Very good post by Khebab on Mexico:  http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2006/03/mexicos-ability-to-export-oil.html

The overall theme of the Dallas Morning News article is that Mexico's production is suffering because of the nationalization of the oil industry.  This is certainly a key factor, but IMO depletion trumps free markets in this case.  

Based on Khebab's HL plot, Mexico is very close to the same point at which the (free market) Lower 48 started declining.   My point is that whether the oilmen are free market Republicans, communists or socialists, we all tend to find the big fields first, and the HL method is primarily plotting the rise and fall of big oil fields.

I suspect that we are going to see a rising tide of negative US media coverage of energy related events Central and South America.  A few weeks ago, some of the talking heads at Fox discussed the premise that Chavez might be using oil as a "weapon of mass destruction."

I suspect that declining oil production will be blamed on inefficient state ownership of energy reserves.  Again, this is partially true, but depletion trumps politics.  The key point is that depletion marches on--regardless of the political orientation of the person operating the oil wells.      

It is imperative that we kill consumption before consumption kills us. Unfortunately, many exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela are doing the exact opposite--they are doing everything they can to encourage consumption.  

IMO, we need to tax energy consumption to fund Social Security and Medicare.

I suspect that declining oil production will be blamed on inefficient state ownership of energy reserves.

I would say that is not completely a bad thing, since could lessen the rate of decline on the right hand side of the curve as these resources are "inefficiently" brought on line.  Isn't Aramco under some state guidence?  They would seem pretty efficient in utilizing their resource.
>IMO, we need to tax energy consumption to fund Social Security and Medicare.

This is a terrible idea:

  1. Curbing consumption in the US does NOT curb consumption in China, India and the rest of the world

  2. Higher Taxes translate into more wasteful spending (more taxes mean more money for Washingtion Buracrats) This leads to higher inflation and further erosion of the US savings rate. (Why save when inflation will steal your savings). This exacerbates retirment issues since more americans give up saving for retirement, and become more dependant on SS and other gov't entitlement programs. Those that are already retired and live on fixed income suffer more because the are unable to keep up with rising costs!

The answer is to raise US interest rates:

  1. Causes a global reduction in consumption since all central banks are force to raise interest rates to prevent money from leaving. Higher interest rate force consumers to reduce spending (consumption) and increase savings.

  2. Higher savings rates are better for retirement plans and it reduces dependance on gov't entitlements.

  3. Gov'ts are force to reduce wasteful spending and only invest in programs that make it function more efficient (less wasted energy)

  4. Business invest more wisely and enact policies to reduce debt. They only invest in things that make them more efficient. US wages become more competitive, since the labor costs are contained (slower and smaller increase in salaries, medical insurance, etc).

  5. Retirees are able to stretch their saving further and are likely to be less dependant on gov't entitlements. This would slow the expansion of entitlement expendures.

To summarize:
Higher taxes = higher consumption and increased wasteful spending.
Higher interest rates = reduced consumption, higher savings investment in only more efficient technology and systems.

Class dismissed!

I think that we need to offset an energy consumption tax by abolishing the Payroll Tax.  The faster than we adjust to more expensive energy the better off we will be.
>The faster than we adjust to more expensive energy the better off we will be.

Raising Interest rates would be the fastest way to make energy more expensive. It makes everything more expensive and prevents inflation. It wasn't until the 80's after the interest rates shot up that efficiency of US cars began to rise. During the 1970s when the gasoline tax was enacted it did nothing to curb demand.

>I think that we need to offset an energy consumption tax by abolishing the Payroll Tax

That won't happen. What do you believe abolishment the payroll tax will accomplish?

FWIW: I think your interpretation of future Oil production is right on the money.

It makes everything more expensive and prevents inflation.

Hmm. Just a second, let me get that.

>>It makes everything more expensive and prevents inflation.
>Hmm. Just a second, let me get that.

Nice oxymoron! I apologize. I definately should have done a better job writing that statement:

Higher interests rates raises borrowing costs which makes it more expensive for consumers to purchase goods and services on credit. Because consumers spend less, business lose the ability to raise prices which lowers or stops inflation. If interest rates rise too high it causes deflation, as businesses are forced to reduce prices and must reduce costs. Cost reduction can be accomplised by improving efficiency or reducing production to meet the decline in demand. Either way, the results is decreased energy consumption.

And what, the next Great Depression?  We're in a pretty big fix at the moment.  Thanks to lowering interest rates too much we've ended up with a negative savings rate.  The next recession is going to be brutal because most people will not have the assets to weather the downturn.  

Don't get me wrong, the Federal Reserve needs to raise rates and they will, but I don't see the correlation with energy consumption.  Yes, a recession may cause a drop in consumption, but higher energy prices in itself should also cause a drop in consumption and a move to more efficient use of energy.  

I don't know how many friends I have who leave their computers running 24/7 (because waiting 30 seconds to turn it on is so inconvenient), and drive like maniacs (because getting some place 2 minutes earlier is so important).  Most people don't even need to buy anything new or more efficient, they can make drastic changes by altering their own lifestyle.  Eventually if costs keep going up, they're going to realize the need to do so.  

Anyway, I don't really see the benefit of the Federal Reserve meddling directly in the oil market by essentially purposely causing a recession.  That's not their mandate (in fact it runs counter to it) and they're not going to do it.  They will cause recessions, but not a long drawn out, perpetual one like what you are suggesting.  

We can't worry about world oil consumption, we need to solve our own problems and improve our own efficiency before worrying about others.  We have the most room for improvement, and thus the most need to improve, as we will be hit hardest when energy becomes scarcer.  I just don't see how having the Federal Reserve try to solve the proble is anything other than a shotgun approach (even if they would do what you suggest and they won't).  

I think auto efficiency rose mainly because of higher gas prices and high fuel efficiency requirements forced on automakers.  I kind of doubt that increasing interest rates directly resulted in increased fuel efficency. (It probably reduced fuel consumption by putting alot of people out of work, though).

I think taxation is a question of incentives.  Taxing labor encourages people to work less (at least work that is taxed).  Taxing non-renewable energy consumption encourges conservation and development of alternative energy sources.

Come on, our congress spends no matter what.  The last few years have proven that "starve the beast" is empty fanatasy.

So you gotta get the money somewhere, getting it while creating proper disincentives sounds like a good idea.

... or are going to cut taxes until the spending is 100% deficit?  Maybe the way the congress is heading.

>Come on, our congress spends no matter what.  The last few years have proven that "starve the beast" is empty fanatasy.

US Federal reserve is not directly controlled by congress. To accomplish a goal of global conservation, all that is required is to convince 12 people to raise interest rates. Congress is powerless to stop them from raising rates. If you think about, these 12 people have more power than the president, the congress and the senate to influence conservation. The policies enacted by the Fed are the only ones that broadly affect the global economy.

Raising rates would also force Congress to cut spending any move to a balanced/sustainable budget.

I was picking up on item "2" above:

Higher Taxes translate into more wasteful spending (more taxes mean more money for Washingtion Buracrats) This leads to higher inflation and further erosion of the US savings rate. (Why save when inflation will steal your savings). This exacerbates retirment issues since more americans give up saving for retirement, and become more dependant on SS and other gov't entitlement programs. Those that are already retired and live on fixed income suffer more because the are unable to keep up with rising costs!

That assumes a couple things.  First it assumes that the earlier poster was recommending higher taxes, and not a revenue-neutral shift in their source.  Second, it states the connection I was referring to:  "Higher Taxes translate into more wasteful spending"

I think our governemtn leads to wasteful spending, and they have proven that they don't need higher taxes to do it!!!

>I think our governemtn leads to wasteful spending, and they have proven that they don't need higher taxes to do it!!!

Higher taxes prove additional capital for increase wasteful spending. Wasteful spending also creates inflation as the gov't overpays for goods and services (aka the $500 hammer).

>That assumes a couple things.  First it assumes that the earlier poster was recommending higher taxes, and not a revenue-neutral shift in their source.

Taxing energy will lead to inflation even if taxes for other items are reduced. Plus it still does not address consumption outside of the US. The only way that the US can curb global consumption is through interest rates.

Higher taxes prove additional capital for increase wasteful spending. Wasteful spending also creates inflation as the gov't overpays for goods and services (aka the $500 hammer).

You are ignoring a couple of us, who are asking you: why we keep spending ourselves further into debt even as we cut taxes.  It's an interesting question.  Indeed, I might not have become the "lapsed Republican" that I am if the taxation and spending connection had worked the way you are describing.

I'm sorry, but I think too many of my Republican brethren got lazy and or greedy.  They got to where all they care about is cutting taxes, and they don't give a darn about what spending does or does not follow.

Taxing energy will lead to inflation even if taxes for other items are reduced. Plus it still does not address consumption outside of the US. The only way that the US can curb global consumption is through interest rates.

Pronouncements like that are always fun.

12 people? I suppose you mean central bankers, or something?

Sure, they are not supposed to make political judgements, just set the interest rate according to economical principles, to seek pre-defined goals ... usually controlled inflation, isn't it? But they are few, they really do have a lot of power, and their perception of the economy decides everything. Right?

Or do you disagree? Do you think it strictly speaking matters whether the central bankers are doomers or cornucopians?

>12 people? I suppose you mean central bankers, or something?

By 12 people I am refering the 12 voting members of the Federal reserve board members. In my opinion it would be far easier to convince them that we are facing an immenent danger that we need a way to curb global consumption of fossil fuels to avert a civilization disaster. Its virtually impossible to get Congress to agree on anything (except perhaps raising entitlements and the debt ceiling)

>But they are few, they really do have a lot of power, and their perception of the economy decides everything. Right?

The Federal reserve board is probably the most powerful organization when it comes to economics since US interest rates affect the global economy. But they don't have the power over much else.

>Do you think it strictly speaking matters whether the central bankers are doomers or cornucopians?

I believe that f they full understood the systematic risks that they would take action that would be the best. I don't subscribe that they are bent on world domination or some other bizarre conspiracy theory. Unlike most politians Central bankers are analytical and reasonably well-educated.

Overall, I believe Fed reserve is pessmistic about our future fiscal prospects. Over the last few years the turn over has been well above this historic average and a lot of senior members have choosen early retirement or have gone to work in the private sector. Considering that working at the Fed is a prized career, I think its points to pessimism in the Fed. Although I don't believe the concept of "Peak Oil" has been the leading issue. I think it has a lot to do with the massive debt levels (consumer, corporate, and gov't).

I, too, believe that the central bankers in question are basically decent, in other words that they try to set the interest rate according to the goals they have been told (by government) to pursue. But as a non-economist, I wonder just how much their expectations of the future affects their decisions.
A great deal.

IMO, the best book ever written on what really goes on at the Fed is "Managing the Dollar" by my old and favorite prof, Sherman Maisel. The book is thirty years old, maybe, but little has changed.

When Sherm was appointed by LBJ to be on the Board of Goverenors of the Federal Reserve System, his colleagues chipped in to get him a little toy printing press as an emblem of his office.

Every time a new book comes out, read or reread an old one.

To summarize:
Higher taxes = higher consumption and increased wasteful spending.

Please explain how this model works with the present increased spending meanwhile taxes having been cut.

>Please explain how this model works with the present increased spending meanwhile taxes having been cut.

US Gov't Spending whether taxes have gone up or cut has not declined in that last 60+ years. Most of the revenues collected by higher taxes will not but used to cut deficit spending, but to fund new or increasing funding of gov't programs (usually entitlements). You find data that supports this from the Annual Federal Spending reports posted on the Treasury's Web site. The GAO also has releases some reports about this as well.

Ideally if you wanted to impose a Energy Tax, the way to do it is to have the gov't cut spending, abolish the creation of new spending programs and cap all existing programs. I would also sugguest that the GAO and Federal Reserve be granted line-item veto rights to all future bills that affect spending, revenue(taxes) and budgeting. We need people that can directly influcence spending that aren't worried about losing a election because they didn't increase entitlements, subsidizes, etc.

Before anything can be done, we need a way take away Congress's ability to create wasteful spending. However since the likelyhood of that happening is Nil, its pointless to discuss this further.

However, a US energy tax still does not address consumption outside of the US. I would be pointless just conserve US Domestic consumption if the rest of the world (mainly Asia) continues to expand their consumption.

In my opinion the US gov't as it is, is done by 2015. The widthdraws to support the absurdly huge entitlement programs, coupled with soaring federal, local, trade consumer, corporate debt, and the pending shortage of energy has doomed its future. We have all already depleted all of our capital resources, its there no longer is a path out of the ditch that has been dug.

Thanks

westexas wrote...

> I suspect that declining oil production will be
> blamed on inefficient state ownership of energy reserves

Depends what side of the fence you are on. Click the link below to see the Russian Academy of Sciences blaming Shell and Exxon for delays in energy megaprojects, and recommending that the State assume control.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5018664.stm