And why not? Europe is headed for the rocks. And it appears that there is nothing that can save it. The rocks are Eastern European debt.
If mishandled by the world policy establishment, this debacle is big enough to shatter the fragile banking systems of Western Europe and set off round two of our financial Gotterdammerung.
Austria's finance minister Josef Proll made frantic efforts last week to put together a €150bn rescue for the ex-Soviet bloc. Well he might. His banks have lent €230bn to the region, equal to 70pc of Austria's GDP.
"A failure rate of 10pc would lead to the collapse of the Austrian financial sector," reported Der Standard in Vienna. Unfortunately, that is about to happen.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) says bad debts will top 10pc and may reach 20pc. The Vienna press said Bank Austria and its Italian owner Unicredit face a "monetary Stalingrad" in the East.
So let me see are the banks the Russians or the Germans? Would it make a difference?
Stephen Jen, currency chief at Morgan Stanley, said Eastern Europe has borrowed $1.7 trillion abroad, much on short-term maturities. It must repay - or roll over - $400bn this year, equal to a third of the region's GDP. Good luck. The credit window has slammed shut.
Not even Russia can easily cover the $500bn dollar debts of its oligarchs while oil remains near $33 a barrel. The budget is based on Urals crude at $95. Russia has bled 36pc of its foreign reserves since August defending the rouble.
"This is the largest run on a currency in history," said Mr Jen.
In Poland, 60pc of mortgages are in Swiss francs. The zloty has just halved against the franc. Hungary, the Balkans, the Baltics, and Ukraine are all suffering variants of this story. As an act of collective folly - by lenders and borrowers - it matches America's sub-prime debacle. There is a crucial difference, however. European banks are on the hook for both. US banks are not.
And just a while ago the Russians were doing so well. They were making money faster than their elite could steal it. But all the oil producers are in the same fix. Not enough buyers in the market. Too many sellers.
And Europe on the hook for American and Eastern European debt? Priceless.
The real question though is this: why didn't any of the oil producing countries see a threat to their economies when oil went from $100 a bbl to $150 a bbl? And another question. Why is the US Congress restricting drilling in the US which would help stabilize oil markets?
Almost all East bloc debts are owed to West Europe, especially Austrian, Swedish, Greek, Italian, and Belgian banks. En plus, Europeans account for an astonishing 74pc of the entire $4.9 trillion portfolio of loans to emerging markets.
They are five times more exposed to this latest bust than American or Japanese banks, and they are 50pc more leveraged (IMF data).
Spain is up to its neck in Latin America, which has belatedly joined the slump (Mexico's car output fell 51pc in January, and Brazil lost 650,000 jobs in one month). Britain and Switzerland are up to their necks in Asia.
Whether it takes months, or just weeks, the world is going to discover that Europe's financial system is sunk, and that there is no EU Federal Reserve yet ready to act as a lender of last resort or to flood the markets with emergency stimulus.
The Europeans have an excellent system for maintaining the value of their currency. They contract their money supply when their economies turn south (well at least some of them do that). However, that makes them vulnerable to countries that are inflating their money supply (the USA) because they then lose production to the lower cost suppliers. Further weakening their economies.
"There are accidents waiting to happen across the region, but the EU institutions don't have any framework for dealing with this. The day they decide not to save one of these one countries will be the trigger for a massive crisis with contagion spreading into the EU."
It all comes down to this: civilization runs on energy. The higher the cost of energy the less the civilization. So I'm hoping America will do something serious on the energy front. Drill for oil, build more nukes, add more refineries, build a HV DC backbone across the US for electricity, get serious about fusion research. Something.
Because - until we lower the cost of energy we are (at least for a while) going to have to do less with more. Never a cheery prospect.
It all comes down to this: civilization runs on energy.
Jerry Pournelle keeps saying exactly the same thing.
Tickle me Elmo · February 18, 2009 12:48 AM
It all comes down to this: civilization runs on energy.
Any sane, honest person says this.
What was the first step in civilization? Fire. Energy in its purest form. Every step up to where we are included a more efficient way to use energy; fire to steam to internal combutions to jets to nukular and, hopefully, to fusion.
The problem is that much of our media and politicans are part of the community based reality where "reality has a liberal slant", which is the most ignorant, back-pattingly, smug, superior piece of drivel I've heard in a long time.
Lefties can't be supported until a community or civilization is strong enough to protect them from the consequences of their decisions.
And that's why I'm not really being facetious when I say, "Funniest end of civilization ever", we have unlearned so many vital lessons (Like, you have to kill the evil people who are trying to kill you), that we have no option but for our civilization to fall unless we can remember the lessons we learned the hard way on our climb up the civilizational ladder.
Just because it's mean doesn't mean it's not good.
Veeshir · February 18, 2009 10:19 AM
That's the absolute truth - civilization depends on excess energy about substanance levels. For the clearest, most fundamental treatment, look to energy ecology, particularly Howard Odom. He mapped energy flows through ecosystems and even applied these methods to human societies.
The environmental movement picked up on this realization early on but of course, has been reluctant to state that their true goal is the pauperization of the citizenry and a civilizational and ultimately homo sapiens die-back.
As to the HV DC transmission links, they could have specific applications, especially in inter-grid links as they do today, but they would in no way replace adequate generation near load centers. The higher the voltage the more efficent the transmission but not in a linear fashion. Doubling the voltage does not save half the losses.
It is no magic bullet.
Whitehall · February 18, 2009 11:51 AM
Whitehall,
Doubling the voltage does not halve the losses. It reduces them to 1/4. Except in AC where line losses are more a function of voltage than with DC.
With only a very small AC component (mostly due to load fluctuations) DC line losses are mostly resistive and related to load current (except for corona which is a problem in AC too).
Before DC & AC there was direct drive. Visit buttecreekmill.com for an example. The water wheel connects to flat belts that not only drive the grinding stones, but also once furnished power to an ammonia refrigeration unit that served local hunters with cheap storage of game.
The man who refurbished Butte Creek Mill was a retired NASA engineer.
The new owners are probably latte yuppies.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
It all comes down to this: civilization runs on energy.
Jerry Pournelle keeps saying exactly the same thing.