Why especially oil? I keep seeing people write that money is a claim on oil. First, oil is only one form of energy. Second, money is a claim on labor and resources (among them energy, among that, oil). I see no reason why oil is better than electricity for most uses other than that our current infrastructure relies upon it. That can be changed, given strong enough market signals and economic pain.

And even if all of the oil disappeared tomorrow, as devestating as that would be, it would not mean no growth. There is still growth, from a lower point, and thus a reason to lend.

Your position is one akin to telling investors in 1930 that there is no reason to invest money anymore since they will not earn back their previous holdings until the 50s. Which was true. Yet we still had capitalism in the 40s, right?

You're falling into the trap of sunk costs. That's what you're missing.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!We have algae and methane hydrates....The substitutes for petroleum...Relax...We'll be fine.

NNooooooooo.

We have Thorium Reactors coming, that will substitute for everything energy related.

Now I'l relax. Cause it's already too late.

A man after my own twisted heart!!!

Is it ever too late if we are still alive?

But true, no matter what you do...you will die!!!

The pool of investors is dynamic. That is, there are always new people coming in the front door and always old people leaving through the back door.
The new crop is not tainted with sunk costs and are the agents of change. By the same logic the resistance to change slowly dwindles as the sunk cost crowd retires from the picture.

We did still have capitalism in the 40s despite the Great Depression . . . but . . . we also had lots of oil. So debt, and growth, made sense, at least in the short run.

I agree that in principle we could see growth again after the Coming Great Crash, just not on the basis of oil. Suddenly there could be a boom in wind turbines, thorium nuclear plants, or adobe dung housing, or the alternative energy and materials of your choice. You are right there. But then the further question would be, is this what we want? Wouldn't we then run into peak steel, peak dung, or peak something else? Wouldn't a "steady state economy" (with appropriate population control) be a better system? And if that's what we want, then we don't we need to revise the debt system, which essentially encourages growth? Just a thought.

Keith

I totally agree that some company in Flin Flon Manitoba (sorry Flin Flon, I just like the name) won't make a go of it, will then need to close its doors and stop making widgets. Yes sunk costs will be lost and some capitalist will start something else elswhere but with oil in everything from plastic to perfume how long will that maker of stuff survive. Our capitalist society is heavilly based on the consumption of non esential stuff.

We need to start focussing on the needs and not the wants. I don't know the percentages but in my community of Invermere, B.C. I would guess 80% to 90% of ten people make a living in non esential services, including me and no one with a voice that people listen to is telling people to start doing usefull things.

Locally we have built community greenhouses, re established farmers markets, supported local aggriculture, and are teaching people how to be more sustainable but even in a small community of 3000 we are only preaching to the converted and the rest are happilly driving toward the cliff in a fog.

I just don't here any of our leaders (buisiness, political, or otherwise) telling people what they need to do to be prepared for whats comming.

I only hope it is a slow enough decent so that the uninformed can adapt. I started preparing for this 6 years ago and I am still not prepared but I am starting to get a greenish thumb.