 | DrumBeat: September 10, 2006 | The Oil Drum | Jack-2 and the Lower Tertiary of the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico |  |
DrumBeat: September 11, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 11, 2006 - 9:13am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Exxon's Australia chief dimisses peak oil theory, says supplies abundant
The chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Australian unit, Mark Nolan, Monday dismissed peak oil theory and insisted the world has abundant supplies of oil and other fossil fuels.In an address to an Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference in Adelaide city, Nolan said peak oil predictions aren't new and have been occurring regularly since the 1920s, particularly at times of high prices.
Industry and society have always underestimated resources, he said.
"The world has an abundance of oil and there is little question scientifically that abundant energy resources exist," Nolan said.
Ditch the car? Don’t laugh, it works for some creative commuters
Nigeria: Angry youths protest power cutoffs
Dominican government will continue to subsidize energy
Iraq official calls for oil partnerships
A top Iraqi official called for partnerships with international companies to boost his country's oil industry on Sunday, saying Iraq's emergence as a "secure petro-democracy" could quell rampant sectarian violence.
Arabs urged to jointly develop nuclear energy
Japan: Another fund-guzzling white elephant?
Resource-poor Japan is pumping no small amount of public funds into its energy drive to secure foreign oil, gas and other resources in a desperate bid to ensure its energy security amid spikes in oil prices.
Cuba, India's Oil & Natural Gas Sign Oil Exploration Accord
Cutting the world's economic jugular veins
Oil is primordial, plentiful and abundant. "Peak Oil" theorists and Malthusians have been consistently incorrect in their "running out of oil" predictions in the past, and they will continue to lose credibility in the future. Why?With every new deep-oil discovery, such as Chevron's giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico last week (which is expected to boost the U.S. oil supplies by as much as 50 percent!) the "Peak Oil" theory moves closer to extinction – where it belongs.
Oil supply must rise to reduce gas prices
When motorists pull into gas stations and cringe at per gallon costs, not much thought is given to how many others worldwide want that same gasoline, how that gas was produced and delivered for sale, what could be done to increase global oil supply or develop alternative fueling options. But these factors determine how much we pay at the pump.
A new kind of hybrid uses hydraulics instead of batteries to save fuel
Print out page 1 from the weekly chart at http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/W
Then, draw a line connecting the peaks, and another connecting the valleys. You will see that the current decline in light, sweet oil has just dropped below the lower support line.
The chart covers the past two years, but the trend goes back three years this month, as can be seen on the monthly chart. Hedge funds make money by identifying and riding trends; one can imagine this chart etched in granite (or gold) in their conference rooms. My guess is that they are now buying to close short positions, and buying more to open long ones.
The center of the upper and lower bands is the fundamental price trend line, around $74/b now. This line expresses the fundamentals of supply and demand, reflecting a constant supply and growing numbers of rich people, not least Asian. What else can the line do but climb? The line has been extremely steady, completely ignoring geopolitical risks, fear premiums, etc. Hedge funds can affect the oscillation around the fundamental price, but do not have any affect on the price line itself.
I think the decreasing volatility expresses the market's grwoing acceptance of the overall trend and its growing ability to ignore extraneous events and focus on fundamental supply and demand. World supply has been nearly flat since late 2004, while the demand from asia, the US, and the booming oil exporting nations themselves has been strong. The resulting steady increase in price is the mechanism that encourages poor consumers to get off the bus so a growing number of rich can fill up their suv's.
IMO, the trend will change when fundamentals change; the world gets more supply (or less), rich countries go into recession, bird flu. You'll know it when you see it.
Second, world OECD stocks are at a ten-year low, maybe foreign buyers are waiting for falling oil/dollar, in which case current price might be attractive. IMO, the first sign of solid support will bring many buyers and strong bounce.
See, you can make the charts say anything you want.
That could be a good thing, if so.
"First they ignore you, then..."
You're not wrong.
Anyway, even arguing against bring the attention to the problem, which is good. However, it tell that it's not a problem, so I dont know what it will bring.
Seems to me that every message convey this kind of idea :
"Yeah there is a fire in the house, but that's no problem, we are using extinguisher, water and we have called the firefighters, just keep on watching your TV."
I.E. we have no proble but we are solving it!
Since Skrebowski and Collins have predicted small increase in production (yet small and being slightly positive for the depletion of existing field) up until 2010. It gives us more time to convince people of the gravity of the problem.
Geology will definetly put a lid on the mouth of all the cornocupians.
"Much of the crisis we face today in oil refining is the result of not building a single new refinery in 28 years - thanks to the radical environmentalist movement. This must change or we will continue to remain subject to a Mideast political and Black Gold stranglehold."
Ok, so step one is the assumption that we have an oil refining "crisis." We'll ignore that this is an unsubstantiated claim and accept him at his word. Step two is the stated cause being the lack of a refinery building program. We'll ignore the gratuitous jab at environmentalists - most of whom would be pleasantly surprised to find they have so much power. Then step three is to conclude that if we don't build refineries we will remain subject to ME "stranglehold" - an undefined term here, but we'll assume he's referring to the book by a similar name.
So: 1) oil refining is in a crisis
2) the crisis is caused by a lack of a refinery building program
3) No refinery building leads to ME stranglehold
Looking at it this way, I'm at a loss as to even how to assess the logic. I could see; 1) there is no refinery building program. 2) therefore there is a refinery crisis. Though this leaves out the intermediate step of - there is a shortage of refining capacity. But at least there is some apparent connection. What is beyond my apparently meager logic skills is figuring out how the lack of refinery building gives the ME stranglehold capabilities. If it really is just a matter of building refineries, how is that the ME's fault? (Oh, that's right, its the fault of us environmentalists).
If logic like this is representative of the mainstream then it is no wonder that we're in trouble.
Peak oil, in part, is where words and reality intersect. Reality wins, every time - words may cause you to look at reality differently, but reality is not interested in how you look at it.
This tactic is also used by the left-wing but in a far more subtle and polished manner.
IMO, Smith truly believes environmentalists are at fault. He is delusional but sincere. Many in Smith's camp have an impenetrable wall of dyslogia that prevents them from grasping reality.
On the other hand, some conservatives like Kevin Phillips are open-minded, trenchant, and present logical points of view. I am non-partisan so I am not defending right-wingers. In fact, I read George Lakoff's works and get what you are saying about framing. It's just that I think it is not wise to paint the right with overly broad brush strokes. Polarization may be good for the elites but it is counterproductive for the rest of us.
I'm not so sure polarization is a bad thing. A real problem in this country are the vast numbers of people in the "middle" who don't vote or are too "busy" to properly inform themselves, as required for a functioning democracy. By their acquiescence they share responsibility for the many horrors being perpetrated by the leadership of this country.
Remember the old quote that appears sometimes at the top of this page? The public has two modes, complacency and panic.
I think to many people extrapolate the complacency far into the downcurve of oil depletion. The really interesting time cmoes after the wake-up call.
Where I am, jobs are disappearing, house prices are falling, and people are on the verge of panic. Every time the wind blows from the east, you can smell that fear sweat that Don wrote about.
One would assume construction and home refinance.
I suspect that some parts of the country are seeing a good and "strong" economy, like in post-Katrina land where construction workers are probably swamped with repair jobs. Also in the military-industrial complex, the Iraq war is just one that keeps giving and giving. (Gee, I wonder who is going to be paying and paying for that one? Let the good times roll.)
The elephant in the living room has to be new homes and mortgage financing. As long as new home sales kept going up and up; meaning continued sales of appliances: refrigerators, washers, garage door openers, etc. and continued good times for construction crews and strong numbers for lumber, wall boards, etc.; then a lot of people were still content. I guess the game plan was to keep it going until right after Novemeber 2006 (US elections). But the system is already showing signs of strain and cracks in the dam.
I dread what comes next. (Le Deluge as Louis the XIV might say. Or who gives a flying f*** as Bush II might say, it ain't on my watch.)
That is difficult to ascertain given that rational and fair-minded conservatives are persona-non-grata in the RNC. The RNC is dominated by neoconservatives and that is a whole different animal than a true conservative. I spoke at length with many conservatives who are appalled at the reckless behavior of the ruling Republicans who inflate the deficit leaving a mess for future generations and also those in their party who care nothing for the environment. These same conservatives are also very angry at the loss of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot Act. They see the hypocrisy of their party but are unable to effect change since the ruling elite only listen to the neocon monied interests.
As a former centrist Dem I had a similar frustration at the lip service the Dem elite have given about responsible govt and fighting for the little guy, yet their actions are always conflicted and ineffectual.
My frustration led me to explore the nature of our political system in depth. I concluded what many others have - that the ruling elite of both parties present a facade of choice when in reality they are controlled by the same financial elite cabal. I had come to this conclusion before I understood peak oil and also before I read books like Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon and these latter elements just became the icing on the cake.
Polarization is not so great when it distracts the already zombie-like electorate from getting a handle on the really important issues and the MSM is all too happy the fan polarization flames.
I sympathize with your view on the two parties. Since WWII both parties have been focused on a single goal: maintaining the disparity of wealth and power "enjoyed" by Americans at the expense of the rest of the world.
IMO Democrats are worse than Republicans because Dems pretend to be "for" the working guy and the middle class. At least Republicans are up front about protecting their power and wealth.
Republicans wouldn't have a chance of getting elected if they said what they really stood for. They need the religious zealots and moderately well-to-do middle class, as well as small business voters. But the reality is they do nothing for those groups-- nothing positive anyway-- besides offer lip service and hand-me-down scraps.
In my opinion Republicans are much more crass when it comes to their real agenda compared to their claimed agenda.
Republicans don't need any of these splinter groups per se. The real strength of Republicans comes from the right wing Think Tanks.
It is the Think Tanks who tell Republican strategists (i.e. Karl Rove) what mental manipulations will work this week and what won't (i.e. Connect with the lizard brains of those who are easily terrorized by an unknown "those who hate our freedoms"). Note last week's word of the week: Islamo-facists.
Thought Control is Not China's Alone
America has thought control tanks as well --Invisible Hand kind
Absolutely! As you must know, the Neocons are Straussian adherents who believe it is necessary to use religion to control the masses. As followers of Leo Strauss, the neocons are fascists in the Mussolini tradition of merging state and corporate power. Strauss' philosophy is described in the link below:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
However, don't think the emergence of such fascism and corruption began just with the current administration, they just took it to new extremes. Catherine Austin Fitts, former Asst Sec of Housing, wrote a phenomenal expose on the connection of corrupt business practices and the highest levels of govt. It's a long article, but well worth reading.
http://www.dunwalke.com/introduction.htm
The origins of corruption of our govt by the financial elite can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Reserve. I read numerous books on the topic, but as a primer you can check out a link a TOD blogger provided in today's Drumbeat.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
"They're rarely upfront about their real agenda which is helping out the ultra wealthy and extremely large business at the expense of everyone else."
One would have to be extremely obtuse not see what their true agenda is. I think rank and file Americans can see through the veneer, but too many are caught up in the confusing media frenzy that directs them to focus on more emotive issues and hence they are reluctant to make class warfare their top issue.
My advice is to keep researching, keep digging, follow the breadcrumbs and you will discover there is much more to our 2-party system than meets the eye.
The Creature from Jekyll Island
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money.
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
I would also suggest reading Cathrine Fitts articles as you pointed out.
Follow the Money !!!
In 2008 there is a very good chance that Hiliary will take the office of POTUS. At least TPTB seem to have tired of the NeoCons' bungling and are ready for a regime change. Such an outcome will give Americans a chance to participate in a succession of alternating dynasties:
George I (H.W), B. Clinton, George II (W), H. Clinton, and possible George III (P)- Jeb's son.
"In 2008 there is a very good chance that Hiliary will take the office of POTUS. At least TPTB seem to have tired of the NeoCons' bungling and are ready for a regime change."
The sad thing is that the above would NOT be a Regime change. They are both two different sides of the same coin.
Gambino's or the Genovese's they are BOTH mafia.
As a tiny example, Read this one and see how the Clintons run in the same circles as the Bush's.
Follow the Money.
Monsanto buys 'Terminator' seeds company
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.html
One more;
Remember Iran-Contra? Do a google on
'Mena mena airport iran contra clinton'
and read some of what you find.
Like this one.(read 4 or 5 before making up your mind)
http://www.ncoic.com/clinton.htm
Why do you think Clinton and Bush Sr. were so buddy buddy the last few years? It goes way back.
If you think an Independent Thinker could get into the Whitehouse without being "Wellstoned" (yes it now a verb in DC circles) you haven't been reading enough.
Do your homework.
P.S. Kerry's job was just to get "Close" enough that the populace Believed they had fair elections. He wouldn't have(and didn't) dare to look into Ohio's voting scandal.
http://www.dunwalke.com/introduction.htm
Honestly, if you do the research you will recognize that this is the tip of the iceberg.
Spending hours reading about and debating the minutiae of peak oil is futile if you don't understand the political and financial dynamics that fostered the unsustainable and reckless system that exacerbate the problems we face.
We are inundated with so much information every day that it is often difficult to filter out the noise.
My personal case in point for straining to see the forest for the trees is related to my work in medical research. I spent so much time studying science and medicine and every day reading journal articles or attending seminars that I found it difficult making the time to investigate why the U.S. health care system was so dysfunctional, wasteful, and inefficient - yet I was a part of that system. When I finally had a chance to take some courses in public health and preventive medicine and also study health care economics in some detail I began to see that the very nature of the system itself and in particular how the financial interests in the system operated was the source of dysfunction. I understood that the cure could never come in a series of reforms of various policies or the addition of more subsidies. IMO, the two glaring problems were a total lack of transparency and an ideology based not optimal health results but on a technophile treatment agenda (both meds and machines).
In my last position I saw a microcosm of the system Fitts describes - when the private sector begins feeding off the public sector like a tick. My former supervisor wore various hats as VP and the Chief of Medicine of a world renowned private research hospital, a dean of the medical school, and the CEO of a biotech company. He used his role as our director to use NIH grants to perform research on the drugs his company was developing. The NIH grants covered salaries and capital equipment. He had a few dozen medical scientists (MDs, PhDs, and a few MD-PhDs) working to test the drugs his company was developing. These researchers all received their salaries via state or federal tax dollars. Needless to say, I found the arrangement distasteful.
While my last observation may not be very commonplace in research, the general trend in medicine increasingly is corruption of medical science by monied interests to a degree not grasped by the general public or even many in the health care industry. The FDA is no longer even remotely connected to patient safety, it is little more than an arm of Big Pharma. Such is the evolution of the larger system.
You're right. Looks like we are already on the same page.
Have you done any in depth reading about the Trilateralists? The Carter admin was stacked with them. There is a well researched book called Trilateralists Over Washington.
Of course, there are many other elite groups working under the radar but the MSM never reports on their activities.
That ALONE should be a clear signal that the rest of us are outside the loop.
Another oddities that should send warning signals, besides (as you point out) the cozy relationship between Bush Sr. and B. Clinton, include other unusual pairings such as Kerry and Heinz (late husband a Republican and she switched parties right before Kerry threw his hat in the ring for POTUS). The classic example, and perhaps most bizarre is James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin.
That last pairing officially put American pseudo-bi-partisan politics into the realm of Theatre of the Absurd.
Too bad I'm not good at graphics because photos of these two nutcases would make for a good visual.
No the amazing thing is not the Pronouncements, it is that the American people have absolutely no reasoning skills.
You discribe the ability of the writers(and MSM) to set the Postulates of the theorm, and what is soooo sad is that most people take the postulates as "Given".
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If you accept the premise of the statement, you are stuck with answering it.
Well, What would you do if you were in a dark alley, in a bad section of town, no one around, and a guy with a gun asks for your money.
Both of the above are better known examples of the issue you are pointing out.
PEOPLE ACCEPT THE PREMISES OF MSM's statements in one swallow.
"If logic like this is representative of the mainstream then it is no wonder that we're in trouble. "
It is representative of MSM because they know it works, and that the Reasoning Skills of their consumers have been completely distroyed. Thank in part the Education system that is designed to raise good WORKERS not good THINKERS.
Remember: IRAQ = Al-Qaida = 911
Osama Bin Forgotten who???
We are toast.
You made me laugh even though what you were talking about is so very sad. A nice balance. I tend not to ascribe quite as much willful malice to the MSM and their keepers. My experience has been that they are true believers and are not so much manipulating as proselytizing. Does GW really think Iraq was involved in 9/11? Yup, I think so. But that doesn't change the end result, does it.
As for toast, I believe it is western civilization that is toast. Unfortunately, its collapse is going to take an awful lot of lives.
Does LensCrafters sell the type of rose-colored glasses you're wearing?
The IQs of the elite didn't take a precipitous drop and GW knows Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
You should study the history of the geopolitics of oil. The importance of energy sources for economic and national security has ALWAYS been the biggest blip on the govt elites' radar. Read Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard, study analyses put out by PNAC before 9/11, or take a look at Crossing the Rubicon and you will recognize that securing the world major oil reserves was a priority for Neocons (and the elite in general) for many years. What do you suppose Cheney's energy task force was discussing before 9/11 and what were they doing with maps of ME oil in those meetings? Of course, we won't know for certain because the Supreme Court ruled in Cheney's favor.
"But that doesn't change the end result, does it."
It DOES make a difference if the electorate is being manipulated through various sources of propaganda. It is nearly impossible to effect change when the underlying cause (in this case deliberate misinformation) is unknown.
Some form of collapse is inevitable, but adopting a sense of bewilderment and defeatism that will permit collapse to take its worst possible form is irresponsible.
As for my glasses, most folks here know what color they are and few would suggest they are rose.
But, then, you seem to have made a misreading of what I was saying by putting some of your own expectations into it. Did I say that GW had a low IQ? Do you know that I accept that argument? No, you couldn't know that because it's not the case. But you blundered on making assumptions and you know what happens when you do that.
You seem to think I was suggesting that GW believed that Iraq helped plan or somehow participated in the 9/11 attacks. That would be silly. But does he believe that they (Iraq, terrorism, 9/11, islamic fascism, etc.) are all related, connected? He's been spending the last two weeks telling us so at every turn.
As for what I should study. Let's just say that I was doing post graduate work in the same department that Brzezinski taught in after he left public service. You make assumptions about my education that demonstrate 1)you know nothing about me and 2)demonstrate that you have a lot of education to go yourself.
Your take on the "manipulation" of the eloctorate is charmingly naive. The belief in the "man behind the curtain" is always amusing. But there are aspects of our culture and political system far more influential than a few "powerful" men in "smoke-filled backrooms."
I'd be happy to discuss how I see these things working. But please don't come in here telling me to go read a couple of books that influenced you. It would be the equivalent of me telling you what medical texts you should read to "really" understand your field.
It looks like you do me the same injustice that you claim I have done to you by assigning me views that I don't have. I don't naively believe in "powerful men in smoke-filled rooms" or the "man behind the curtain" as in a handful of people running the world. I do recognize that coalitions of monied interests have corrupted our govt. Exactly how these monied interests interact with each other is what needs to be brought into focus and THAT is what never gets clearly reported in our media.
If you have a background in pol sci it is hard to imagine that you wouldn't appreciate the inherent problems a continually centralizing economic and political force presents to represenative govt. I wonder if you are too close to the fine details of social or economic theories to empathize with the concerns an ordinary citizen has on this topic. Not saying you don't have the empathy but my larger point on today's threads was the problem that surfaces when professionals are too caught up in the fine details of their work to see things on a larger scale - a matter of perspective.
BTW, the reading recommendations were not condenscension, they were meant to be helpful. I can't tell you how many books and articles I have read from recommendations coming out of TOD and from friends interested in social and political issues. I was always grateful for the overtures to share knowledge.
This is precisely what I was suggesting is the oversimplification. This is the men in smoke-filled back rooms. My suggestion is to step back yet again. Why are these men (and a few women) in the position to influence our government? Why is our government susceptible to them? But even more importantly, what place do these people have in our culture? How is it that they (and their money) are influential in our broader society? Or turn that around, why does our society raise people with wealth into positions of influence? Better yet, what do we learn about our soceity and culture by understanding such people?
Let's face it, if Warren Buffet stood up tomorrow and said we should all stop pursuing wealth, should stop driving, become vegetarion, move to a farm and learn organic gardening, etc., what do you think would happen? Likely his children would have him committed. While people may be the local actor, the carrier of culture, so to speak, the individual only has that power to affect change that is available to them from where they stand in that culture.
"If you have a background in pol sci it is hard to imagine that you wouldn't appreciate the inherent problems a continually centralizing economic and political force presents to represenative govt."
I've met lots of political scientists who see no contradiction between centralized economics and institutions and representative gov't. Indeed, one of my best teachers was such a person (Saul Mendlovitz), he and others believe our best chance to avoid the woest of corporatist control of the planet comes in the shape of a representative world government. I disagree with them, though.
Indeed, your statement attributing those certain beliefs to me is somewhat baffling. I don't see where you are drawing it from. And clearly you haven't read other posts of mine where I make it clear that I not only believe that the current economic system will collapse, but believe that collapse is the best thing that can happen to us. What I actually see happening is the collapse of western civilization - not just the economy. We may have contributed some excellent ideas and institutions to the world, but I believe that we have gone over into excess. We are, in the construction of Toynbee, idolizing an ephemeral self and are no longer capable of reacting to the changes in our world in any manner other than we have in the past. (Indeed, this is precisely why one of the worst aspects of globalization is the concurrent homogenization of our lives.) This inability to respond with new social ideas, institutions and ways of living will condemn us to failure. What will make this collapse so utterly tragic is that western civilization has spread into every corner of the planet. The economic system you are concerned about being too centralized is the economic system of the western civilization, carried out to its illogical extreme.
Ok, I'd better bring this to a close. I'll check back on this thread occassionally to see if you'd like to continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll have chances to exchange barbs in other threads ;-)
On this commemeration day for the 10-1/10+1 event,
I think it behooves us at TOD to explore again the concept of cognitive disassociation.
Why do so many people "think" or fail to think in the way they do? In the way we do?
Why can they not come to grasp the Peak Oil idea and what it means?
On 9/10/2001 Americans believed that we were the most powerful, smartest people on Earth. If not Al Gore alone, then "we" had invented The Internet. We had invented the "New Economy". Prosperity was everywhere. Our non-negotiable way of life was spreading out like a good virus to conquer the whole world, to Globalize it, and to prove once and for all that this indeed was the "American Century". Pax America had begun and would last for 1000 years if not longer. Ronald Reagan had been so right and all the doomsters had been wrong --101% wrong. The Russian Evil Empire had been vaquished by our brilliant, though ficticious, Pebbles. We Americans were invincible and clearly God's chosen ones.
Then the 10-1/10+1 event happened.
The reality of it sent messages we dared not utter in open forums:
- "They" had outwitted us. Ergo we were not the most ingenius peoples on Earth. We were not as smart and powerful as we have deceived ourselves into believing.
- Our advanced technologies had made us vulnerable. (Who in their wildest dreams would have thunk that commercial jet aircraft could be turned into weapons agianst their own masters? --Please don't answer that with the hindsight knowledge that there were Cassandras in our vast Empire already screaming about the dangers and that the Empire chose to ignore the doom sayers. The point here is cognitive dissonance and not that "nobody could have dreamed of it".)
- We were no longer special. Up until 9/11 we Americans could argue to ourselves that we were unlike any other nation on Earth. We were special. Even though bad things had happened everywhere else (i.e. Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao Tsetung, Cambodia under the Kemer Rouge, etc., etc.), "it" the bad thing would never, could never, happen here.
Now in the gloomy aftershadows of 9/11, along come these Peak Oil doomsters, out to attack even more of our self-evident truths:Poem by Bob Dylan
--------------------
Stay in line. stay in step. people
are afraid of someone who is not
in step with them. it makes them
look foolish t' themselves for
being in step. it might even
cross their minds that they themselves
are in the wrong step.
do not run nor cross the red line. if you go
too far out in any direction, they
will lose sight of you. they'll feel
threatened. thinking that they are
not a part of something that they
saw go past them, they'll feel
something's going on up there that
they don't know about.
revenge will set in. they will start thinking
of how t' get rid of you. act
mannerly towards them. if you don't,
they will take it personal. as you
come directly in contact face t' face
do not make it a secret of how
much you need them.
if they sense that you have no need for them,
the first thing they will do is
try t' make you need them. if
this doesn't work, they will tell
you of how much they don't need
you. if you do not show any sadness
at a remark such as this, they
will immediately tell other people
of how much they don't need you.
your name will begin t' come up
in circles where people gather
to tell about all the people they
don't need. you will begin t' get
famous this way. this, though, will
only get the people who you don't need
in the first place
all the more madder.
you will become a whole topic of conversation.
needless t' say, these people
who don't need you will start
hating themselves for needing t' talk
about you. then you yourself will
start hating yourself for causing so
much hate. as you can see, it will
all end in one great gunburst.
never trust a cop in a raincoat.
when asked t' define yourself exactly,
say you are an exact mathematician.
do not say or do anything that
he who standing in front of you
watching cannot understand, he will
feel you know something he
doesn't. he will react with blinding
speed and write your name down.
talk on his terms. if his terms
are old-fashioned an' you've
passed that stage all the more easier
t' get back there. say what he
can understand clearly. say it simple
t' keep your tongue out of your
cheek. after he hears you, he can
label you good or bad. anyone will
do. t' some people, there is only
good an' bad. in any case, it will
make him feel somewhat important.
it is better t' stay away from
these people......
It has nothing to do with the conversation, but it came to mind.
John Carr
This is why I urge people not to succumb to the extreme language and to avoid the "peak is now" position. When you take these positions, you set yourself up for the criticisms that we are now seeing. This is a marathon, not a sprint.
You will reach more people, IMO, by explaining both sides of the argument, but by also pointing out that Peak Oil is not a theory. The only controversial part is on the timing, and almost everyone agrees that it is close enough that we need to be taking serious mitigation steps.
You start off saying there are people who doubt official statements (1). You let them talk. Somewhere the term conspiracy theory (2) is introduced. You let some more peope talk, pro and con.
Then the big one: you first mention the term "conspiracy theorists" (3)
From then on, it's smooth sailing. You have now established a group, never mind that there are many different people and different ideas. They now belong together in the mind of the reader/viewer.
In the 9/11 case, it was a stusent (Loose Change), a grieving father and a religious nut, vs Popular Mechanics and the head of the 9/11 commission.
All that is now required, is to show one crazy notion (there was never a United 93) or not-trustworthy person. That discredits all of them in one fell swoop, and the balance goes to the "experts".
Remember the Kunstler quote in the Bloomberg piece? vs CERA, Exxon etc.?
Who appears more trustworthy to the uninitiated? It's an easy game, and hard to fight against.
Have you read (or discussed during your visit) Jay's views on why people accept something as true or not?
I've come to believe the following:
- the logic/arguments you use to discuss po are largely irrelevant when discussing these issues with the average person. (reader of TOD = not the average person, btw so what works here is not representative of what works out with the general public)
- if the person feels the system is screwed or not working, they will gravitate towards explanations of why the system is screwed or not working.
- the person's tribal affliations will influence which explanation they will accept as true.
Eddy the Environmentalist or Ollie the Oilman will tend to be attracted to Peak Oil as it is discussed on TOD, Energy Bulletin, etc.Harry the Enviro-Hating Right Wing Religious Sect Member will tend to be attracted to "Those evil Enviros are mucking things up, Gawd put plenty of oil in the ground . . " as an explanation.
Craig Smith and Jerome Corsi have the Harry's of the world as their followers.
As far as getting more people over to our tribe, that is dependent on two things:
One of the things I have learned over the years is how to talk to Harry, Eddie, and Ollie. I have learned how to put myself in their shoes, look at the issue from their point of view, and ask questions designed to lead them to certain conclusions.
I am certain that if you put me in a room for 1 hour with just about anyone, I can convey the gravity of the situation while coming across as completely rational. I have done this with many people of many different backgrounds. The important point, though, is to first establish some common ground so they don't see you as the enemy.
Then why don't you share some of your Talking Points with us?
One thing that I see TODders getting wrong time and again is that you can "intellectualize" with Harry.
That is so wrong. It is exactly why John Kerry and Al Gore lose time again. Why Karl Rove wins round after round.
Harry is not an intellectual, rational being. He is an emotional animal ... a herd following animal ... with extremely limited understandings of science.
I have given a lot of thought to doing a post on this. But it isn't so much what is said as how it is said. One of the advantages that I think I have is that I have spent a lot of time around a very wide range of people. My parents would represent "Harry". I grew up pretty poor. Someone posted the lyrics to "Coal Miner's Daughter" the other day, and I thought "Boy, she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth." :-)
I went to elementary school in a predominately black housing project. I put myself through college. I have scrubbed toilets and done many menial jobs. I have friends in prison, and friends who are professors. I have friends in Germany, friends in China, and friends still in the projects. I can switch modes and speak to any of these people in a language and a tone that empathizes with their situation.
Maybe my experience is not unique, but I have had several people tell me that my background is one reason I can communicate with such a wide range of people. My wife has noted that she can tell what kind of person I am talking to on the phone just by the way I talk. I do this without even noticing that I am doing it.
Anyway, I have found the line that works best, especially in groups, is "I believe that we have seen just the first winds of the comiing oil price storm". Not Peak Oil per se, but near complete agreement (in New Orleans at least) AND it increases support for streetcars.
I believe that taking action on incomplete information and understanding is more important than complete information coupled with inaction (true of too many TODers unfortunately).
Best Hopes,
Alan
This is EXACTLY the same problem we have in talking to fundamentalist Muslims. Yes they DO mean exactly what they say. Just because you, in your western based humanitarianism, cannot believe they would say and mean exactly what they say does not mean it cannot be so. It just points out how limited our own perceptions are and why we have to let go of "logic" and get even beyond that to base assumptions.
Furthermore, as Thomas Sowell clearly demonstrated in that wonderful book A Conflict of Visions, people can be completely rational and still be wrong because the underlying assumptions are wrong. So the way to talk to Harry is to approach him, gently, because no one wants to be attacked, and try to see how to wedge important facts into his base assumptions and not into the logic built on those assumptions. You can't assail his logic directly so don't try. This is the error that most people make. You must slowly, patiently, and in as friendly a manner as possible get him to accept new facts as underlying assumptions. THEN Harry ends up with conflicts and has to either discard new facts, which he will be loathe to do if you've convinced him that he figured it out for himself (with your assistance), or he will discard old assumptions and thus the conclusions of his logic change because the underlying assumptions changed first.
This is exactly what is happening in part of the evangelical Christian community today. Part of that community is speaking to the rest of it and emphasizing facts about peak oil, resource depletion, etc., and at the same time it is using the context of common religious reference (Christian values) to emphasize that man is called to be a good steward, not a glutton. This works. This is also the approach I see being used in the Hindu and Jewish religious communities in Houston as well to emphasize environment and community thinking about resource depletion and population overshoot symptoms.
The key is to not attack either the person (which you just did) or to attack their logic. Their logic is usually pretty solid, given their assumptions. So attack the assumptions, in a friendly manner. This works. Trust me on this.
I have used the approach both you and RR have described on four right-wing evangelical Christians with great success. All four are now using the new lense I gave them to convince their like-minded friends. In fact, one of these persons, an engineer with a very high IQ (he was the easiest to convince), is using his new understanding in Christian blogs to inform others.
Yes I do.
This is why I do not try to proselytize Peak Oil.
The last thing Harry is ready to hear is that world is doomed, that Chicken Little and Malthus were right.
Thank you for your pointers. They are quite valid.
people can be completely rational and still be wrong because the underlying assumptions are wrong
With your kind pointers in mind, may I suggest to you that people evolved from fight-or-flight lizards? May I suggest that buried someplace near the stem of the human brain, there lies a reptilian layer that is not "completely rational" and that it reacts to fear and terror? Perhaps people are not "completely" rational? (I include myself.)
Their logic is usually pretty solid, given their assumptions. So attack the assumptions, in a friendly manner. This works. Trust me on this.
I respectfully disagree that they operate entirely on logic.
I whole heartedly agree that I will get nowhere with them by presenting myself as an enemy of their belief system.
Thank you again for your excellent pointers.
OK, that's what I think too.
Then what do we do, argue to "change their fundamental assumptions"?
Argue with Tariq Ramadan?
Then we better use Taqiya ourselves.
P.S. Yeah! Beside other vices I am strongly anti-islamic, NOT anti-muslim!
That is, I am not against deluded people I am against deleterious virus of the mind.
And Christian fundamentalism is on par with Islam.
I Know how you feel....(explain their side)
I Felt the same way(Justify their side)..
But I found(show them the light now that they are WITH you).
The reality is we haven't even reached those most predisposed to the message of Peak Oil yet, let alone the moderates, let alone the more difficult persuadables, and even at that point we're still quite a distance away from the hardcore rightwing nutcase. Much like drilling for oil, we need to go after the cheap and easy fields (middle of the road or better individuals), before we start trying to go after difficult and expensive deep sea deposits ("Harry").
I'll second that.
Technically-astute people (i.e. engineers) make up only a tiny fraction of Western society. My informal, personal sampling of these people indicates that at best we may have 1% penetration into this insular, technically trained population pool.
In other words: 1% of the 1%.
This is why I urge people not to succumb to the extreme language and to avoid the "peak is now" position.
Since I watch production figures, peak is now, and no fear of loss of status (whatever that is) will convince me otherwise. It is better to be myrself than to try and be somebody else.If you merely watch production figures to determine that "peak is now", you would have been wrong many times in that past, as many others were. It is not just production figures that you need to be looking at.
If you lose credibility, then you have lost all power to influence people who disagree with you.
So what? I speak my truth and I don't care about missing some golden light at the end of the tunnel because I wasn't able to influence people. There's an element of fear you are expressing that is unfounded. I'm comfortable telling people that I believe oil supplies are going to dwindle and that it is likely billions will starve. I don't care if people think I'm kooky. I have no belief that I will help facilitate some benevolent government action to save the day by carefully couching my words. Ridiculous thought.
That's quite a different position than "peak is now."
I have no belief that I will help facilitate some benevolent government action to save the day by carefully couching my words.
Benevolent government action is not what is needed. Getting tough and making hard decisions is what is needed. It becomes much harder to convince the government that action is needed if your viewpoint has been marginalized because you have lost credibility. I have no interest in being marginalized. And disputing the "peak is now" position by pointing out that we can't make that determination yet is not couching words. It is truth.
That's quite a different position than "peak is now."
No it isn't. There's plenty of fossil fuels available in the Western world, even though crude production has fallen.
It becomes much harder to convince the government that action is needed if your viewpoint has been marginalized because you have lost credibility.
I have no intention of convincing the government or anyone else.
I have no interest in being marginalized.
By self-restraint, you are marginalizing yourself. I'm not suggesting anyone standing on a streetcorner holding a sign that says "The End is Near!" but if you are who you are, then you gotta be yourself.
Creditably is irrelavant. Even if the US gov't publicity announced peak oil, they will bicker for years on what to do. Its already too late anyway. Even if Peak Oil is a decade away it no where near far away to make a transistion. With a US population of 300+ million and global population of over 6.2 billion we are well past overshoot.
Second unless you tell Americans that they are immenent danager today, they simply won't care. There much too focus on spending money and enjoying themselves. Creditably won't help you change their ways. Every day there is a program or article in the news that says Americans aren't saving enough for retirement, yet every day the savings rates goes deeper in the red.
By all means, prove me wrong.
- Half of all oil we'll ever get is gone
- Maximum Production (day, month, year, whatever)
- Using more than we find.
3. Was back in the 80's. 1. Probably lies ahead and will definitely only be clear when we are far down the slope.2. Looks like staying some time in 2005, as the declines are becoming so fast that new production will not compensate.
Still, which one are we talking about? One should define ones terms before one argues about them.
PS. What does MSM mean? An acronym that is new to me has suddenly snuck in.
What it seems to mean is any large media outlet that disagrees with the writer. The same MSM is wise and enlightened when they agree with us.
I find it a tired and meaningless term that - like sheeple, murkins, etc, - is just another way for people to feel smarter than the "others".
It's Ok, you are right NOT to "feel smarter".
Siding with Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom will bring you plenty short term, an ugly death later.
Unless perhaps you expect to be among the "last standing men"?
It's not a question of whether the MSM agrees with you or not, it's simply noting that the media generally offers a very shallow overview of every issue (usually accompanied by alarmist or sensationalist headlines), without offering any indepth reporting that might actually educate their viewers.
I personally find the MSM today to be very lacking. It really has nothing to do with feeling smarter than anyone. I'm not sure who exactly I'm supposed to feel smarter than, the anchor? Rather, it's an issue with how they actually go about reporting on the issues.
The media is the media. Is it better than it used to be or worse? The question is subjective and impossible to answer. Media in the past has been worse at times and better at others.
I am poking fun that the habit of creating enemies that is so common here. The media doesn't agree with what you think, so they must be stupid, or more likely paid off. But then when the Chicago Tribune runs a peak oil article, everyone loves them and forgets they are the dreaded MSM.
It is useful to have a broad set of information sources and view each one critically. Some "alternative media" is excellent, but some is utter crap. Half the people cursing the MSM think it is criminally leftist and prefer to hunker down with right wing propaganda. The other half thinks the MSM is far right, or too corporate. They prefer left wing propaganda.
Broadly, I think that demonizing sources of information that disagree with you is not part of a healthy dialogue or learning process.
I don't think the public media is the greatest source of information around. It can be right, wrong, shallow, deep and dozen of other things depending on the day and the source. It is a useful window on the world, but shouldn't be your only one.
That could be from a misunderstanding of Nagorak, I rather think it is deliberate. THIS IS THE WAY TO CONFUSE THE SHEEPLES, you are one with the MSM in this endeavour.
Playing the idiot to steer the rest of your response toward your preferred mumbo-jumbo.
As if you didn't understand that "your elitest interpretation is very incorrect" could as well mean that Nagorak says "pretending that people who despise MSM are elitist is incorrect" .
The whole of his reply lends credence to that interpretation rather than yours, where you say that Nagorak accuses YOU to be an elitist.
Nah! Just an opinion of yours.
I doubt one single article makes the TODders forget about the dreaded MSM, they just rejoyce that by some accident some Peak Oil info leaked to the "masses", still with very little chance to have some impact on the hard core sheeples.
BTW, did you notice what happened to Paul Salopek?
A warning call to him?
Or an "accident" like having his article making it to the MSM?
Yes, this shows, but NOT FROM THE PEAK OIL AWARE (only marginally depending on their political leanings).
Peak Oil aware people despise the MSM for just the reasons Nagorak expounded :
"It's not a question of whether the MSM agrees with you or not, it's simply noting that the media generally offers a very shallow overview of every issue (usually accompanied by alarmist or sensationalist headlines), without offering any indepth reporting that might actually educate their viewers.
I personally find the MSM today to be very lacking. It really has nothing to do with feeling smarter than anyone."
Do you consider yourself a "source of information"?
Blah, blah, blah, totally content free babble.
Thanks for helping to prove my case.
Sure! BWA! HA! HA! HA! (so outrageous that I am running short of appropriate emoticons!)
This is Stratagem XIV, Claim Victory Despite Defeat :
This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, - although it does not in the least follow, - as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.
Pretty sad when I have to read overseas news sites to find out what's really going on. (The whole Jessica Lynch thing is a prime example. It was weeks, even months, before the U.S. MSM reported no what really happened. The BBC and other overseas news sites had the true story shortly after it happened. It was just bizarre, reading the two different versions of events. It was like living a country with government-controlled media or something. No, I don't think our media is controlled by the government. They're controlled by big business, but the results are similar.)
I agree that often we fall into the trap of feeling superior because we "know" about Peak Oil and therefore we convince ourselves (subconsciously) that "we" are smarter/better than the average sheeperson (singular form of sheeple).
But each of us is a sheeperson ... a monkey head ... a follower of the herd ... a crazed irrational animal.
Until you admit to that, you are going nowhere fast.
Why is that that "we", the smart and rational PO'ers go into all these personal tantrums here on TOD? attacking each other? showing off our phallic proxies? flinging monkey dung at each other? forming insider groups and ostracizing newcomers?
We are the monkeys.
We are no different or better than "them".
When I use the term "sheeple", I mean "me" more than anyone else. I am a sheeperson. I do watch TV. I am controlled by MSM. It is only with the occasional visit to TOD that I am shocked out of full engagement with the MATRIX.
... But that won't last long ...
Yes Mr. President.
The 10-1/10+1 number triggers "terror" in my reptile brain.
Yes Mr. President, I will take my shoes off in airports to show humble submission to your alpha male supremecy. Yes Mr. President, I feel "safer" now but not safe enough without your blessed "protection," blessed be your holy name. No Mr. President, I won't pay any protection money to that Tony Soprano fellow. It is all to you. Yours is the supreme protectionism. Katrina people had it coming but the rest of us will not be "left behind". I do believe. I do believe. ... Oh Todo. What has happened? Kansas isn't Kansas anymore. It's an unBrave New World. A world of terror and terror-able people. Auntie Em, I'm scared.
You know I have already admitted I am a monkey head. Do I really have to confess to sheeperson and crazed irrational animal?
We are complex freaks of nature.
Our brains evolved randomly.
1.First we have a brain stem that controls basic functions: breathing, heart beat, etc.
So you see Jack, you and I are wonderfully complex creations of some maniacal design. Confess to it all. It is in your genes and in your destiny. :-)
I don't think what you are saying is wrong as such. Merely overblown. Of course we are animals at the core. We have primal needs, fears and desires. We are also inclided to follow the herd.
However, this of its own does not prove that the entire world is a sheep herding machine, all carefully contrived to manipulate our baser instincts. The herders must be sheep too, or did they somehow rise above it all?
Neither do I think your points prove that we are bound in every moment or every action to be a slave to each of those elements. Sometimes we follow the herd, sometimes it is a subherd or antiherd we are following - or thionk we are following.. Sometimes we are leaders, sometimes followers. Sometime the desire to be antiherd is herd-like.
Of course advertisers and political actors seek to manpulte the media to influence people. Sure many media elements go along. But I don't believe the whole thing - every story, every sentence - is a carefully correographed stage set.
I also think the kneejerk opposition to the MSM and rushing to seek solace in "alternative media" is no less herd behavior. In fact to the degree that people rely only on sources thety agree with they are herdier.
I think people attack the MSM to prove they are not being herded, when if fact all they are proving is that their sheppard is a different manipulator.
This discussion has made me very hungry. I'm going to have to go out and kill some lunch. And if it has to be you, so be it. I hope you understand. I'm an animal you know.
Oh, and one more thing Jack, please wear that sweet red riding hood you so often dress up in.
(just kidding of course ... but then again, as you might know, a kid is an infantile sheep )
Do you actually think that it is simply a COINCIDENCE, despite the statistical improbability, that the big media outlets were falling all over themselves to report the Jack GOM oil cache, yet they have continued to ignore or downplay declines in Cantarell, Ghawar, and elsewhere that overwhelm whatever modest gains may be made in the GOM?
If you are Believer of such Coincidences, then you should never miss a chance to buy those lottery tickets.
If, instead, you understand the argument I just made, then you should try to extrapolate this epiphany to an understanding that a system that never hesitates to use its combined muscle to obfuscate the peak oil issue will not hesitate to do so on other issues.
That said,
MSM stands for Productions-That-Are_PAID-for_by_Big-Business.
Other than perhaps C-SPAN, PBS (maybe no longer) and other charity funded news outlets, all so-called "mainstream" NEWS outlets are actually corporately-sponsored outlets of corporate propaganda.
Do you honestly believe that NBC would truthfully report something bad about their parent, GE?
Do you honestly believe that ABC would truthfully report something bad about its parent company, Disney?
And if BP owned one these "network" news systems, you could be sure that the Purdhoe corrosion problem would be presented to the public as a minor inconvenience which BP scientists and other super-genius people are addressing in the most efficient and expedicious manner possible so therefore don't worry your pretty little heads about that one our deer members of the general public.
We report, you deerside.
This is an open forum.
Its intellectual validity is maintained only when peer review is applied and fine points are hashed out. Otherwise, if we become a bunch of hiny polishers and let each other get away with errors or omissions because we "like" the other person, then we become corrupt.
So please do pick away.
Trust me, I've got much bigger worries in real life than whether somebody on a blog is nitpicking at some of my posts.
I personally find TOD a great read because people here do argue points in a mostly civil way.
Shoot away.
BTW, I never consider myself 100% right. There is always a 99 per cent chance of error --that's Murphy's Law you know. Whatever can be said wrongly, will eventually be said wrongly --especially if uttered by me.
(For mathematicians out there, Murphy's Law is simply a restatement of the Law of Large numbers as applied to engineering practices.)
Sometimes the MSM is great, sometimes terrible. Sometimes alternative media is great sometimes it is terrible. In many cases, I think people reject the MSM because they don't agree and would rather find solace in some anonymous blog, even if all they know about it is that they agree. As I noted above, the right wing and left wing extreme have mirror image MSM rants - they both think it favors the other side.
I realize that this is part of the conspiracy theorists ten commandments and that in even daring to cast doubt on it, I am in effect drawing cartoons of your prophets. But that's why it is so much fun!
there is a new problem: PV
(peak virgins ... Shh, don't tell anyone lest you hurt the cause)
Great cartoon though.
It also means MicroSoft Messenger but I dont think thats relevant here !
Robert, I read something similar every day by people who claim production figures are no indication of the peak. True if you were paying attention only to the falling production numbers and were totally oblivious to why they were falling this would be true. There was the Iran-Iraq war which brought on the tanker wars of the 80's. Then there was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Then just a few years ago OPEC cut back on production because the oil price was approaching $10 a barrel.
In other words Robert, there was always a known cause for the world's falling production numbers. This is however the first time there seem to be falling world production numbers while everyone seems to be producing flat out. (Except of course a couple of places where civil strife is preventing some production.)
My point, production figures are now an indication of production capability where in the past they were just an indication of how much oil was deliberately being held off the market.
Ron Patterson
Stuart Staniford and I debated this earlier in the year. I pointed to many locations that were not producing flat out, which is why I argued against the position that the plateau indicates that we are at peak. He added in some of this offline production, and he concluded that yes, in fact if we considered the shut-in production that the curve does turn up. He also noted that many areas are trading crudes at a big discount, which you would expect for areas that aren't producing flat out.
I still know of areas that are shut-in or not producing flat out right now. I also doubt that the Saudis were lying when they said they had extra crude for sale, but no buyers. Their claim would be too easy to dispute by any crude trader purchasing Saudi crude. Add to that the fact that U.S. inventories are very full, and I think their story is credible.
That is not to say that I think peak is 20 years away. If I had to put odds on it, I would say 75% or better chance we peak by 2016. I consider that a crisis. I also think we are going to continue to have problems meeting demand as China and India continue to grow their economies.
Plateau continues, aided by outages...
Well, I lived with the Saudis for five years and I figued out how to tell when they were lying, their lips were moving. Seriously though, exaggeration and hyperbole are simply part of being an Arab. They have been claiming that they have 260 billion barrels of reserves for so long it would become a personal crisis for every Saudi if that could proven incorrect. And if they were actually in decline, and I believe they are, they would no more admit it than they would admit to a failure of character.
They are extremely proud of the fact that they have more reserves than anyone in the world. If they could outproduce Russia today they would be doing it even if they had to sell their oil at half price. They want to be number one but that is no longer possible. So the best they can do is claim that their cut in production is intentional. And anyone who believes that doesn't know beans about Saudi Arabia or Arabs in general.
Saudi Arabia is now producing about 9 million barrels per day. In 2007 or 2008 they will be bringing more production on line but in the meantime they will be declining by about .8 million barrels per day per year. I don't believe they can keep producing at 9 mb/d but I would bet my bottom dollar they will never produce anywhere close to the 9.9 mb/d they produced in 1980, or even the 9.6 mb/d they produced for six months in 2005.
But your idea that crude traders would call their hand on this is just silly. When did you ever hear a crude trader say anything about anyone? Do you actually believe that any major crude buyer would piss Saudi Arabia off by calling them a liar? Get real!
Ron Patterson
It is one thing to exaggerate reserves. Not easy to verify that one way or the other from the outside. It is another matter to say that you have something to sell if you actually can't produce it if a buyer calls.
When did you ever hear a crude trader say anything about anyone?
Umm, every day. I talk to crude traders on a regular basis. If we are looking for crude, and Saudi says they have some for sale, everyone and their dog would know right away that they were lying if they in fact didn't have it. The news wouldn't have to come from a crude trader. Crude traders talk to lots of people. Unless someone can demonstrate that they were lying about this - and nobody has done so - then the very fact that this would be so easy to check out tends to make me believe it was probably a true claim.
"It is one thing to exaggerate reserves. Not easy to verify that one way or the other from the outside. It is another matter to say that you have something to sell if you actually can't produce it if a buyer calls."
It's not so tough to mischieviously say you have boatloads of crud(e) to sell, when you know that refining capacity does not exist. As you pointed out earlier today:
"There have been huge investments into refinery expansions. However, capacity is still pretty tight for the most part. When refineries have to run at 90% plus to meet demand, that is a recipe for supply problems, especially when an incident at a large refinery can knock off 2-3% of the nation's refining capacity."
Is there refining capacity for the stuff the Saudi's are offering? Aren't they planning to build their own crud(e) refineries? Why?
Perhaps I was not clear. By crude trader, I meant a crude trader, not a futures trader. I have traded crude oil futures myself but that would in itself give me absolutely idea whether or not the Saudis were lying.
By a crude trader I meant the people who actually contract those LCCs, people who spend over 100 million for a load of crude oil. When have you talked to one of them Robert? For only they would know if the Saudis offered them a load of crude and they turned it down.
A crude oil futures trader would not know squat and you are aware of that I am sure. Because if you are not then we have a problem sure enough.
NO, if Velaro tried to buy a load of heavy sour crude from Saudi and Saudi said they had no uncontracted oil to sell them. Then later the folks at Valero read that Saudi said they had no takers for their heavy oil, do you think Valero would scream "Liar, Liar"? No, I do not think so.
The Saudis are simply lying about the whole matter. They are producing every drop of oil they can produce.
And it would not be easy to checkout. The Saudis are absolutely secretive about everything. They would do everything possible to keep their secret and would even tell Valero some cock and bull story if they came back and asked for that extra oil.
Ron Patterson
The last time? That would be last Friday. We were discussing a specific batch of crude for my refinery - specifically which one to purchase based on the RCVs. I deal with those guys all the time.
Then later the folks at Valero read that Saudi said they had no takers for their heavy oil, do you think Valero would scream "Liar, Liar"? No, I do not think so.
No, it would not work that way. That's a straw man. The story would be "unnamed sources say...", or "privately, some industry insiders say..."
The Saudis are simply lying about the whole matter. They are producing every drop of oil they can produce.
Yet you have no actual evidence of this. And personally, being a skeptical scientific type, I require a bit more evidence before coming to such a firm conclusion. As it is, they say they have crude. Our traders can confirm that, and it would be simply impossible to keep such a secret under wraps.
The Saudis are absolutely secretive about everything.
Except when they announce publicly that they have crude for sale, but no takers.
However, the quality of their spare production capacity notwithstanding, that doesn't mean they are lying or don't have any spare capacity.
Good point.
How would everyone and their dog know they were lying? How would one check out such a claim? I'm not being facetious, this is one of the many things I know very little about. This strikes me as being like a poker player potentially bluffing. Until the cards are on the table, there isn't any way to know if they hold five aces or a pair of twos.
On the one hand, they have an excellent history of following through. On the other hand, we have legitimate sounding warnings that they may be having trouble, we know that they are ordering large numbers of rigs, and we know that they are cutting sales into a strong market.
They deal with oil traders from around the world on a daily basis. If they said they had crude, they are going to get calls from people needing crude. If they don't have it, word will get around.
But didn't they just do something much like this? Traders said "We need crude, who has more." Saudi's said "We have crude, lots of it, come to us." Traders went to Saudi Arabia and found that the Saudis did have extra crude but it was heavy and sour. Traders said "No, no, we want Arabian Light, not heavy-sour." The Saudi's replied "We have crude, lots of it, but can't find any buyers."
Unless that didn't really happen this past summer (it sure looked like that from the outside), it looks as though the Saudi's feinted and no one really knows what they actually have. All we know is they claim to have plenty of oil but when challenged they produced heavy-sour instead of light-sweet. Not many traders wanted more heavy-sour, so they weren't challenged on their capacity to produce heavy-sour. We don't know if they had more light and didn't want to give it up and we don't know how much heavy-sour they have. Isn't that what happened this summer?
Dat is, if we want to have any credibility.
Eventually, people ignore you.
Peak may or may not be now - but noone can prove it until a good number of years afterwards. Emphasize that we'll have to deal with a peak within the next 20 years, and it COULD be next year (we're running pretty blind), and people listen.
Robert Rapier, You ABSOLUTELY win the day, hands down, and said it with such brevity, (something I am never able to do easily) Great point, so well taken, again
"This is why I urge people not to succumb to the extreme language and to avoid the "peak is now" position. When you take these positions, you set yourself up for the criticisms that we are now seeing. This is a marathon, not a sprint."
The other thing we need to point out....let's just say we forget "peak" per se. We throw it out, clear out of the discussion.
We can still come up with easily a dozen reasons to reduce consumption and engage mitigation NOW.
Global warming and GHG, national security, financial stability and improvement, inprovement in the lives of the poor and middle class, reduction of infrastructure expense in moving, refining and providing wasted fuel, regiional enhancement by keeping more money in the community, reduction of pollutants and toxins other than GHG, leverage for the consumer on price and more consumer power in relation to the energy providers, both private and the national (some hostile to us) providers of oil/gas, on and on.
This message should be foremost: The time to reduce consumption is when the price drops as well as when it rises! This is how we enhance consumer power and security! We have to prove a point: We not only CAN reduce consuption, we WILL reduce consumption.
I gained all new respect for the CERA spokesman Peter Jackson...he is a so called cornucopian, and sees "oil production capacity could grow as much as 25 percent in the next decade."
Then he said, ""The next time I change my car, I will get one that's double the fuel-efficiency," he said."
THAT'S IT!! That is EXACTLY the right way to do it! I don't care if you see oil supply going up and and prices going down, STRETCH IT, SAVE IT, REGAIN THE LEVERAGE!
THIS, FOLKS, SHOULD BE OUR 9-11 PLEDGE: DO NOT GIVE YOUR POWER AND AMERICA'S POWER AWAY. Mr. Jackson, preach cornucopia till the cows come home, but endorse that kind of conservation, and PREACH THAT TOO, and you will be a friend of the cause, even if your wrong on the predictions! :-)
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Never though this was much of a reliable source anyway....
Maybe someone from TOD should email him (crsmith@worldnetdaily.com) and tell him that, the principle reason there has been very little investment in refineries is due the fact that oil companies weren't inclined to spend a lot of money on new infrastructure in a very probable future scenario of rapidly decreasing productive capacity due to declining reserves.
Note that Smith uses environmentalists as scapegoats. Does he really think that the "radical enviromentalist movement" has enough clout to stymie Big Oil, Big Banking, Big Media and the rest of Big Business?
yeah, I always say the following: "we had reagan and bush, reagan and bush, bush with cheney as the sec. of defense, then 8 years of clinton, then bush and cheney, bush and cheney. In other words for 18 of the last 26 years, we've had an oil man in the White House. You really think somebody like a Bush or Cheney is going to let some pesky environmentalists get in the way of building new refiniries."
who do you think a politician is going to listen to: a bunch of hippies with big dumbass signs and a bunch ofoil industy lobbyists with big fatass checks?
Yeah, right. LMAO.
Like, you know, dude, even Cheney knows enviro-hippies have their strong points.
1.) Except for ELF, they are pacifists so they go along quietly.
2.) They wear unconventional clothing so they are easy to spot and arrest.
3.) Many are permanently disoriented from years of drug experimentation so they have a hard time finding the protest.
4.) When they do show up at a protest, passersby ignore their signs and remark "What are those damn hippies up to now?"
Thank goodness Americans in the era of your youth didn't have the apathy that characterizes later generations. I am an X-gener who is very grateful for the efforts made by folks like yourself who drew the line in the sand. I hope we can rekindle that passion and help steer our Titanic away from the abyss of abject misery and resource wars.
I'd like to see some data on that.
My information was taken from one of Deffeyes' books. He was probably trying to make a broad generalization about the historical and relative level of investment in refineries shrinking.
Oil refiners have been upgrading and expanding their existing refineries for decades. Its simply cheaper and more efficient to improve the existing refineries than build new ones from scratch.
Roger yesterday claimed that many people in the Peak Oil movement claims that we are running out of oil. While there may be many very uninformed nuts out there who really believe we are running out of oil, they, by definition, could not possibly be peak oilers. It would be impossible to be at peak production and out of oil, that is just plain common sense. All peak oilers know that post peak, the amount of oil available each year will decrease each year...forever. Now I know there may be one year or two when oil the oil supply will increase, just as the US production increased for a few years after Prudhoe Bay came on line. But the trend will be downward....forever or until not enough oil is produced to even measure.
What many seem to think is that returning to 1980 oil production levels will mean a 1980 lifestyle. That is, if we will just have to scale back a little and, with the aid of ethanol and biodiesel we will get by just fine. This is what most of us peak oilers deny.
First of all, the decline is not likely to be steady. Most oil exporters will have dramatically increased their domestic production. They will supply their own needs before trying to keep the rest of the world on an even keel. There will develop an enormous difference between the oil available in countries that now export oil and countries that now must import most of their oil.
Second, most of these countries, who now realize the gravity of the situation, will start to husband their oil. They will cut back on production in order to insure stability in their own countries at the expense of the rest of the world.
Third, the realization will eventually dawn on the world's markets that all the economies of the world must now shrink instead of grow. Capitalism depends on growth. People invest for growth and no one invests for shrinkage. People will pull their money out of the market because they will correctly see the crash coming. This will just exacerbate the situation and we will have a disastrous world-wide market crash. This will mean lay-offs, unemployment, and an economic disaster far surpassing anything seen in the great depression.
The world's population will have at least doubled since 1980. And since we are already seeing a drop in grain and other food production, this will greatly exacerbate the problem. Dropping oil production will mean that grain and other food production will begin to drop like a rock. There will be food riots all over the world.
And as some have already pointed out, the oil left will be prioritized. That is the military will be first in line, then what is deemed "necessary government agencies" and so on down the line.
And that is the point Roger, and others who seem to think that declining oil production will simply mean a slightly lower lifestyle. Not even close. No, the world as we know it feeds on oil. And as the oil flow is interrupted, and gets a little worse every year, then civilization as we know it will disappear a little each year. Anarchy and resource wars will probably accelerate the situation until the scenario pictured by David Price comes to pass.
Ron Patterson
But I guess that's horseshit too...
With economic growth: Invest $1000 dollars and in a year it'll "grow" to $1200.
With recession: Invest $1000 dollars and in a year it'll be worth $800. Doesn't work, does it?
re: "Cold war..." - Cold? COLD?? Anybody reading the freakin' newspaper these days?? Sheesh...
More interesting discussion of types of growth possible in our post-capitalist society as energy becomes more dear are clearly short-circuited by that kind of slogan.
As for us living in a post-capitalist society, I think that's a bit of a reach. I've heard lots of social critics calling it late capitalism or even late, late capitalism. But, post capitalism? That's a bit much. And what kind of growth do you want to talk about, maybe "sustainable growth?" Talk about your "meme's based on a stack of semantics."
Word play is one thing if its intended to get a point across, but when used to obscure it borders on insincere.
Think about it. In terms of oil strategies for the US in decades hense, we are NOT subject to the whims of a single owner at Standard Oil. We are now subject to th whims of a raft of middle managers at government agencies, and yes oil companies.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Capitalism? Please.
That demonstrates which side is playing the semantic meme game right there.
It all rests on this particular instance of a market economy having a particular, and fragile, linkage to a particular concept of growth.
The key element of capitalism is, well, capitalists. People who make their livings via investment rather than labor.
A market economy is not the same thing as capitalism, ... but I think we live in a semi-regulated, semi-socialist, semi-market economy.
While I somewht agree with the definition of capitalism as a market economy driven by capitalists ... as I said above such a thing sure as heck would not have a Strategic Petroleum Reseve. Instead, it would be left to a Rockefeller descendant.
That's the difference between our current capitalist economy and the steady-state economies of the ancient world. Charging someone interest on a loan was viewed as a grave sin, as bad as murder even. And that is so foreign to our way of thinking we can barely comprehend it.
I think I'll go outside and pick some ripe money off the money tree in my front yard. I have a car payment to make, after all. ;-)
Now, what if you wanted someone else to stake you for that first tree ... what deal would you cut him?
None.
I would do it the same way my grandparents did. Ask a neighbor for a cutting or seeds, and plant them myself.
In a no-growth society, it's very difficult to pay back interest. People don't borrow unless they are desperate. Hence the view that charging interest is evil and exploitative.
The way people used to get a stake for a new venture was through savings. On the old plantations of Hawai`i, people (often united by ethnic group) would pool their money. They'd draw lots, and the winner would get the pot. Some claim credit unions started out that way. Many Mexican immigrants do something similar, only they take regular turns rather than drawing lots. Every week, you put, say, $20 in the pot, and the person whose turn it is gets the whole shebang.
And I think you're dead wrong on that.
Non-agricultural societies - that is, societies where wealth cannot be hoarded - typically use an informal bank of their neighbors' good will. Their only real wealth is food, and they have no way to store it for long periods. The best "investment" of this wealth in your neighbors. If you've got a lot of meat or yams or whatever, distribute your excess to your neighbors. One day, they'll be the ones with the surplus, and they'll reciprocate. But not with interest. If you give them one jar of wine, don't expect to get two in return.
Yes the farmer is expecting a real return on his investment in social capital.
For instance, if 25% of his grain usually spoils per year (ie. 33% inflation) then expecting the gift of grain to be paid back in a year's time would mean he expects a real rate of return of 33% from his investment in his social capital with his neighbour.
he expects a nominal rate of return of 33% from his investment in his social capital. It exactly balances out the "inflation" giving a real rate of return of 0%.
The point is that for capitalism to work you don't need a positive real rate of growth, you just need a positive nominal rate of growth.
Michael Pollan (47 minutes) is available from at: Pollan streaming audio. Lots on corn. Available until about 9/26/2006.
James Howard Kunstler (30 mins, lower fidelity)
Kunstler streaming audio. Available until about 9/19/2006.
Money isn't real. We all just pretend it is.
It is true that the banks which funded the development of the capitalist West are not allowed under Islamic law. However, something like Microsoft most certainly isn't prohibited.
For the reasons that (a) this is not capitalism, and (b) it excludes all sorts of definitions of "growth" (well-being, happiness, knowledge, etc.) which might be possible for centuries.
It isn't even determined that GDP (a narrow definition of "growth") will not find a way to grow with lower energy intensity over the coming decades.
In order for us to have a discussion we need to have some shared vocabulary. You can quibble about the definition of capitalism if you like. Hell, we can quibble about the definition of "is" if you like. But you are attempting to throw out an argument about the role of growth in our economy based on definitions, not on discussions of growth and our economy.
In the end you may be right or wrong (that's not where I'm going with this), but if you want to convince someone that the role of growth in our economy is overstated (or even non-existent), your not going to get there by claiming they're defining things wrong (especially when they were using the words as they are commonly used).
I just said that there were many kinds of growth that they might be possible in market systems for centuries forward.
I also said that it isn't even determined that growth by the GDP measure cannot continue with a lower energy intensity.
What more do you need?
(gone for the rest of the day, best wishes)
No actually, as I drove off to work I shook my head that I can have a conversation with someone and get to a point where I really don't get what they are trying to tell me.
That's probably some communication problem I have ..
It's called selective dumbness, you can cure that anytime, if you "want"...
What other kind of growth is there than the kind when you move from a smaller number to a bigger one, or did I miss something?
2nd kind of growth: every year the same number of cars are sold, but the quality & features get better.
US GDP growth numbers include a big component of growth # 2.
Growth #2 doesn't require growth in energy or resource consumption.
we're at a "growth that doesn't require growth"
the circle is complete
and all hope gone
waiter, I'll have a double
Surprisingly enough, it's a big part of how the US government defines growth. The BLS maintains a basket of goods that it monitors, and if quality goes up (speed on a computer, say) then that's considered a contribution to GDP. If the price goes up but not the quality, that's considered inflation. Finally, of course, if quantities sold go up, that's counted towards GDP as well.
So, you can have growth without growth. Pretty amazing, huh?
Only if the improved quality and features are made of fairy dust. One of the main reasons my 1991 GM Metro gets 42 mpg in the city is that it DOESN'T have "features" like power windows, power steering, remote side mirror controllers. There is no such thing as a free lunch!
How about improved reliability? Quietness, or better handling?
Not everything relates to MPG, and not everything requires energy to run.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch!"
Life is full of free lunches. I always liked Heinlein, but TANSTAAFL just isn't true. The biggest free lunch is, of course, the sun, which runs this little corner pool of reduced entropy.
Well, I suppose we'd have to move on to a younger star, then.
Well, just because it's limited to a few measly billion years doesn't mean it isn't a free lunch.
ummmm - you're kidding about the importance of this, right?
Reminds me of a story by Asimov called "The Last Question"...
Everything which "runs" requires energy, and every lb added/subtracted to a vehicle affects mpg, and every change made requires energy, unless you live in an alternate universe with different thermodynamic laws.
A big reason we're facing an energy crisis is that way too many people believe in free lunches and are ignorant of the basis energy principles of nature.
Yes, it's true, every improvement takes work and energy.
OTOH, it's a very cheap lunch. Several designers work for several months on a design improvement which is used in 100's of thousands of cars: you spend a very small amount of energy to gain a very big improvement: you could spend, say, $1M to develop improvements which sell for $100M over the life of the car, with a E-ROI that's comparable.
"Quietness isn't free, particularly if you add sound proofing material. "
True, but again it can be very cheap. You may eliminate an imbalance in the engine. You may add tiny rubber shock absorbers at connecting points. You may improve aerodynamics, which not only reduce noise, but improve MPG.
"Everything which "runs" requires energy, and every lb added/subtracted to a vehicle affects mpg"
Sure, but these design changes may not change the weight at all, or the energy requirements of the vehicle. If you change the lines of the sheet metal to improve aerodynamics that doesn't require more sheet metal - as it happens, more likely it will reduce the sheet metal, as streamlined designs have fewer sharp angles.
Or a later retirement age...
Retirement from WHICH jobs?
Possible. What's your scenario for depletion?
With respect to jobs, a death spiral of unemployment leading to less consumption, leading to closing trades and industry leading to more unemployment.
I tried to explain that above when I said:
So sure, bigger numbers, but not necessarily in money or GDP.
In short, I think that our capitalistic system, as currently structured, depends upon what we call economic growth. The key question, however, is this: Is it possible to increase sales without growth in energy and other material througputs of the whole system? I think that Amory Lovins has shown that this is possible by maximizing efficiency, conservation, and the return of what would otherwise be waste in the system to be reutilized as inputs.
Ultimately, though, we need a steady state economy, without growth. Whether capitalism as we know it can survive in such a system seems like an open question. Regardless, however, as long as individuals, private firms, and corporations are trading goods and services, and the means of production are owned by these entities, it seems as though capitalism can be deemed to be in existance.
As an aside, if I have a business, and that business continues to return a reasonable rate of return on my capital invested, I can continue that business without growth. However, if I have a corporation, it is more likely that the very existance of that corporation is dependent upon continuous growth or promises thereof to the shareholders.
Today's economy is obsessed with growth because of the consumer society and population increases. But capitalism does not need consumerism to sustain.
Easy example: I have $100,000 and I buy an apartment building. After expenses, rents net $6,000 a year. I make 6% but I don't need any growth (increase in the value of my capital or rents).
Capitalism doesn't need growth to survive at all. A dividend based economy would work. For example, if GE's stock price never went up a dollar, sales never went up a dollar, but they could still pay their dividends they would still bring a return--albeit a smaller one.
Capitalism looks like its growth based since there has been a huge population boom in the last hundred years. If population keeps increasing, then yes we need growth. If population stabilizes then we don't and a dividend economy will provide income from our built up wealth in order to sustain.
There is a difference between growth and capitalism. Imagine a farmer. A farmer could buy a cow and try to breed it to have more cows--growth. Or a farmer could just eat the milk from the cow, and produce one calf to replace the cow to replace the mother once she dies. Both capitalism--one is about growth the other is about getting a return (milk) on investment without growth.
That said, we need a major economic overhaul in view of a shrinking energy supply.
In the contemporary world there is far more to growth than just population. There is the assumed need for increased income and increased expenditures by the individual as well. To ignore this aspect of the growth ethic is to ignore one of the fundamental values of our present economic system (whether you accept that it is capitalist or not).
Also, I said population and consumerism. Consumerism is the basis for the assumed need for increased income and increased expenditure.
The system can be retooled (although I think it unlikely) to operate better in a shrinking energy pie scenario. America's loose debt ways fuel that growth which could be moderated, but sadly will probably be forced by declining energy supply.
For example, if banks required 90% downpayment to own a house how many people would be buying houses? Not many. More people would be sharing existing houses. Same with cars--if you had to buy them cash people could not afford them and therefore would be forced to live close to their job. Or at least only own one. Oil consumption would go down a bunch if people had to buy things cash instead of on credit.
Leveraging debt creates growth because people are afraid to lose what they have (and invested into) and will work to prevent it from being taken away plus appealing to the greed factor of having more than you can truly afford at a given point in time. If you are satisfied with a 500 sq. ft. apartment, no car, no cell phone, no internet, no cable T.V., no student loans, no eating out at restaurants, no vacations, minimal health care, you don't have to work very hard to make enough money to survive in the U.S.
If you cut off American's credit lines a whole bunch of them would be living like that--and therefore using a crap load less oil. Capitalism does not need leveraged debt to exist or even function. So, what I'm saying is we need to cut out growth by restricting credit to help slow the expansion of consumption.
Constant but slow tightening of credit can force people to consume less. Which would be a good idea to start implementing to push a society to Economize, Localize, and Produce.
When you so vociferously argue that the current economic system is not capitalism, what exactly are you defending? Is there some example of pure capitalism out there? Something not residing in idea only? When most people use the word "capitalism" they are using it to refer to our modern economic system. No, its not a perfect fit to the theory, but who really cares. I say "capitalism" to someone, they know the referent. You can argue its not really capitalism all you want. But until you have changed the way most people use the word you are spitting in the wind.
Is the present economic system based entirely on growth? If you ever read my posts you know I agree. Will your plan for dramatic credit tightening work? Theoretically, maybe, but who cares, its not ever going to happen. But cutting credit would not change the growth ethic. Besides, it is not the borrower who gains in the lending process. Ask a bank to require a 90% downpayment and they will go out of business. I've referenced this elsewhere in today's DrumBeat - but Max Weber's "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" addresses this whole cluster of issues better than any other (and its 100 years old!).
I really do believe we are in big trouble but I like to hang on to some hope. I understand that growth = Capitalism is the way its operating now and how most look at it. I just want to point out that the system COULD operate differently and handle PO better (but it wouldn't make it tons easier).
I believe there are tools we could use to make this better than it will probably be, but since there are tools there it gives me some hope we can save ourselves from driving off a cliff. Volker style interest rates would move us from spending to saving and slow consumption a bunch. If we were only so lucky.
Putting it into historical perspective, think of a lord and peasants. If you have say, 100 acres, which can support say 200 people comfortably if the peasants and lord only reproduce at a stable replacement rate then you would have sufficient land to support the population and therefore you would need no growth.
However, that doesn't make it capitalistic. The lord owns all of the capital (land) and exploits the peasants by taking a small share from each. So the lord gets to live extremely comfortably, the peasants suffer--but survive.
Growth capitalism would be the lord organizing the peasants and conquering neighboring land so the peasants could have more kids and the lord more wealth.
There is a difference. One is unsustainable, the other is sustainable but cruel.
Another example: Someone decides he/she could make a lot of money setting up a company to make underwear. They start out privately held, essentially a large mom-n-pop company, in say, Massechusetts. They make a lot of undies, and since demand is good they add more buildings and make more undies each year. They decide to go public and issue stock. To do this they become a corporation. Now, the company founder still holds onto the majority of stock - they're no longer an owner, they're the majority stockholder which is like an owner but not the same. The corporation now has a CEO and CFO, chief executive and financial officers. Now, there are many other owners of the company's stock, counting on that stock to be worth more over time. The purpose of the CEO and CFO are to do things that make the company worth more. If that involves Wal-Mart type treatment of employees, so be it - they're obligated to do what it takes to make the company worth more. The obvious next choice is to move the manufacturing operations to China and use slave labor. (Although people never think about the wonderful prison-labor inside the US, I guess most have not seen the glossy brochures and catalogs extolling this fine resource.) Now, this company has good undie designers by now, and they're smart enough not to use that itchy thread, so they're really making a lot of undies by now. They need to Grow. Or. Die. so they're doing Nike type things, moving into an impoverished part of the third world, wrecking its farming or fishing industry, then giving its now starving residents a choice: Starve or learn to make undies. And back in the US and other affluent parts of the world, the stockholders are very happy. They drive the SUV to the arboretum to see the "rainforest" exhibit.... (one each of "rainforest" species, in a small clump....).
Now, I might be buying scope probes low and selling high, but I'm not doing what the undie factory is doing - in fact I lack the ambition to hire any employees, and have a real aversion to doing more work than I need to. I'm sure as hell not about to form a corporation and issue stock. My understanding is that Marxist theorists tussled with this also, is the small shopkeeper a member of the evil capitalist class? Is the door to door brush salesman or the guy at a local flea market selling bags of nuts and bolts? They finally had to conclude, No. These people are in reality providing a service, they're service workers. Their service is in distributing the products, and in fact they put quite a lot of labor into this, unlike the capitalists and their stock system who generally only pick up a phone. Whew! This is probably why I work something like 14 hours a day while the capitalists I know of are off yachting across the ocean and building big houses etc.
About the evil of interest, Leanan is as usual dead right - it does not exist in hunter-gatherer societies and is considered evil on a very deep level. Simple farming societies tend to have "exchange-of-favors" economies with careful, even written down, accounting. Hunter-gatherer socities don't even have that, they have gift economies with no careful accounting at all. One person, a bad hunter, may never, and never be able, to pay back all the food and favors they get, but they'll get them anyway. They may enjoy less social esteem than the great hunter but they'll always be fed. Farley Mowat talks about this in detail in his books about the Inuit he lived with. Other writers have observed this also - there's sharing of food, sharing of burdens, just as any small group of people naturally does.
You're talking to people who will question that the sky is really blue
If someone perceives it as only natural to get a yearly $6000 dollar return on $100.000, till debt do us part, and cannot link that to growth, interest, capitalism or plain raping their own ecosystem, that is likely because they think it is "natural". Good luck convincing them it is not. Hey, a tree grows, so I have proved their is growth without capitalism!!
Down the line, their argument is that you can have growth without growth.
I was just told on the phone that there is a wide discussion in Europe about how to let Muslims, who are not allowed to pay interest, borrow money in the West. People can't relate to that, they think interest is "natural". And banks would like to keep it that way. They would also like more customers, but not if they don't pay interest.
All you sweet people, without growth our banking system will collapse. What would it live on? Still it doesn't produce anything of value. It produces growth. And waste.
Yes. That was discussed on in the article I posted about the new UAE oil bourse:
Yes, that is hard to grasp in our neck of the woods, ain't it.
I just finished a review for a magazine of a book named "Satanic Purses" (it's up for worst title of the year, I'm sure), which claims that the whole terrorist thing is overblown, Osama was never very rich etc.
Anyway, the writer talks a lot about the money system, few countries have income tax in the Middle East. Interesting when you realize that "we" went after the charities big time, accusations of cash for weapons, while in reality many an orphanage now lacks donations because these charities are closed.
The Catholic church shook off the usury ban in the Renaissance (the Medici's were very rich bankers, and popes, nudge wink), the Jews at one point were allowed to charge interest to Gentiles, since they were banned from all normal jobs in Europe, and saw no other way of surviving. Then William of Orange sold the right to print money to Willaim Patterson of the Bank of England in 1698 etc.
Good story. But yes, the ban on usury is very much alive in the Arab world.
"it is my opinion that money has value, and time has value, and so anyone who "lets" money for time will incur a cost. i believe societies around the world have devised different mechanims to pay that cost (and associated risk!).".
In my opinion the whole argument about "capitalists" being people who collect "interest" is founded on an insufficiently fuzzy view of money.
Note:
Someone who lets money, as a silent partner, and later collects return (growth!!!) based on his pecentage interest (and of course the outcome of the venture), is a capitalist.
http://cief.wordpress.com/2006/03/
The renters of course. The renters get it from their income of course. Their income is from their jobs of course. Their jobs are part of the current growth capitalistic system of course. That's a silly question--I said in my post that the current economic system is directed to growth NOT income.
The point is there is a difference between income and growth. You can make enough income to sustain yourself without having to have growth. As Leanan points out--debt with interest vs. ownership with income. Debt with interest requires growth. Ownership with income does not.
If I lend you a cow who produces 2 gallons of milk per week and I charge you interest of 1 gallon of milk for the right to use my cow and you need 1 gallon of milk to survive you are just breaking even and never on the way to owning the cow. If you now have a child and you need another 0.5 gallons of milk you need growth (reproduction) of that cow for survival so you must now borrow another cow.
If you purchase a cow who produces 2 gallons of milk per week and you eat 1 gallon you have 1 gallon of surplus to sell. If you have a child you can still support them and have a little left over to sell. You don't need more cows and you've made enough to care for your replacement until you die.
I hope you are now getting my point.
Where does the cow come from, the grass it eats, the calfs it blurbs out?
Out of nowhere? How fast does the grass grow? Let's say fast enough for 10 cows.
What happens when you add number 11? That, buddy, is the essence of growth.
What jobs do the renters have? Raping and pillaging something!!!
Now you know where your rent comes from.
As I said earlier, $6000 for a $100.000 house is insane, if it remains standing for more than 16 years.
Nothing comes from nothing.
You don't have to make personal attacks. Of course something doesn't come from nothing. The grass comes from the soil and the sun.
In reading John Seymour's the Self-Sufficient Life he goes into minute details about how this all occurs. The motto he uses that everything you take from the land must be returned. The cow's poo will be returned to the land. Your poo and your child's poo will be returned to the land. Your body will be returned to the land after your death. Milk you sell can be exchanged for other useful biodegradeable materials. John Seymour owns his animals and his land.
2nd law of thermo will eventually win, but in the meantime we have a lot of energy coming from the sun. Again, my point is the current capitalistic (ownership) system is unsustainable requiring increasing growth on a finite resource background. It will collapse or have to change at least--the only question is when. But income based capitalism (i.e. taking income (or capital) and returning waste (or capital)) can be sustainable. John Seymour takes income (eggs, milk, harvest) to live and then returns this income (poo, compost, ash) to keep his capital at equilibrium.
If the inputs to the system start to decrease, the growth of GDP, and the economic model that most of the world operates on collapses. With the size and complexity of the system, a relatively small disturbance could collapse the entire system.
If you look at the US, we have survived the last 20 years because all the countries of the world have pretended to treat the dollar as a raw input to the system, and treat our continuous increases in the supply of dollars as something of value. If they stop pretending, we will very, very, quickly realize that our production of true inputs to the system are way to small to support even close to our current level of consumption and growth. If you use oil production as a measure of input production to the system, then our GDP should be about 20-25% of current levels. If you use total energy as a measuring stick, our GDP probably drops to 50-60% of current levels.
At some point, the dollar will collapse, and the US standard of living will also collapse
I said the current economic system needs a major (and unlikely to happen) overhaul--I was just debunking the statement that capitalism needs growth. It doesn't except to supply an increasing population.
Capitalism only means private ownership of property. Rights in the property are given a heirarchy such as landlord vs. tenant. Basically who gets the larger share of the pie. Growth is something different. Growth is about making the pie bigger.
People do need an ever increasing source of income under our current economic system, but it doesn't have to be that way. A business, farm animal, plot of land can produce a steady return sufficient to supply needs without having to grow (increase sales, reproduce the animal, increase land holdings). As many have pointed out here, there is a lot of crap we have that we don't need, but sadly without increasing our purchasing of that crap the current growth-based system implodes.
The Depression is the perfect example. The amount of buildings, people, raw materials, livestock, food (well excluding the Dust Bowl), were the same. Nothing was really different except the current monetary system imploded. And it caused a lot of pain. And it looks like were headed that way again. And it looks like it will probably be worse.
You make a good point about POPULATION GROWTH as one of the main drivers for growth in our economy.
In a stable population this variable would be eliminated.
Someone else touched on the idea of INFLATION feeding into growth. IMO, our hyper-fiat money system and its associated fractional reserve banking (as the fraction quickly approaches zero) is a KEY COMPONENT of the growth paradigm. Fractional reserve banking as practiced today is the root source of an endless parade of economic bubbles with booms and busts coming in waves that are picking up amplitude and frequency. At this point, the journey down from boom to bust is becoming steeper and faster - perhaps not unlike the depletion of fossil fuels.
BTW, for a fascinating look at the corruption and cronyism behind the creation of the Federal Reserve read the book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
With PO we aren't talking about a steady state economy we are talking about a declining economy:
As energy prices climb and become rationed, your net income from this apt. building will decline and eventually go negative. As the prices of costs to maintain your building you will pass those costs on, just like every business. But wages will not be able to keep up with rising costs. Consumers will cut back spending and business will sell less goods and services and business will downsize to the decreased demand. Some workers will not be able to find jobs as unemployment climbs and you will need to evict tenants that can no longer pay (if you can)
>Today's economy is obsessed with growth because of the consumer society and population increases. But capitalism does not need consumerism to sustain.
Perhaps, but without growth to maintain the ever increasing population, the standard of living must decline. Increasing population coupled with declining resources spells disaster. In the end, its modern civilization and quality of life that counts.
But, for a lot of rates of oil depletion, the fear that the overall economy will decline far, or forever, may be unjustified.
FWIW, I think it is wrong to make a prediction now, in 2006, based on any single depletion rate. We don't know. We should be up front about that.
Even a shallow decline has significant economic ramifications. For instance what happened to the US economy after 1971 (excluding the 1973 Oil embargo). How well was the US economy during the 1970s? Stagflation.
It will be even worse this round since there are a lot more heavy players on the global that want oil and we are deep in debt. America is no longer the land of the free, it the land of the indebted.
>FWIW, I think it is wrong to make a prediction now, in 2006, based on any single depletion rate. We don't know. We should be up front about that.
Perhaps, but there are clear warning signs reading "Danger ahead". The sign doesn't say how far ahead the danger is but it would be in your best interest to heed its warning. You can either begin to make preparations now and hope for the best or continue to ignore them. Its up to you.
>You've made several posts today that imply a very steep decline in oil production. I'll accept that for very steep declines these fears are justified.
- 50% of global oil production comes from the dozen largest fields, and all of them are using water injection or some other advance recovery techniques to maintain production, some for decades. Since when in the last 10 years did we start developing an additional 42 mmb/d production to replace these fields? Do you think will find 42 mmb/d of new production tommorow, next month, next year, in the next 10 years? You're betting on that these senior fields will continue to produce multiple mmb/d for decades to come.
- We have solid evidence that three these fields (North Sea, Cantarell & Burgan) are experience significant production declines, and that the declines are much more steeper than anyone had predicted. We also have that unverfied claims that production in Ghawar is also declining.
- The TOD partipants that are or were directly involved in conventional production say we have have a problem and the declines will be significant.
- All of the major protential providences except for Antarica have be well explored. All of the easy finds have been discovered and develop. Virtual all new projects are secondary fields discovery decades ago but were never developed because they were deemed too small to be economical.
- We have widespread nationization of Oil and gas assets, Venzuela, Bolivia, Chad, Russia, etc. Why do you think all these nations are doing this?
What other prove do you need:You been diagnosed with a life threating but operable form of cancer. Do you continue to wait until you get severe symptoms before getting the operation, because its not serious enough to be concerned with yet? "But Doctor I feel fine!"
Hopefully he is not that clever as to figure out that each of his "diffuse" comments is an opportunity for us to display counter arguments.
How could I answer that without being flogged and banned for "tracking someone"?
Care to clarify this?
If there is at least a strong minority for this at TOD and no veto from the editors I may try, for you also and a few others (no guarantee of results however).
No, there is NOTHING personal in those attacks, I am not attacking the individuals but their JOBS!
I don't enjoy that.
Too bad, I specially apologize for your displeasure, but given you are not my only audience I will not comply to your request.
Where do you see us in 100 years. All dead? Most of us dead and the rest living on farms? Once again, if you see us going straight off the cliff and then down till we hit the rocks at the bottom, why are you even talking about capitalism? Such statements have nothing to do with capitalism at all, but rather the idea that energy is going to run out rapidly and everything will collapse. Capitalism is just collateral damage in your scenario.
However, the truth is, assuming humans survive and reach a new equilibrium, renewed growth is probably in the cards at some point in the future. Our growth in the first place is not because of oil as some like to claim, it's because of us learning how to use oil (as well as coal and other sources of energy). The idea that we're going to be helpless when oil starts running out is not giving us enough credit. We don't necessarily even have to hit rock bottom before returning to growth either.
There are other sources of energy out there besides oil. If there wasn't, I guess we'd be pretty screwed. As it is, we're in for a bumpy ride. But assuming there can be no replacement for oil, nor that we can ever reach a new equilibrium point even if we do suffer from negative growth is ridiculous. I still don't think your argument has much to do with capitalism at all.
I disagree. I do not think growth is inevitable. I think we'll be held in check by Malthusian forces.
What I think is most likely to happen: a return to feudalism.
What I want to happen: we transition to sustainability while maintaining a fairly egalitarian society (as described in Diamond's Collapse). I don't think it's likely, alas, but it's what I hope for.
We should also remember that human history is at least 100,000 years long and that these massively complex surplus extraction based "civilization" modes of societal organization are only about 5,000 years old. We tend to see civilization as an improvement, but that is from our perspective within the civilization. Who are we to say that the quality of life (however that may have been defined in those past societies) wasn't better than what we have, from their perspective?
On points 1-5, they are certainly concerns, but there is also certainly not a TOD endorsed official rate of global depletion.
And I still have Stuar Staniford as a reference on a slow rate of decline (though I always lose the "slow squeeze" link).
So sure, prepare for the range of possible futures, that's what brains were built for.
... I do wait for the new Congressional accountabilty office report (November?) with interest.
Will there ever be a "peak information?"
In an economy where information is already bought and sold, that implies one kind of growth is possible, IMO.
We are already well past "peak information" but it works in reverse of other peaks, there is TOO MUCH information for anyone to handle.
It could also be called "peak brain" of "peak NSA" of "peak TIA".
and note that "growth" even by the oil=GDP fallacy only stops when we "run out of oil!!"
I thought we just said no one suggested that we were running out of oil!!!
At some future very low production, when all the efficiency moves have been tried, and all the non-critical uses have been discarded ... then at that point we better hope that solar/wind is figured out.
When is that though? A century? To really bottom out?
The market has exploited cheap oil to grow GDP, no doubt.
The interesting question is how the market (and non-market players in our societies) will respond to expensive oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
And someone (I can't remember at the moment, sorry) once said: Only economists and madmen believe that infinite growth is possible in a finite world.
Professor Max-Neef