page-loading-spinner
by Chris Martenson
Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Executive Summary

  • This is not a normal recession, and it will not follow predictable patterns.
  • Tax data does not support the assertion that consumer spending has essentially remained unchanged.
  • Housing market recovery is being delayed by government programs.
  • Households and small businesses are shedding debt, and big businesses are only adding a little, leaving government responsible for most of the new debt.
  • We need to become serious about our real needs and stop frittering away time and capital.

I am going to be peering ahead with my views for 2010 and beyond in a multi-part series, beginning with the big picture before moving into individual ideas and suggestions.

Let’s start by pondering a bullish set of views gleaned from the news:

Wall Street closes 2009 with “an expectancy of better times in the air.”  While not predicting immediate return to prosperity, general mood was the most optimistic since midyear slump dashed hopes of early business revival.  General belief that “factors of long-range bullish import” are steadily increasing, while vast bulk of necessary deflation has been accomplished.

While the past year was painful, the pain won’t necessarily end with the year.  However, there’s good reason to believe the country is in a better position than it was a year ago.  The past year has rid the country of illusions, including the theory shortly after the crash that the US had invented the “harmless panic.”  It has produced a new realism, where business projects must be sound to proceed. 

The year has also provided an “incalculable amount of ultimate benefit” in eliminating the many “weak spots” that an economic boom always produces. Institutions that “withstood the extraordinary strains of 2009” should be well positioned for the tests of 2010; common sense and experience suggests these will be less severe. Consumption has outpaced production for months; “effective demand for expanded mill and factory production cannot logically lag far behind.”

Truth be told, these quotes were gleaned from newspapers published on December 31, 1930.  The only things I changed were the dates, to make my point that these quotes could have been written last week.

2010 and Beyond
PREVIEW by Chris Martenson
Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Executive Summary

  • This is not a normal recession, and it will not follow predictable patterns.
  • Tax data does not support the assertion that consumer spending has essentially remained unchanged.
  • Housing market recovery is being delayed by government programs.
  • Households and small businesses are shedding debt, and big businesses are only adding a little, leaving government responsible for most of the new debt.
  • We need to become serious about our real needs and stop frittering away time and capital.

I am going to be peering ahead with my views for 2010 and beyond in a multi-part series, beginning with the big picture before moving into individual ideas and suggestions.

Let’s start by pondering a bullish set of views gleaned from the news:

Wall Street closes 2009 with “an expectancy of better times in the air.”  While not predicting immediate return to prosperity, general mood was the most optimistic since midyear slump dashed hopes of early business revival.  General belief that “factors of long-range bullish import” are steadily increasing, while vast bulk of necessary deflation has been accomplished.

While the past year was painful, the pain won’t necessarily end with the year.  However, there’s good reason to believe the country is in a better position than it was a year ago.  The past year has rid the country of illusions, including the theory shortly after the crash that the US had invented the “harmless panic.”  It has produced a new realism, where business projects must be sound to proceed. 

The year has also provided an “incalculable amount of ultimate benefit” in eliminating the many “weak spots” that an economic boom always produces. Institutions that “withstood the extraordinary strains of 2009” should be well positioned for the tests of 2010; common sense and experience suggests these will be less severe. Consumption has outpaced production for months; “effective demand for expanded mill and factory production cannot logically lag far behind.”

Truth be told, these quotes were gleaned from newspapers published on December 31, 1930.  The only things I changed were the dates, to make my point that these quotes could have been written last week.

by Chris Martenson

Note:  This is most of a recent Martenson Report that I am making public after numerous requests to do so.  Normally I reserve such reports for at least several months before general release. I’ve only left off my conclusions about what this all implies about the future. One member from Germany (thank you Michael!) has translated this piece into German and that appears as a downloadable attachment at the bottom of the article.


Preamble: I normally avoid writing on Global Warming/Climate Change as a topic for discussion because it tends to be a heated topic for many people on both sides, which can work against collaborative solutions. This article is not about global warming and/or the science behind it, and it is not my intention to discuss those ideas here.



I want to point out that a massive discrepancy exists between the official pronouncements emerging from Copenhagen on carbon emissions and recent government actions to spur economic growth.

Before and during Copenhagen (and after, too, we can be sure), politicians and central bankers across the globe have worked tirelessly to return the global economy to a path of growth.  We need more jobs, we are told; we need economic growth, we need more people consuming more things.  Growth is the ever-constant word on politicians’ lips.  Official actions amounting to tens of trillions of dollars speak to the fact that this is, in fact, our number-one global priority.

But the consensus coming out of Copenhagen is that carbon emissions have to be reduced by a vast amount over the next few decades. 

These two ideas are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have both.

Copenhagen & Economic Growth – You Can’t Have Both
by Chris Martenson

Note:  This is most of a recent Martenson Report that I am making public after numerous requests to do so.  Normally I reserve such reports for at least several months before general release. I’ve only left off my conclusions about what this all implies about the future. One member from Germany (thank you Michael!) has translated this piece into German and that appears as a downloadable attachment at the bottom of the article.


Preamble: I normally avoid writing on Global Warming/Climate Change as a topic for discussion because it tends to be a heated topic for many people on both sides, which can work against collaborative solutions. This article is not about global warming and/or the science behind it, and it is not my intention to discuss those ideas here.



I want to point out that a massive discrepancy exists between the official pronouncements emerging from Copenhagen on carbon emissions and recent government actions to spur economic growth.

Before and during Copenhagen (and after, too, we can be sure), politicians and central bankers across the globe have worked tirelessly to return the global economy to a path of growth.  We need more jobs, we are told; we need economic growth, we need more people consuming more things.  Growth is the ever-constant word on politicians’ lips.  Official actions amounting to tens of trillions of dollars speak to the fact that this is, in fact, our number-one global priority.

But the consensus coming out of Copenhagen is that carbon emissions have to be reduced by a vast amount over the next few decades. 

These two ideas are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have both.

by Chris Martenson
Saturday, December 19, 2009

Executive Summary

  • Carbon reduction and economic growth are mutually exclusive goals.
  • Alternative energy sources and technologies are decades away from making a significant contribution.
  • The core problem lies with our monetary system itself.
  • Politicians are in a real bind.
  • If we were really serious…
  • The way forward.

Preamble: I normally avoid writing on Global Warming/Climate Change as a topic for discussion because it tends to be a heated topic for many people on both sides, which can work against collaborative solutions. This article is not about global warming and/or the science behind it, and it is not my intention to discuss those ideas here.


Copenhagen & Economic Growth – You Can’t Have Both

I want to point out that a massive discrepancy exists between the official pronouncements emerging from Copenhagen on carbon emissions and recent government actions to spur economic growth.

Before and during Copenhagen (and after, too, we can be sure), politicians and central bankers across the globe have worked tirelessly to return the global economy to a path of growth.  We need more jobs, we are told; we need economic growth, we need more people consuming more things.  Growth is the ever-constant word on politicians’ lips.  Official actions amounting to tens of trillions of dollars speak to the fact that this is, in fact, our number-one global priority.

But the consensus coming out of Copenhagen is that carbon emissions have to be reduced by a vast amount over the next few decades. 

These two ideas are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have both.

Why Copenhagen Is A Failure
PREVIEW by Chris Martenson
Saturday, December 19, 2009

Executive Summary

  • Carbon reduction and economic growth are mutually exclusive goals.
  • Alternative energy sources and technologies are decades away from making a significant contribution.
  • The core problem lies with our monetary system itself.
  • Politicians are in a real bind.
  • If we were really serious…
  • The way forward.

Preamble: I normally avoid writing on Global Warming/Climate Change as a topic for discussion because it tends to be a heated topic for many people on both sides, which can work against collaborative solutions. This article is not about global warming and/or the science behind it, and it is not my intention to discuss those ideas here.


Copenhagen & Economic Growth – You Can’t Have Both

I want to point out that a massive discrepancy exists between the official pronouncements emerging from Copenhagen on carbon emissions and recent government actions to spur economic growth.

Before and during Copenhagen (and after, too, we can be sure), politicians and central bankers across the globe have worked tirelessly to return the global economy to a path of growth.  We need more jobs, we are told; we need economic growth, we need more people consuming more things.  Growth is the ever-constant word on politicians’ lips.  Official actions amounting to tens of trillions of dollars speak to the fact that this is, in fact, our number-one global priority.

But the consensus coming out of Copenhagen is that carbon emissions have to be reduced by a vast amount over the next few decades. 

These two ideas are mutually exclusive.  You can’t have both.

Total 4889 items

Daily Digest

Please login to submit a story to the Daily Digest.

View Past Daily Digests