16 comments on A Few More Thoughts Related to Pedro Prieto's "NINJA" Post
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
16 comments on A Few More Thoughts Related to Pedro Prieto's "NINJA" Post
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
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
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
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
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.
“Men argue; nature acts.”
—Voltaire
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
Pedro's theory, while interesting, seems a little too facile for me as it doesn't address deflation or changes in the composition and valuation of GDP inputs.Of course it was but a short post not a Friedmanesque sized book.
It would be tricky to do a detailed analysis that would give real relationships. The idea is right, but the parameters probably aren't right.
There is definitely a problem, paying back interest for debt, and growth masks that problem. Once the economy stops growing, we really will have difficulty paying back debt with interest. I have often said that that is the problem as we approach and hit peak oil. I believe that is what is happening now.
Actually I think its better to look at it a different way.
As commodities get more expensive esp oil prices for goods required for daily living increase food gasoline etc. This causes the demand for income to be diverted from making payments on current debts and also drops demand for future debt.
The debt cannot be reduced simply because peoples cash flow situation changes as they spend more on simply staying alive they have less to spend on other goods which are going to be forced higher in price as energy prices increase.
The economy can no longer service its current debt load and has less earning to devote to future borrowing. Defaults increase and the demand for new debt declines.
Next rising defaults will no matter what you do force interest rates higher to cover the increasing default risk. And of course your pool of potential borrowers worsens dramatically. This is probably the most important and least mentioned part of the problem.
Prudent people capable of borrowing today find that their daily living costs are increasing and their future earnings are doubtful thus they choose to save cash instead of taking on debt. This leaves only people who have no financial skills whatever left desiring debt. I'm amazed given the housing bubble that we still have a pool of greater fools left but I guess its pretty deep.
In any case the government is attempting to halt the collapse by lending to people who are really not credit worthy. This simply does no good as eventually these people will default at high rates often today it will be because of job loss so first payment defaults may be lower but your talking in many cases a few payments at most then the loan is in default. A slower case is rising costs pushes the marginal debtor into negative cash flow but eventual default is certain.
You can print and loan as much money as you wish but its simply going to be destroyed via more debt defaults yet now these debts are honored by the government so the currency is weakened making the situation worse. This will cause imported goods like oil to increase in price against fiat currencies.
With this view you see that there is really no way out of this conundrum no financial game works. Given the nature of the problem any attempts to game the system to escape by avoiding the simple truth that we have no choice but to default on all our debt massively restrict future lending to well qualified buyers with low risk loans and going to a renewable and low energy society. Any other approach must fail.
You can see that what this really means financially is that you can do little borrowing from the future. For say cars and houses this suggests that you must pay say 70-80% down and then borrow over a much shorter period say 5 years on something like a house. Interest rates must be very low and the debt is short term.
If you look at this case the lender can recover not only his capitol but all of the interest payments if the loan defaults assuming he can always sell the collateral for say 40-50% of the original purchase price. The borrower has no reasonable reason to actually default since he can readily sell to pay off the remaining loan.
Borrowing money at all becomes uncommon. We can assume that rental properties are paid for with cash yet to get a better return vs lending with interest requires very low rents which allows renters themselves to build substantial savings.
What you realize is that money itself becomes one of the least profitable business's.
Instead if you take a multi-generational view it becomes obvious that such and approach results in a build up of retained wealth after only a few generations. Each generation inherits the real property of the proceeding generation and its savings.
Loans become so uncommon the word loan may be lost.
Certainly a person can always gamble away their wealth but this is readily solved by limiting the amount of money that can be spent on anything that does not have a well defined value everyone is a trust fund baby.
Thats a perfect world view but by only allowing growth to occur have the profits of proceeding growth have been realized in general after the preceding generation is dead then you have a rock solid banking system and society. Increasingly what your doing is borrowing ever less from the past for the future. And I think this society would increasingly focus on building very long lasting goods to reduce the need for spending in any given generation. More and more stuff will become ever more durable being handed down generation after generation. One can also assume that even the simplest article will become increasingly a work of art in and of itself. Furniture valuable antiques. New replacements face and ever uphill battle to be better than what exists.
This is the alternative to the debt curve and paradoxically it leads to true wealth sure it takes a few generations and obviously it requires a effectively stagnant population but one can see that without wars or other forms of wealth destruction within a few hundred years you have a very wealthy society.
In fact the ancient economies indeed amassed immense wealth. I'd argue that no one family alive today could afford to build a pyramid with a population similar to that of ancient Egypt yet one of our first civilizations managed to do so.
Sure they where not perfect society's and had many flaws with slaves common but this does not mean they could not fairly rapidly build wealth if you took the multi-generational route. In almost all cases any ancient civilization that lasted more than a few hundred years created a tremendous amount of wealth.
I think its instructive to read and alternative view point and consider the mistakes.
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap2.html
Whats sad is this is the sort of strange Capitalism/Christianity preached in the US.
No mention of the deaths in Vietnam, Iraq and all the conflicts before this.
No mention of the long history of racism in the US.
No mention of the long and painful sacrifice the average Japanese made saving across generations to finally get wealthy only to see their currency devalued.
Obviously I could go on but hopefully my description of the alternative to debt i.e only spending money after the preceding generation has both earned it and passed away highlights the differences between true wealth which is borrowing from the past and debt which is borrowing from the future.
And one should see that oil itself was a form of true wealth we borrowed millions of years of concentrated energy and burned it up in a few centuries and not only that we created a impossible debt burden on future generations. We have ravenously stolen from both the past and the future just to support a very small precentage of the global population in a warped pseudo king like lifestyle.
In a lot of ways I feel like the actor in the Matrix waking up to the true reality of what we have done. The gulf between what we have really done to ourselves our planet and our children and untold future generations vs what is claimed is as large and as chilling as the differences presented in the Matrix.
First assumption on second line
As commodities get more expensive esp oil prices for goods required for daily living increase food gasoline etc.
Most commodities have been getting cheaper(in real terms) over the last 50-100 years, oil is an exception. Wheat was $3 a bushel in 1923,( in 1923 dollars), about $6 now. Basic food prices(chicken , flour sugar,potatoes rice) have been very stable, only highly processes foods and restaurant meals have increased.
Why would they become more expensive?, we are not running out of any major commodities(oil and gas excepted) and extraction methods continually improving crop yields continually improving 1-4% per year since 1930.
Unfortunately commodities have a lot of cheap fossil energy embedded in them (e.g. on average, 10 calories of Fossil Fuels for every calorie of food, maybe as many as 50 to 1 in the case of intensive beef!)- up until very recently that energy must have become ever more affordable since we have been able to use steadily more and more and then we have used it to produce ever cheaper commodities.
Take away adequate amounts of cheap Fossil Fuel (according to the EIA data the 'low hanging fruit' has already been picked!) then it isn't profitable to produce commodities at such low prices - if wages don't rise faster than the prices they become less affordable! In the case of food, if you can't afford it and there is no adequate charity you die of starvation, a serious consequence! History tells us that the past is not necessarily a good model for the future!
xeroid,
Only a tiny part of the cost of food is the cost of energy used to produce it, energy calories are very cheap and food calories are fairly cheap. Most of the cost of food is the processing, packaging and marketing costs. A bushel or wheat or maize makes a lot of bread or cornflakes.
I don't sit in a field eating corn, I eat bread and cornflakes in a city, so it's the embedded energy in the final food on my plate that is important to my way of life - unaffordable energy means unaffordable food, no matter how low cost one particular input is.
Um, this could be a problem. Editors?