I agree, BrianT. Most of the economists today are infinite growth junkies, which is why I call them court astrologers. The number of economists who are practicing science, as defined by the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, test hypothesis, collect data, repeat) is amazingly small. Thankfully some of them are trying to develop a real science of scarcity, supply, demand, etc., but most of them are worthless priests bowing at the altar of growth.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

"They are not stupid"

Is that correct? Come on, our situation is quite dunce-induced! But the idiocy has to work at a systems level, it has to take over institutions and ingrain itself in the culture. It works on the "cultivation of its own ignorance"--stupidity! Sorry, I just beg to differ.

It takes decades of centuries for this to happen. Particularly, in a highly developed, industrial superpower like the US. And I don't mean to be partisan at all. The culture, academia and the society as as a whole has to have a power base and ideology to make these decisions, they didn't consider massive downfalls--just like the engineers that built the WTC towers didn't test newer, theoretical impacts limits of giant kerosene filled jet-liners into their "modern masterpieces". Our societal model, to be vulgarly blunt, is like a giant Trade Center--not simply because of the threat of blow back terrorism arising from anywhere... Whether it be foreign policy or our own demented culture producing ream after ream of Mcveighs, Unabombers, school psychos, or the myriad of other less fatal mental disorders, too lengthy to go into here. Did Ford forsee PO when he was making 'lil Model T's on his invented assembly lines? Hell no! John D. Rockefeller was a power hungry, money-grubbing industrialist--"taking care of his baby". The Ultimate Cornucopian, his kid will have everything! Indeed, judging from Lee Raymond, The Oracle of Economists are indeed right in their prognostication that all is fine and delightful! *Pssssst* Let me tell you all a secret.... Economists also secretly whisper under their breaths, their medieval intellects fully intact, to his now long since dead brain's neurons' dream that money will continue, growth does that same, just like the oil, forever into posterity! John D grins in his sleep. Market innovation is evangelical in its saving power of PO. Find me a cornucopian geologist and I will show you a corporate apologist economist.

Traditional economists use a different
framework to analyze the resource price question than the one used in Limits to Growth, using aggregate demand/supply and ISLM money supply curves, etc. These contrast to the model used in Limits to Growth, which uses resource depletion and technological advances and population growth. So no wonder they don't agree -- different variables and weightings, based on different theories.

I don't think the validity of the Limits to Growth approach was attacked, but rather the conclusions -- but based on only one (most pessimistic) scenario. I don't have a copy of Limits to Growth in front of me, but I remember that they a number of scenarios. One scenario even considered "limitless technological growth."

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm

Thank you Kenny, A couple of comments to one and all, I was relating a story of my lunch with Tom Neal, who later became President (or was it CEO?) of CNG. Back then, people were saying that commodities remained flat in inflated terms. And, the examples I showed of bricks, suet, etc, verified that observation over a 600 year period. I don't know how to say that that concept is wrong (for renewables) given a 600 year history of flatness.

But, that being said, I wouldn't want to over-generalize economists as all being in group think, that is clearly not the case. But I do think of Michael Lynch, with whom I have debated in private and on a semi-private email list. He thinks that all one needs to do is have the oil prices rise and and oil will veritably flow from them pore spaces.

The problem the Club of Rome faced was that they were too early, the press got it all wrong, and that then discredited them in the eyes of policy makers.

Saildog wrote:

Had governments done their job, they would have abolished income taxes in favour of energy taxes and forced investment in these solutions. ...We didn't because of the great 20th century divide between Marxism and capitalism ... and its very deep aversion to intervention from government of any kind.

I agree. Indulging in a little futurism:

* there will be no significant action until an obvious energy crisis hits.

* when the crisis hits, the US will try to get the Market to fix the problem (with tax incentives).

* European countries are more likely to take strong collective actions (AKA government intervention).

In Europe, governments will be able to direct scarce liquid energy resources to where they are most needed (agriculture, mass transit, medical, ...). In the US, energy will flow to where the money is, so look for class divides to increase.

This has me wondering about the electric grid: is it possible to ration electricity? (other than with price). As people substitute electricity for liquid fuel, electricity demand could surge (think plug-in hybrid cars).

AFAIK, the only way to ration electricity is with rolling blackouts to selected neighborhoods.

Don't try to predict the future. Get ready for it.

I don't know how they got half trained, but the thought just occurred to me that there is something that even economists can't call renewable--land. Say a human, standing, need 1 sq meter of space to survive. That limites the human population to 10^14 people,(assuming that one can live standing on water). or 100 trillion. At that point there is no more room for another person. Now, regardless of the price of land at that time, a higher price will not bring forth more land.

Somehow the economists fail to see this ultimate limit to growth.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm