I'll just leave this here, and the link to the discussion on Reddit.

We're not addicted to fossil fuels, we can stop anytime we want to...

Found on reddit.

In reality, this short PBS documentary shows what happens when you build the world's largest mall in a manufacturing city (Dōngguǎn, an export hub powered by migrant workers and infamous for poor wages and working conditions).

Herbert is "amazed at how passive the population has remained" as "gamblers and con artists of the financial sector" are "licking their fat-cat chops over yet another round of obscene multibillion-dollar bonuses" while "tens of millions of working Americans are struggling to hang onto their jobs and keep a roof over their families’ heads". Is stupidity the explanation ("a sucker born every minute")? Max Keiser would certainly agree.

Many commentators have previously expressed their hope that banking might become boring again, i.e. that it would return to providing actually valuable services to the economy. Instead, the financial "high-wire artists" are still playing the same game - with a safety net provided by the taxpayer.

It looks like no lessons have been learned. There'll be a price to pay for this mind-boggling stupidity.

Herbert's suggestion to prevent another economic meltdown:

If some company is too big to fail, then it’s too big to exist. Break it up.

That would be a start. In the financial sector, however, "too big to fail" could also mean "too connected to everyone else in gambles or insurances against gambles to fail". Therefore, the changes required would indeed be fundamental as we'd have to outlaw a lot of what the self-righteous clowns in the financial sector consider to be their legitimate core business.

"But you can't simply do that". Yes, we... no, actually, right now I'm afraid we're fucked and deserve it.

Update Oct. 21: Wolfgang Kaden wrote essentially the same comment today as Bob Herbert (on Spiegel Online, in German).

Ein so ungeschönte und umfassende Darstellung der aktuellen Lage und der unmittelbaren Zukunft nach der Wahl habe ich in den deutschen Mainstream-Medien bisher noch nicht gefunden.

Die Autoren bleiben hierbei innerhalb der Grenzen des jetzigen wirtschaftlichen und politischen Systems. Die Frage, ob dieses System noch lange finanzierbar ist - und ob man es überhaupt weiter finanzieren sollte - wird sich aber jeder nach dem Lesen stellen müssen.

Ich will hier keineswegs behaupten, dass diese Situation für die betroffenen Personen nicht sehr belastend wäre. Wer allerdings mehrere Auslandsaufenthalte in seinem Lebenslauf stehen hat, hätte bei Gelegenheit mit einem chinesischen Fabrikleiter über dessen Gehalt sprechen können oder mit einem amerikanischen Arbeitskollegen über die Anzahl und Art der bisher ausgeübten Jobs.

Die hochbezahlte unbefristete Anstellung, die Rundum-Sicherheit, das gesamte bürgerliche Leben der deutschen Mittelschicht: Dieser Lebensstil ist global gesehen die absolute Ausnahme. Er taugt auch keinesfalls als realistisches Vorbild für die allermeisten Menschen auf diesem Planeten, das wird alleine bei der Betrachtung des Ressourcenverbrauchs klar. Nun ist er offensichtlich auch in Deutschland nicht mehr finanzierbar.

Es wird sich allerdings nichts ändern, solange nur junge Menschen betroffen sind. Insofern hat der Autor dieses Artikels in der FTD [!] recht, der sich eine "richtige Krise" wünscht. Die jetzigen Verlierer könnten dabei zur Speerspitze des notwendigen Wandels werden. Vielleicht machen sie am Ende ja doch alles richtig.

*) Keine befristeten Arbeitsverhältnisse, Leiharbeiter, ABM-Stellen oder ewige Praktikanten.
**) Das klang ungefähr so: "Während X sich nun trotz eines Doktortitels in Philosophie als freiberuflicher Müllmann über Wasser halten muss und gerade von seiner Freundin verlassen wurde, hat Y nach nur 2 Bewerbungen eine Festanstellung als Türschließgeräuschdesigner bei Porsche erhalten und plant nun mit seiner Frau (Bilanzbuchhalterin) den Kauf eines Eigenheims mit 2 Kinderzimmern".

[..] we will see an economic life closer to our biological environment: smaller companies, richer ecology, no leverage. A world in which entrepreneurs, not bankers, take the risks and companies are born and die every day without making the news.

Sounds great. Definitely worth reading. If you think this won't work, check out link no. 2.

2. When the shit hits the fan: The art of survival: Essential skills for the post-apocalyptic world

Over a barbecue dinner later that night, Reeve asked why I'd signed up for the course. "I think things have changed for my generation," I told him. "We were born with a silver spoon in our mouths, but now it's being removed. And most of us never learned how to take care of ourselves. So I've spent the last two years trying to get the skills and documents I need to prepare for an uncertain future."

why don’t Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke force the banks to write down their troubled assets first, as a condition of government assistance? We can only speculate, because their explanations so far have made no sense.

He gives a few possible, though not very convincing reasons: Fear of panic, influence of failed banksters, lack of manpower and concludes:

Whatever the case, as long as the government refuses to remove the cancer of zombie banks from our financial system, there’s little hope the U.S. will return to robust economic growth anytime soon.

Kill the zombie banks, save the economy. However, what if the zombies are gone, but the nightmare continues? That's precisely what the Great Disruption is all about. Faced with the true magnitude of this crisis, wouldn't you try "to buy time" and hope "that an economic recovery somehow will materialize", too? Here's your answer, Mr. Weil.