Handelstrafikken til sjøs stopper opp


Verdensøkonomien er i alvorlig trøbbel. Så mye er opplagt ved inngangen til 2016. Nye data om handelstrafikken til sjøs tyder på at problemene er langt alvorligere enn det som foreløpig er rapportert.

Det later til at handelstrafikken til sjøs nærmest har stoppet opp.

Det finnes en lang rekke nettsider som overvåker skipstrafikken. Dermed kan man til enhver tid se hvilke transportskip som befinner seg hvor. Man kan for eksempel se hvor mange frakteskip som er på vei mellom USA og Europa, og som en rapport sier:

Commerce between Europe and North America has literally come to a halt.  For the first time in known history, not one cargo ship is in-transit in the North Atlantic between Europe and North America.  All of them (hundreds) are either anchored offshore or in-port.  NOTHING is moving.

This has never happened before.  It is a horrific economic sign; proof that commerce is literally stopped.

Jeg er ingen ship spotter, men jeg har sjekket marinetraffic.com og vesselfinder.com, og det later til at denne rapporten er nokså riktig. Det ser ikke ut til å være noen handelsskip på de åpne hav per 13.01.2015. Alle skip befinner seg ved eller langs kystene, og bare noen få ser ut til å være på vei noe sted.

Det finnes noe som heter Baltic Dry index. Den er «en bedømmelse av prisen for å flytte store råvarer til sjøs». Per 13. januar 2016 ligger den på sitt laveste nivå noensinne. Indeksen er 402, mens den på sitt aller laveste under finanskrisa var så vidt under 700. Forrige bunnrekord var i 1984, da lå den på ca. 550. Dette bekrefter altså dataene for skipstrafikken. Fabrikker kjøper ikke og handelsselskaper kjøper ikke.

St. Louis fed følger de fleste økonomiske indikatorer for å gi investorene noe å gå etter, og deres oversikt over lagerindeksen i USA (egentlig forholdet mellom lager og salg), og den viser at sist gang lagrene var så fulle var i oktober 2008, da finanskrisa slo til for fullt.




KampanjeStøtt oss

Du kan abonnere på steigan.no her. Det koster ingenting.

Men hvis du vil være med på å opprettholde og styrke vår kritiske og uavhengige journalistikk, kan du også gjøre det:

Vipps: 116916.

Eller du kan betale inn på Mot Dags støttekonto: 9001 30 89050 – eller gå inn på vår betalingsordning.


  1. Egentlig er det misvisende å benytte begreper som verdensøkonomi etc., da økonomi betyr husholdning av ressurser, som jo faktisk er det stikk motsatte av hva som skjer innenfor det kapitalistiske systemet. «Debtonomics» er et langt bedre begrep, dessverre lar det seg ikke umiddelbart overføre til norsk.

    – Debtonomics vs. Economics: http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/03/31/debtonomics-vs-economics/

    «Exit Galatians, enter industrialization: ‘sales’, ‘profits’ and ‘sustainability’ are myths emptied of any real meaning, veneers over monstrous debtonomics. Slo-mo accumulation has been relegated to the quaint micro-economy of artisans with hand tools. The shift-over occurred centuries ago: Adam Smith described the industrial process shortly after Newcomen in the mid- eighteenth century in ‘Wealth of Nations’, (from Diderot):

    ”One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day.”

    The pin making process; yea, but not all! Smith leaves out the debt! The factory building(s), the ground (within costly metropolitan districts), the machines, prime movers, labor force training, management and all-important marketing must be bought and paid for in advance of making the first pin! Each pin machine is itself the product of its own expensive factoria and their fleets of machines, their machines’ machines and the machines’ machines’ machines … everything must be paid for in advance of that first pin … which on its own costs tens of millions of pounds! Relative to the enterprise — making and handfuls of tiny pieces of pointed wire with but one purpose — the life cycle costs are stupendous. Every component offers the potential for non-trivial losses, each of which must be met with borrowed funds. So too the profits for the manufacturers and his lenders; pins cannot be sold or profits gained until they are first in hand, marketable to customers who can make use of them. Smith simply omits all of this: it’s unpleasant, it doesn’t fit his quasi-Biblical narrative; it suggests dependence upon conniving shylocks and ankle-breaking overseers: that ‘progress’ is material fraud and worker abuse rather than an inevitable force of provident nature and her invisible guiding hand.

    Because the multiple, competitive firms vomit pins by the freight-car load, customers by necessity are also firms: mega-pin manufacturing becomes a component of much larger downstream machine processes … all of which require loans. To retire the manufacturers’ debts the end users must have the desire (demand) and means (consumption) to pay too much for pins. They must borrow more than the manufacturers in aggregate … or else. If they cannot, (or refuse) the firms are hanged by their own borrowed rope, then the creditors themselves are likewise ruined:

    “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone … ”

    — Walter Bagehot

    The wider-scale the processes, the greater need for (debt x borrowers). Without debt, without the infrastructure of organic credit enabling the processes in their entirety there would be only hand-drawn pins made by silversmiths’ apprentices gained by way of trade or hard currency; not much Wealth of nations Tycoons, either.

    Obviously, managers, ‘investors’ and factory owners are paid up-front with borrowed funds along with the machinery. Within debtonomics, firms are not productive, they don’t have to be. Instead, they are over-priced collateral (with fanciful ‘utility’) every- and all returns are borrowed, profits are artificial (fraudulent), enterprise is sustained only as long as the firms themselves or their customers can borrow and refinance maturing debts.

    Because firms are not productive, because they borrow their returns, the ℇ elasticity of substitution … the relationship between the capital-output ratio K/Y and the user cost of capital, which is r+∂ … the sum of the real rate of return plus the depreciation rate … all of these are irrelevant! What matters is access to a willing lender. In contrast to the mysterious and exotic clockwork of macro-econometrics, debtonomy is a bludgeon to the head; simple enough for a gangster, politician, banker or stock swindler to understand. The debtonomy’s functions are entirely expedient, almost magically so. All dilemmas are resolved by throwing more borrowed money at them … along with bombs and billy clubs. As long as economic agents have access to ‘fuel’: lending capacity and capital to waste, the debtonomy will expand consuming every available resource until the enterprise collapses under its own weight.

    Within the debtonomy: businesses borrow because they can … they borrow very large amounts because they can. A ‘good’ business … can borrow … because it is fashionable … and for no other reason. The businesses’ customers must borrow even larger amounts in order to retire the firm’s loans-plus-interest. In debtonomics, this is said to be a ‘firm borrowing against the accounts of its customers- or against that of the state’. There is really no difference between the two: borrowings against the state are nothing more than involuntary loans by the same customers’ children.

    Instead of capital being substituted for labor, debt is substituted for returns. The real costs of capital (resource inputs + externalities) are misstated in order for firms to ‘fake’ profitability: progress turns out to be faulty accounting. Because firms are not productive, debt must increase in order for business activity to expand so as to meet debt service costs. The debtonomy collapses when sufficient marginal borrowing capacity is dedicated to debt service (Minsky Moment).

    Economic activity requires material- plus energy needed to do ‘work’: to move- and transform objects, to heat and forcibly cool them. As such, all activities are subject to fundamental, thermodynamic laws: what matters on our planetary endeavors is energy- and material throughput. The economy is a component of the natural environment; the constraints of nature make accumulation of surpluses difficult and slow. Like firms, the wealthy become so by borrowing large amounts of money then compelling others by force or trickery to repay the resulting debts. Any needed work is done at its own pace after the fact of enrichment. Repayment of the rich man’s loan takes as long as necessary or never completed. The work-process becomes collateral for still more loans; the longer the repayment term the greater the yield at interest, etc.

    Industrial economies intend to manage diminished returns: the ‘First Law’ of economics: that the costs associated with any surplus increase along with it until at some point the costs exceed what the surplus is worth. Surpluses, by themselves, are the product of industry; they can be any tangible thing such as pins, machines, tycoon’s money or ‘wealth’: gold, fuel, food, material even livestock, cars, coal, water, cigarettes; anything. As surpluses expand so do costs; agents shift these costs onto third parties, using them as ‘cost sinks’. As Rognlie observes, “the economic concept central to diminishing returns, the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor” is self-defeating.

    Within conventional economics, tycoons are presumed to be lenders (investors) who gain an incremental, residual returns on ‘profitable’ business enterprises: capital accumulation. Within debtonomics, tycoons are borrowers bent on outlasting their own firms, short-sellers offering vaporware ‘innovations’ when they aren’t front-running the stock exchanges.

    Within the debtonomy, economists and policy makers are actors reading from scripts: as with all else in our culture, economists are products of fashion. In keeping with the expedient nature of debtonomics, economists obtain their speaking roles because they conform to expectations created by marketing managers and commercial artists. Conformity includes how managers look, dress, speak, where certified and whom they know; where they live and work and how they travel.

    Within debtonomics, non-renewable resources are capital: the foundation of all productive activities. The factories and shops, fixtures and infrastructure that conventional economists consider as such are (tangible) claims against capital; money and debt are intangible claims against purchasing power. Factories, money, etc. produce absolutely nothing by themselves, they require resource capital to extract, process and transform … to send to the landfill or pump into the atmosphere as waste. Money requires work to leverage. Within the debtonomy, resource- wasting processes (claims) are collateral; capital itself cannot be collateral because it is destroyed by way of its ‘use’. Instead of becoming more wealthy as we toil, we steadily reduce ourselves to ruin: as we destroy our capital we are destroying our purchasing power at the same time.

    Just as consumption can never exceed available supply, purchasing power can never exceed the resource capital that remains to be purchased. Industrial wealth is a spurious claim against capital: when it is exhausted we are bankrupt regardless of how much ‘wealth’- or money-claims workers or their tycoon overlords possess. In this way the decline in purchasing power is the result of resource mismanagement, it is also a cause of mismanagement: the process feeds upon itself (deflation).

    Within convention, the economy is a set of interconnected abstract functions that can be ordered mathematically. Its is offered as a natural process (invisible hands) that can be parsed scientifically the same way as chemical reactions. These functions only only vaguely relate to the real economy, they are friction- and cost free assumptions and/or simplifications. There are no ‘controls’ or alternative economies that can be made use of in comparison. Economic models are built using statistics sourced from agencies that are captured by business interests or possessed of partisan political agendas. This is also self-amplifying as the partisan agendas promote increased capital extraction and waste. That these agencies routinely ‘err’ (lie) means that most analysis is without proper empirical foundation, that a lot of material factors are left out or wished away, resulting calculations are practically worthless.

    Criminality is a foundational component of industrial capitalism. Economics tends to ignore this activity as it does not conform to the enterprise’ anodyne worldview. Conventional economics becomes an unwitting enabler- accessory to criminal activities on the largest scale. Whereas bilking or manipulating others to repay your obligations is theft, doing so on a world-wide scale is served up as ‘progress’.

    Economists could do useful things like invent ‘money’ that is difficult to steal. Instead, economic theorizing repeatedly flops in the real world. Economists cannot predict recessions or extreme price movements, they cannot explain recessions after they occur. Greek economist/Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis works hard to gain a motorist-friendly bailout from German banks: he’s a post-Keynesian expert but painfully ineffective in the real world. Varoufakis cannot command capital to appear, he has near- zero leverage over other European countries’ finance ministers, who are sock puppets of criminal finance … as is the Greek establishment. The Greeks can gain loans by surrendering to the criminals but not on anything approaching Varoufakis’ terms => damage to Greek government’s credibility. The next step is loss of confidence => (ongoing) bank run => EU credit freeze => Government failure => default => Varoufakis being replaced with another hapless economist.

    The outcome of this process is Greece, de-industrialized. No loans = no industry. Despite what economists insist, firms cannot pay their own way; they are reductive rather than productive. That this is so is self-evident: if any firm could retire its own debts it would have done so already. There would be no debts; the firm would retire its own then those of the other firms, it would then make everyone rich. Instead, such a firm is thermodynamically impossible, a perpetual motion machine. In place of general prosperity the world is prostrate under a mountain of debts and useless junk; monuments to both industrialization and self-delusion

    Economists also seem not to grasp that collapse in Greece or elsewhere is permanent. Industrialized capital extraction and waste-making leaves insufficient resources with which to recover.

    Redistribution cannot solve anything because debt-surplus costs cannot eliminated only shifted. Aggregated industrial costs are greater than the worth of the entire economy, even as purchasing power evaporates. Workers cannot accumulate surpluses on their own because their consumption speeds their funds toward the bankers.

    The first step away from calamity must include jettisoning the myths upon which our economic (mis)understandings are built. The economy is a criminal enterprise. Economists need to wake up and smell the coffee. There are no invisible hands or divine providence … only fraud. This is no game, there is no one or nothing to bail us out. Our economy does not pay for itself, there is no such thing as ‘capitalism’ unless that means pillaging. Our counterparty is Nature, she is much more powerful than we are … and does not have our interests.

    The second step is to conserve our capital it must come under the stewardship of those who would husband it for the greatest (future) returns. We either conserve voluntarily or it is forced upon us by events.

    The third step is to to render the elasticity of substitution … of debt for organic returns to zero. If nothing else it would end the tyranny of criminal bankers.

    “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”
    -― John Maynard Keynes

  2. Det høres jo unektelig veldig alvorlig ut, men hva blir egentlig de umiddelbare implikasjonene?

    Selv var jeg faktisk optimist inntil veldig nylig, men for noen få dager siden fikk jeg høre fra ekstremt intelligente kilder at det vil finne sted en «global katastrofe» (dette var ordene som ble brukt). Jeg spurte hva slags katastrofe og når den ville finne sted, men fikk ikke noe svar. (Jeg tar naturligvis høyde for at kildene kanskje ikke har peiling, eller at de lyver, men jeg har altså grunn til å tro at de er svært intelligente og kunnskapsrike.) Jeg fikk inntrykket av at mesteparten av menneskeheten ville komme til å dø ut.

    Jeg konkluderte med at det, en eller annen gang (kanskje allerede i år), vil komme en stor finanskrise med en påfølgende verdenskrig og naturligvis en ekstrem intensivering av flyktningestrømmen, osv. (Minst noen titalls millioner flyktninger kommer til å strømme inn i Europa i løpet av et halvår.) Samt en forverring av klimakrisen, kanskje en nedsmelting av mange atomreaktorer pga manglende vedlikehold, samt diverse naturkatastrofer og falsk flagg-angrep. Ikke akkurat lystige fremtidsutsikter.

    Men dette er selvsagt bare vill spekulasjon.

  3. Handeln mellan Nordamerika och Europa stannar av. Nordamerika (USA) tvingar Europa att sluta handla med Ryssland (vilket bland annat betyder att tyska bilar ersätts av koreanska på den ryska marknaden). Slutresultat: det går dåligt för Europa när dess utrikeshandel mot såväl väst som öst förtvinar. Hur länge skall Europa tåla att USA påtvingar kontinenten ett långsamt och plågsamt ekonomiskt självmord? Och vi skall väl inte tro att handeln mellan EU och Ryssland kommer tillbaka till nivån innan sanktionskriget började, även om sanktionerna hävs om ett halvår?

    Dålig utveckling för kapitalismen, «austerity» och sanktioner: det är en mycket skadlig dryck för den europeiska ekonomin.

  4. Nei, uten å ha sjekket så tror jeg du bommer her. Jobber litt innenfor dette og har bakgrunn som styrmann. Hadde dette vært faktum, så hadde vi merket dette – big time!

    Alt vi shopper kommer i containere på containerskip fra østen, og så vidt jeg vet er det full fart i butikkene.

    Vi merket det veldig i slutten av 2007 og 2008 på antall skip inn til Norge at finanskrisen herjet og at kjøpelysten gikk ned.

  5. Du bruker altså 2 «Ship spotter» sider på nett og legger merke til at ingen av de viser skip på de åpne hav..

    Fra FAQ til Vesselfinder:

    Why the vessel I am searching for is not visible on the map?

    The vessel is likely out of range. AIS technology range is about 30-50 nautical miles offshore.

    Fra FAQ til Marinetraffic:

    Why is my vessel not visible?

    The MarineTraffic system does not cover all the seas of the world, but only specific coastal areas where a land-based AIS receiver is installed. Vessels appearing on the live map are equipped with an operational AIS transponder and they sail within the reception range of an AIS receiver installed on the land.

  6. Det er antagelig ikkje AIS-dekning ute på ville havet. Da forsvinner trafikken fra skjemene. Sjekk heller hvor fartøyene kommer fra og hvor de skal mens de ligger i havn


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Dette nettstedet bruker Akismet for å redusere spam. Lær om hvordan dine kommentar-data prosesseres.