to wake up in the middle of the night to cook or do laundry to save money on hydro. It was nothing but a thinly veiled (thinly as in veiled like a bridal veil you can see right through) scam to raise hydro rates to cover the boondoggle scam of the Ontario Green Energy Act.

 

[Joel]

But those windmills doe. The coal dust from Michigan makes them spin really well.

 

[Enemem]

Economics 101. Wealth can be created, economics is not a zero sum game.

Not Talking out of Your Rear 210. Bringing the world to its knees with "hacking" is BS.

Know what you're talking about before you start typing up utterly useless posts.

Never studied economics, so I'm grateful for the insights from all of you(no I'm not being sarcastic). In order to learn about something there are a number of ways. One is to take a stand and then try and prove it. The other is to take someones word for it. (Yes- there are probably other ways, other than these two) And I prefer the former. I believe now, that the capitalist system is not so bad. It's not the capitalist system that causes the problems, but rather the people who make most of the mega-decisions, don't have long-term goals that I would consider to be right.

And that's what I think is needed at the moment.

Zenith - you'll never know if my post was useless. You may however, consider at some point that it wasn't. Very difficult to prove that something is of no use whatsoever.

Johnny - I hear what you are saying about tools not being good, or bad. In themselves, they are simply what they are. However, let's take an iron (for ironing clothes). Now that's a great tool if you, have to go to court and so, need a nicely pressed suit. [Famine and his commas, I'm all over the place now ]lol. But if you have children or pets running around the place you wouldn't want to leave it turned on, sat on the floor. In the same way, I don't have my router on wi-fi, when I can use cable. The dangers on wi-fi are at very best, probably okay, but at worst hugely damaging to cell structure of all living beings. I have the choice to potential fry myself or not.

If I have a smart meter I don't. Check out the amount of time they are transmitting, and the damage they do to plants. I believe that the effects are more difficult to discern in humans or animals, unless you want to volunteer for testing. Yet these 'tools' are being, well for one thing called 'smart' - (it's a ****ing meter for crying out loud- it's not smart in any way). Secondly, the utility companies want them in every home, and are doing their darnedest to make sure it happens. Edward Bernays changed the word for propaganda into two words. Public Relations.

The reason I brought up smart meters is that you said that, most people had a good idea of what was good for them and what wasn't, and that they were willing to sacrifice health for short-term gratification. (Don't get me wrong - I still eat chocolate, drink beer, don't like salad). And in fact I appear to support your point. However, am I making those decisions because of free-will, or because I'm addicted, conditioned, doing the right thing etc ? I don't know. Do you?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Never studied economics, so I'm grateful for the insights from all of you(no I'm not being sarcastic). In order to learn about something there are a number of ways. One is to take a stand and then try and prove it. The other is to take someones word for it. (Yes- there are probably other ways, other than these two) And I prefer the former. I believe now, that the capitalist system is not so bad. It's not the capitalist system that causes the problems, but rather the people who make most of the mega-decisions, don't have long-term goals that I would consider to be right.

And that's what I think is needed at the moment.

Zenith - you'll never know if my post was useless. You may however, consider at some point that it wasn't. Very difficult to prove that something is of no use whatsoever.

Johnny - I hear what you are saying about tools not being good, or bad. In themselves, they are simply what they are. However, let's take an iron (for ironing clothes). Now that's a great tool if you, have to go to court and so, need a nicely pressed suit. [Famine and his commas, I'm all over the place now ]lol. But if you have children or pets running around the place you wouldn't want to leave it turned on, sat on the floor. In the same way, I don't have my router on wi-fi, when I can use cable. The dangers on wi-fi are at very best, probably okay, but at worst hugely damaging to cell structure of all living beings. I have the choice to potential fry myself or not.

If I have a smart meter I don't. Check out the amount of time they are transmitting, and the damage they do to plants. I believe that the effects are more difficult to discern in humans or animals, unless you want to volunteer for testing. Yet these 'tools' are being, well for one thing called 'smart' - (it's a ****ing meter for crying out loud- it's not smart in any way). Secondly, the utility companies want them in every home, and are doing their darnedest to make sure it happens. Edward Bernays changed the word for propaganda into two words. Public Relations.

The reason I brought up smart meters is that you said that, most people had a good idea of what was good for them and what wasn't, and that they were willing to sacrifice health for short-term gratification. (Don't get me wrong - I still eat chocolate, drink beer, don't like salad). And in fact I appear to support your point. However, am I making those decisions because of free-will, or because I'm addicted, conditioned, doing the right thing etc ? I don't know. Do you?

Ahh I see. I don't know anything about the health effects (potential) of smart meters. I thought you were talking about the hidden tax scam around smart metering. Do you have link?

 

[Enemem]

Ahh I see. I don't know anything about the health effects (potential) of smart meters. I thought you were talking about the hidden tax scam around smart metering. Do you have link?

The hidden tax scam is real. But not a deal breaker because they can theoretically charge what they want, and we have to pay it. www.stopsmartmeters.org.uk has some excellent videos from multiple different sources and viewpoints(health, money, hacking etc).

When you consider the potential downsides, then I don't think anyone would want one.

 

[Omnis]

Maybe we aren't as informed about food as I thought

The egg is just a regular egg:

Oh well, maybe the muffin is just some white flour, a bit of yeast, salt, baking powder:

290 calories of crap is still crap

It's not crap. The Egg is egg. The lecithin is there as non-stick spray. The worst part is that it's prepared with margarine. And all those ingredients following margarine are just what makes margarine margarine. Artificial flavor and beta carotene are there to give it butter flavor and butter color.

The english muffin is also a run of the mill english muffin. It's not crap just because it's McDonalds. You just have to know what you're eating and not get afraid of big scientific verbosities and wordages.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's not crap. The Egg is egg. The lecithin is there as non-stick spray. The worst part is that it's prepared with margarine. And all those ingredients following margarine are just what makes margarine margarine. Artificial flavor and beta carotene are there to give it butter flavor and butter color.

The english muffin is also a run of the mill english muffin. It's not crap just because it's McDonalds. You just have to know what you're eating and not get afraid of big scientific verbosities and wordages.

I don't eat artificial colours and flavours I don't think they are healthy, nor do I think the $1/5gallon pail of hydrogenated margarine is healthy.

English muffins are white flour. I don't eat white flour. It has the majority of nutrients stripped from it relative to whole wheat flour.

There is a half day's worth of sodium in 1-290 calorie Egg McMuffin. I watch my sodium intake and avoid foods with excessive amounts of added sodium.

In a pinch I'd eat one if I had no choice. Of course I'd drink my own urine if I had no choice either and use it to wash down my own belt if I had to.

 

[Omnis]

Well of course. But it's no worse than its individual parts, minus where the margarine comes in.

Anyway, back on topic.

 

[Enemem]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

Quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with "Elites" based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both:

"... accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels."

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:

"Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use."

Productivity increases in agriculture and industry over the last two centuries has come from "increased (rather than decreased) resource throughput," despite dramatic efficiency gains over the same period.

Modelling a range of different scenarios, Motesharri and his colleagues conclude that under conditions "closely reflecting the reality of the world today... we find that collapse is difficult to avoid." In the first of these scenarios, civilisation:

".... appears to be on a sustainable path for quite a long time, but even using an optimal depletion rate and starting with a very small number of Elites, the Elites eventually consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society. It is important to note that this Type-L collapse is due to an inequality-induced famine that causes a loss of workers, rather than a collapse of Nature."

​

Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, finding that "with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites."

In both scenarios, Elite wealth monopolies mean that they are buffered from the most "detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners", allowing them to "continue 'business as usual' despite the impending catastrophe." The same mechanism, they argue, could explain how "historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases)."

Applying this lesson to our contemporary predicament, the study warns that:

"While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory 'so far' in support of doing nothing."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Zenith]

That graph is so laughably ignorant. You think if minimum wage is raised then everybody is going to keep their jobs and the extra money will just be forked over by the employer?

Great! Let's just raise minimum wage to $5,000,000/hr, that way we can all be rich!

This is, again, introductory Economics. Minimum wage hurts the people it's supposed to help.

Employers will simply hire less people and this will drive unemployment up. There is a reason the vast majority of economists believe minimum wage is a terrible, terrible idea.

Minimum wage gave birth to the unpaid internship and is a massive drain on the economy.

 

[Enemem]

That graph is so laughably ignorant. You think if minimum wage is raised then everybody is going to keep their jobs and the extra money will just be forked over by the employer?

Great! Let's just raise minimum wage to $5,000,000/hr, that way we can all be rich!

This is, again, introductory Economics. Minimum wage hurts the people it's supposed to help.

Employers will simply hire less people and this will drive unemployment up. There is a reason the vast majority of economists believe minimum wage is a terrible, terrible idea.

Minimum wage have birth to the unpaid internship and is a massive drain on the economy.

Do you have any evidence to back-up what you're saying. Going off the deep-end saying minimum wage of 5,000,000/hour indicates the level of that debate, that's obviously not going to happen. Doesn't drain the economuy. Because poor people spend more of that money than rich people. That's what the graph tells you. And you know, when you take your blinders off, that it's right. I spend most of my money(heating, lighting, transport, food), and am able to save very little. The rich have to spend proportionately less on those essentials, and can/and do invest their money in financial schemes to create more money(Stocks and shares anyone?)

But if you want to disagree then you have to explain to me why it's a massive drain on the economy, for the poor to get the money, instead of the rich.

If the minimum wage had been a dollar would this have given birth to unpaid internship, or doesn't it matter how much the minimum wage was. Of course , you can explain how your version of reality works, and I'll give it a read.

When you've got no money, how can it hurt if you're given more? Since the economy thrives on growth, how can having more people contributing to it, be worse?


Now if you want to condemn the graph, then condemn it. There's no need to go anywhere else. But you will have to at least, try to justify why it's wrong. (Most economists disagree with each other, which is fine because it's not a science)

Employers will simply hire less people and this will drive unemployment up. There is a reason the vast majority of economists believe minimum wage is a terrible, terrible idea.

Surely hiring less people is what all employers do, when times are difficult. I'll wager that you don't make minimum wage, and so don't want the status quo shifting.

 

[Famine]

Because poor people spend more of that money than rich people. That's what the graph tells you. And you know, when you take your blinders off, that it's right. I spend most of my money(heating, lighting, transport, food), and am able to save very little. The rich have to spend proportionately less on those essentials, and can/and do invest their money in financial schemes to create more money(Stocks and shares anyone?)

So what happens when you make more people more wealthy? Do they buck the trend and spend more or do they start saving?

If poor people spend more and rich people don't it sounds like your argument to increase cashflow in the economy should be that we need to make more people poorer so they spend more. And that can't even begin to make sense.


And who's buying all these million dollar supercars that sell out before the order books open? Is it those cheeky poor people?

 

[Omnis]

You know why poor people spend more money than rich people? Because rich people save more money than poor people.

edit: quasi-tree'd.

 

[Harry6784]

You know why poor people spend more money than rich people? Because rich people save more money than poor people.

edit: quasi-tree'd.

Most likely that's why they're 'poor'

 

[Enemem]

So what happens when you make more people more wealthy? Do they buck the trend and spend more or do they start saving?

First of all, you need to define wealthy. But I'm pretty sure that increasing minimum wage to say £10/$14 per hour wouldn't turn any into wealthy people. Donk.

If poor people spend more and rich people don't it sounds like your argument to increase cashflow in the economy should be that we need to make more people poorer so they spend more. And that can't even begin to make sense.

So if you've spent all your money, how are you going to contribute more. That my friend, is not an argument based on anything I've said, that is a simply ridiculous extrapolation.

And who's buying all these million dollar supercars that sell out before the order books open? Is it those cheeky poor people?

No the poor people are busy trying to feed themselves. Let them eat cake.

 

[Northstar]

First of all, you need to define wealthy. But I'm pretty sure that increasing minimum wage to say £10/$14 per hour wouldn't turn any into wealthy people. Donk.

Wealthy compared to Warren Buffett? No.
Wealthy compared to them working at $7.25/hour? Yes

No the poor people are busy trying to feed themselves. Let them eat cake.

I work at a grocery store and see plenty of people buying cake with their EBT(Food Stamp) cards. They also buy steak, shrimp, beef jerky, pop, candy and plenty of other unnecessary crap, at least in the U.S. poor people aren't starving(it's the opposite really).

Anyways, the problem with raising the minimum wage is that it's a temporary solution to a problem that the minimum wage created in the first place.

 

[Enemem]

Wealthy compared to Warren Buffett? No.
Wealthy compared to them working at $7.25/hour? Yes



I work at a grocery store and see plenty of people buying cake with their EBT(Food Stamp) cards. They also buy steak, shrimp, beef jerky, pop, candy and plenty of other unnecessary crap, at least in the U.S. poor people aren't starving(it's the opposite really).

Anyways, the problem with raising the minimum wage is that it's a temporary solution to a problem that the minimum wage created in the first place.

So making the minimum wage $12 would bankrupt the economy? Really?

How did a minimum wage create the need for a minimum wage? Presumably, there was a problem before the minimum wage to create the need for a minimum wage?

But let's assume you're right. What's the solution?

 

[Northstar]

So making the minimum wage $12 would bankrupt the economy? Really?

Where did I say that?

How did a minimum wage create the need for a minimum wage?

Did you even read my post? I said...

Anyways, the problem with raising the minimum wage is that it's a temporary solution to a problem that the minimum wage created in the first place.

The only thing minimum wage does is speed up inflation. Sure raising it now will help people, but it just make this topic reappear 10 years from now.

Presumably, there was a problem before the minimum wage to create the need for a minimum wage?

The original problem was there were poor people and they made the government look bad.

But let's assume you're right. What's the solution?

Well, the ideal solution is to just get rid of it.

But realistically, they should just leave it as is and try doing other things to encourage companies to hire more people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly.

Each person has more purchasing power than they did before. Value has been created, especially banana guy's, which was zero before. The example shows how new goods/services get introduced without robbing anything (money or goods) from the existing economy. The net value of the economy has grown (as measured in goods), deflation has occurred, banana guy created wealth and all of society benefited (rather than having to give up part of their slice of the pie).

Blow his mind and show him what happens when the physical supply of coins run out, they'll have to talk to the Gold Guy.

 

[Enemem]

Blow his mind and show him what happens when the physical supply of coins run out, they'll have to talk to the Gold Guy.

So what happens when only one guy can afford to buy a banana or a fish?

So what happens when the money runs out? (Isn't that what's happening?)

 

[Dotini]

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists