![]() | US Natural Gas: The Role of Unconventional Gas | The Oil Drum | Solar Islands: A new concept for low-cost solar energy at very large scale | ![]() |
103 comments on Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
103 comments on Hirsch on CNBC: Peak oil problem "as massive as one can possibly imagine"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I didn't say the market can't price a scarce resource. Economics is entirely about the allocation of scarce resources. But free market capitalism isn't designed, for example to feed everyone. It's just designed to turn a profit. Pricing Somalia out of the market for grain is a perfectly acceptable free market solution to scarce food resources.
I don't think free market capitalism can solve every conceivable challenge of resource allocation, nor has it ever done that in the past. And in the case of a catastrophic collapse in supply, I do believe that capitalism will be overturned, just as it is now being overturned by countries seeking to protect their food security.
the problem in most countries is not the market but it's gov't interference in the market. rarely do they report that gov't policies in most of the countries we read about are caused by subsidies and etc. what's the worst economy right now? it's zimbabwe. that is an gov't created problem through and through.
that is your example? a war torn region that probably doesn't have anything resembling a market economy? are you saying the ENTIRE country can't buy grain? I don't believe that. anyways, the wealth produced by the free market can make enough money available to send grain to places where starvation is a problem.
today mises had an article about the potato famine. someone on here said "just remember that the market said F-you to millions of starving people in Ireland" a few months ago. that is entirely wrong. the market was interfered with.
http://mises.org/story/2978
Regardless, we see national interest in food security overturning free market trade again and again. The U.S. and western Europe no less than Egypt or India or any other nation. Perhaps this is all caused by government intervention in the first place. But the one thing you can be sure of is that no government will ever resort to some kind of faith-based reliance on unregulated markets to sort out the problem. The same approach we've always seen for food will be increasingly applied to energy.
it's staggering how much contempt there is on TOD for faith-based markets. no wonder so many here just don't get it.
Tell me how faith based markets addressed the Irish potato famine. Oh they didn't, did they? Instead the British used the famine AND the market to strip the Irish of their ancestral lands and then worked them to death in near concentration camp conditions, burying them in mass unmarked graves.
Or how about those free, unregulated markets that have created the largest credit mess in the entire history of the world and have to have government bail out the likes of Bear Stearns and other financial institutions?
Your faith in free markets demonstrates a blindness in yourself, not in others. No one but a fool (or a libertarian anarchist) argues for totally free markets. Likewise, the collapse of the USSR demonstrates the folly of trying to plan the entire economy. So the answer lies (as usual) somewhere in between.
The question then is how much market activity can we hope for in the time before we reach critical supply problems. Now, since you are relatively new here at TOD, we can forgive your ignorance On Energy Transitions Past and Future. But if you bother to read that article, you discover that every other major transition took 50-80 years to occur without government intervention. Further, each transition was supported by the new energy source being as cheap as or cheaper than the source it replaced. And finally, each energy source was higher quality and higher energy density than the source it replaced.
Now, today, we face a different problem. We need to turn the energy ship around right now, not 80 years from now. And the alternatives are all more expensive than the fossil fuels they are replacing. Further, of the alternatives we have, most are not of the same quality or energy density as petroleum.
So, we have a unique set of problems that history clearly tells us that the "free market" has never, ever addressed before. Further, we have 6.7 billion lives dependent on the existing energy system.
I'll take my chances with a Manhattan style project rather than wait 50-80 years to see if the "free market" can pull its head out of its ass and do something constructive on a large scale. Childlike faith in free markets didn't help win WWII, did it? Sometimes the "free market" is not the right answer, except for a religious boob who knows no better than to chant a silly mantra.
Excellent rejoinder. I shall bookmark this forthwith.
May I add an example or two just because?
Medical care in the US: tens of millions not covered; injured and dying sometimes refused care.
Education in the US: Supposedly open and equal to all, but actually highly unequal in quality because it is funded dependent upon wealth of the neighborhood since education is paid for with property taxes. (Not a perfect example, but the financing is supported by an income dependent upon highly unstable market forces.)
Etc.
The "free" market does not address issues of the Commons well.
A simple thought test. If the market can and should be trusted to manage economies, and societies have generally become more "democratic", why is it that wealth distribution hasn't materially changed? Why does it still generally follow the 1/5/20/80 rule?
Why is it that societies based upon community ownership, therefore no economic classes, have higher rates of satisfaction with life?
Cheers
Free markets are a myth designed to oppress and rip off the subservient, the losers (countries, groups, etc.), the dependent, the poor, employees, etc. Free markets have never existed and never will. (See the US, a very controlled, protectionist, economy in the hands of...) The freedom is on the side of the powerful, those with the guns, nukes, and so on.
Trite tales of exchanges benefiting all (your coconuts or your daughter for my boat) are folklore erected to practically religious status, slathered in ideology and numbers that make no sense, far more powerful than Islam, Catholicism, or Soccer mom principles, for ex.
In a way, it is new religion. An organizing principle that nobody dares contest, everybody has to pay lip service to; making profits is wonderful, except that, on the ground, err -
the profits seem to be extracted from ppl /countries / groups who object; deplete natural resources, and create social strife, and lead to wars...Duh.
The experts (with guns and bombs in the background, and pay offs for the top officials) tell ppl they have to sell at ‘market value’ which is only what the rich will pay.
Russia lost the ‘cold war’, and was subjected to a heavy dose of ‘modernity’ and ‘free markets’ and now the US is going down the tubes for the same reason. The debt bubble (free market for the lenders, impunity in law) will plunge the US into deep recession, or even outright stark depression.
I basically do not care if free markets are an ideal theory, a halfway working reality, an illusion or a great conspiracy.
Regardless of wich I find it proven that competition driven by the full range of human feelings including opportunities for cooperation is very good for efficiency and change. Thus I find it good that my governmnet has market management and creation as one of the methods for leadership. I want the solutions to global warming and resource constraints to compete with each other, there is no singe winner for solving such a very large problem.
john15, you read mises.org and believe it. The point is that you are far, far out on a wing politically speaking. Even far-right governments rely on market interventions, or other things than markets entirely, to get such things as national security (which includes food security). That was not "staggering contempt" you saw there. I see more like "OK, I know I'm not going to reach through to you, but be aware that no politician in power sees things your way".
You make some very good points, but the fact is that there never has been and never will be a totally unfettered market. There will always be interests with the power and desire to distort markets, either by manipulating the information in the market (the Saudi's saying they are increasing production, IOC's production "forecasts"), by force of arms or implied force of arms (nationalization of resources such as Libya or Venezuela), or by subsidizing consumption.
In the real world these forces eventually have to balance out and we get a market price that reflects the consensus reality, but it is to a large degree a manufactured reality by the time it hits the futures market.
Austrian school economists tick me off. Talk about a discipline divorced from reality, they are actively hostile around the Mises site to any possibility of a reality check of their pet ideas.
Me too. I used to love to listen to Jim Puplava's podcasts about Peak Oil, but Puplava's brutish insistence on the market has put me off, and I'm also annoyed that he has taken on the Republican mantle of Global Warming Basher as well, constantly bleating how it will only be a problem "in 40 or more years, if ever".
Most Republicans just do not get the full picture. Some of 'em support the Peak Oil thesis because it means they can make money from energy stocks, gold and silver, but with Global Warming they just can't work out a profitable angle — yet.
Mark
I couldn't agree more. The market was interfered with. When this happens, the longer term negative consequences far outweigh any short term gains. The problem is simply that we have subsidized oil production and consumption. Will Hinton is correct here:
http://www.themarkettraders.com/content/foreign-oil-dependency-and-polit...
Andy
One can argue about this for ever, but I would contend that the 'free market' has not, is not and never will be 'free'. The 'market' is simply way too important to be allowed to function freely. This is actually supported by people who continually say, but the market is being 'interfered' with, if it was left alone it would function perfectly! This 'interference' is actually builty into the structure of the 'free market' because it isn't 'free' at all. The market is a controlled market system, not completely 'unfree' but nowhere near 'free', as in not being substantially controlled and steered and 'designed' to disproportionally favour the interests of minority who benefit from the 'free market'. This is of course very simplified, but I've deadline to meet for a manuscript!
Oh, and before I forget, we need to overthrow the current Capitalist economic and social paradigm, before it 'overthrows' us. This too is a mighty big problem to add to the growing list of mega problems we face, but I believe it may be the crucial one. This isn't because I personally haven't enjoyed the many fruits of Capitalism. I have, and over-indulged, yet I think the Capitalist system is doomed, at least the current version. I almost wrote the 'unbridled version', but this would imply that it was somehow 'free' which it simply is not.
Hear, hear.
There is not now- nor ever has been nor ever will be- any such fantasy as a free market economy.
It's rigged in favor of the big players and always will be. Any time the smaller players point this out, you can be sure some patsy for the big players will complain that the smaller players don't appreciate the [non-existing] free market economic system!
And even though there is no better system to efficiently allocate goods, capitalism still can't handle 1) externalities (eg pollution travelling from one property or jurisdiction to another), 2) public goods (eg, health and education), and 3) common property resource dilemmas (eg, fighting over fish in the sea). Thus, most countries have a combination of capitalism and socialism (even the USA has public schools).
This discussion about markets lacks nuance.
People who “believe in” free markets easily point to examples where market outcomes, compared to political outcomes, are superior (e.g. FedEx vs the Post Office). But more has to be said. Markets depend on secure property rights. But what makes property rights secure? In the end: morality and justice.
In a system of masters and slaves, both parties can be thought of as making all sorts of implicit trades (better food for more attentive work, etc) but nobody would argue that such trades make the system just, even if as a result of them all parties are better off. Considerations of justice and morality cannot be set aside.
So, yes, markets do some things well, but they fail in crucial ways. They also do not confront certain important problems having to do with justice, and what’s worse, they have a nasty habit of undermining the moral foundations on which they totally depend.
Is socialism the answer?
No, it is not, because it is not anything different. Socialists mistrust the selfish core of capitalism. What they refuse to see is that the problem of self-interest does not go away just because a man enters politics. In politics, as in markets, the same self-interested impulses are at work. The error of the socialist is to compare a flawed actuality (actually existing markets) with ideals that can only be implemented if men are angels. In such a comparison the actuality always ends up looking bad.
I think the present age could stand a big dose of humility. The ancients were more advanced. They understood that in politics there is no stability, that one arrangement is always degrading into something else: aristocracy to plutocracy to democracy to anarchy to tyranny.....