Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Will our economy survive continuous Oil/Energy decline?
Yes
13%
[ 36 ]
No
64%
[ 167 ]
maybe (see comments)
13%
[ 35 ]
I don't know
7%
[ 20 ]
Total Votes : 258
Author
Message
Revi Fusion
Joined: Apr 25, 2005 Posts: 3531 Location: Maine
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
I don't know about the society in general, but an individual person can get ahead by saving money and not buying as much fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is a waste. You pay and it gets burned up. It isn't like a capital improvement that keeps paying and paying. They just eat your money. We save over $2550 a year from the changes we've made in our household. We use half the fossil fuel we used 5 years ago. Click on the pics for more info:
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:41 am Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
Revi wrote:
I don't know about the society in general, but an individual person can get ahead by saving money and not buying as much fossil fuel. Fossil fuel is a waste. You pay and it gets burned up. It isn't like a capital improvement that keeps paying and paying. They just eat your money. We save over $2550 a year from the changes we've made in our household. We use half the fossil fuel we used 5 years ago. Click on the pics for more info:
Absolutely, Revi, burning petrol in your gas tank or fuel oil to heat your home is an expense plain and simple. It always is a sunk cost. Even if prices are low it pays to use less and save to invest the difference. _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Feb 27, 2007 Posts: 77 Location: Out in the middle of nowhere.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
kokoda wrote:
Capitalism is self serving. Capitalism is also self destructive.
Capitalism isn’t self-destructive, the people are self-destructive! It’s the runaway population that’s the real problem, not how we do business! That business is what puts food on our plates!
kokoda wrote:
But people don't want the responsibility of saving the world ... thats why we elect governments.
Yes ... you are right there are a number of firms working towards finding solutions to oil depletion ... but wouldn't it be so much easier if the government of the day actually helped with this endeavour? What would be wrong with a government actually having a plan and also having the gumption to follow it through?
It would be helpful if the government lent support to this endeavor, but the problem is not that issue, it’s the problem of the government usually tending to meddle too far and screw it all up much more than the opposite. All good intentions aside, many of their actions cause more grief than they prevent. If we had competent leaders, we’d be OK, but we don’t. The answer to why we don’t can be found in my signature below. Communism isn’t the answer either, since there’s still a fallible and way too often greedy and self-serving leader at the top of the chain that rules by nothing more than force of arms and fear. In a democracy such as here in the US, the voters, otherwise known as “we the people” are the real culprit, since they put the leaders into place. This doesn’t surprise me one bit, since the average voter is too self-interested to care enough to make informed decisions concerning the votes they place. They are too busy trying to either get rich at someone else’s expense, or not work at all at everyone’s expense. It can’t go on forever of course, and we’ll have to take what comes. So it boils down to the people being the real problem, too many, too uncaring, and too damned dumb. But we can be aware ourselves, and make our votes count at the very least. It has to start somewhere, and that’s the only reason I’m even here at PO.com. If I didn’t care like so many of the rest, I’d be drinking beer and trying to get laid right now, rather than doing all this keyboard banging. Cheers, and meaning you just gotta laugh about it all, or you’ll go nuts!
MrBill wrote:
Regulation and control by governments are fine. So long as they are themselves controlled by an educated electorate, are not tainted by corruption and so long as the tyranny of the majority does not trample innovation, but instead encourages it.
He said it, I said it, now if we can only get the majority to say it. It takes each individual step to walk around the world, one step at a time. _________________ They understand the fact that true democracy is nothing but a fallacy whereby idiots are elected into power and these idiots then have to cater to the morons that elected them in the first place.
Sol Palha
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
How about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...
ok that is extremely thin
if one wanted to create economic growth through people buying things and services that do not consume INCREASINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE amounts of energy perhaps virtual shopping is a possibility?
people want to complement their sense of identity through ownership... thats how all that consumerism works is it not?
How about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...
ok that is extremely thin
Not really. I don't personally care for it as an idea, but barring a cataclysmic event, it would take generations to re-educate people into that kind of mentality. Even worse, the entire time you're trying to re-educate people, you'd be competing with Madison Avenue and the Advertising Industry, which is the driving force behind consumerism.
mididoctors wrote:
if one wanted to create economic growth through people buying things and services that do not consume INCREASINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE amounts of energy perhaps virtual shopping is a possibility?
That ability is maxed out. Even now, people are finding that what they see on the internet isn't what arrives at their door. Virtual shopping is fine for books and music and a few other things, but for the most part people want to examine what they're going to purchase before hand, especially if they're going to spend lot's of money.
How about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...
ok that is extremely thin
Not really. I don't personally care for it as an idea, but barring a cataclysmic event, it would take generations to re-educate people into that kind of mentality. Even worse, the entire time you're trying to re-educate people, you'd be competing with Madison Avenue and the Advertising Industry, which is the driving force behind consumerism.
mididoctors wrote:
if one wanted to create economic growth through people buying things and services that do not consume INCREASINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE amounts of energy perhaps virtual shopping is a possibility?
That ability is maxed out. Even now, people are finding that what they see on the internet isn't what arrives at their door. Virtual shopping is fine for books and music and a few other things, but for the most part people want to examine what they're going to purchase before hand, especially if they're going to spend lot's of money.
I think you misunderstand me.. I mean the things they buy never arrive at the front door because they are virtual things.... for their online/cyber exsistence
madison avenue is not a competitor in such a scenario...it is selling these virtual items (ie virtual things) as it would real things
I don't see why it should take generations to educate people... huge transitions in society can take place relatively quickly.. people are either going to get into it or not.
the main problem with the idea IMO is its nonsense..ie people will never go for it.. but the again people do think this new low profile shaving unit is the best a man can get..so you never know
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 3:15 am Post subject:
MonteQuest wrote:
Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy. I'm not singling you out, Jack, just using your quote for a reference point. Get rid of the old gas guzzlers? To whom? The side of the road or the junkyard? Too many people here do not understand the far-reaching repercussions of rising fuel costs.
All fuel related jobs involving "leisure fuel use" will be gone over night, along with all the industries behind them. Does anyone actually think people are going to still buy boats, motorhomes, private airplanes, yachts, jet-skis, snowmobiles, rent cars, leave their lights on, run air conditioners, and go on vacation when gas is $7.00 a gallon?
Old thread. But it makes me laugh hearing yanks carry on like that about how $7 for gasoline (or petrol, as we call it) would destroy the economy.
Lets see, I pay A$1.30 a litre at the moment. At current exchange rates, that's more like US$1.10. As I understand, there's four litres in a gallon (in round figures), thus I fill up my car and motorbike paying the Australian dollar equivalent of $4.50/gallon.
I use something like 50L of petrol a fortnight, so even at the equivalent of the $7/gallon that (it is said) would destroy the economy and reduce everyone to sitting on the footpath with wooden bowls, my fuel bill would be around A$100 a fortnight. That's shared between two people, and we could comfortably afford it. It wouldn't even change our consumption pattern - $2 a litre we'd notice but it wouldn't hurt enough to change the way we do things. $5 a litre (roughly $16/gallon in US dollars) would be more like it - I'd drive the car less and ride the motorbike more, and probably get the tram to work, if I could physically get on it.
Those who drive guzzling 4WD's (SUV's, as you Americans call them) and who choose to live out in suburbia beyond the tram tracks might feel the pinch at two bucks a litre. They might even have to think about buying a smaller car or getting the train to work. Poor dears.
And we have the third-cheapest fuel in the OECD. The Euros already pay equivalent of $7/gallon or more. Has it destroyed their economy?
The gradual rise in fuel prices that we're now seeing is going to be a very good thing. It's encouraging people who used to pay 80c a litre for petrol to think twice when they buy their next car because now it's $1.30. Sure, they whinge, but they consider smaller cars for the next purchase. The longer the prices climb gradually without skyrocketing, the better adapted we'll be.
And this, again, is why I say the United States will fare worse than most in the post-peak world. Because they think $7 a gallon for fuel is ridiculous and will cause the sky to fall in.
How about if consumerism was sublimated into a virtual realm.. identity expressed through consumption and material ownership could be replaced by a low energy virtual consumer society where ones bling is virtual...
ok that is extremely thin
Not really. I don't personally care for it as an idea, but barring a cataclysmic event, it would take generations to re-educate people into that kind of mentality. Even worse, the entire time you're trying to re-educate people, you'd be competing with Madison Avenue and the Advertising Industry, which is the driving force behind consumerism.
mididoctors wrote:
if one wanted to create economic growth through people buying things and services that do not consume INCREASINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE amounts of energy perhaps virtual shopping is a possibility?
That ability is maxed out. Even now, people are finding that what they see on the internet isn't what arrives at their door. Virtual shopping is fine for books and music and a few other things, but for the most part people want to examine what they're going to purchase before hand, especially if they're going to spend lot's of money.
I think you misunderstand me.. I mean the things they buy never arrive at the front door because they are virtual things.... for their online/cyber exsistence
Sorry, I did misunderstand you. However, what you're suggesting is that consumerism is an addiction, perhaps even a neurosis, and people can get their "fix" buying virtual things, which maybe isn't too far off the mark.
mididoctors wrote:
I don't see why it should take generations to educate people... huge transitions in society can take place relatively quickly...
Well, yes they can, even more rapidly if Mao, Lenin or Pol Pot are providing guidance.
Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy. I'm not singling you out, Jack, just using your quote for a reference point. Get rid of the old gas guzzlers? To whom? The side of the road or the junkyard? Too many people here do not understand the far-reaching repercussions of rising fuel costs.
All fuel related jobs involving "leisure fuel use" will be gone over night, along with all the industries behind them. Does anyone actually think people are going to still buy boats, motorhomes, private airplanes, yachts, jet-skis, snowmobiles, rent cars, leave their lights on, run air conditioners, and go on vacation when gas is $7.00 a gallon?
Old thread. But it makes me laugh hearing yanks carry on like that about how $7 for gasoline (or petrol, as we call it) would destroy the economy.
Lets see, I pay A$1.30 a litre at the moment. At current exchange rates, that's more like US$1.10. As I understand, there's four litres in a gallon (in round figures), thus I fill up my car and motorbike paying the Australian dollar equivalent of $4.50/gallon.
It's important to understand that the US has a "car culture" and that everything revolves around "the car."
mididoctors wrote:
The gradual rise in fuel prices that we're now seeing is going to be a very good thing. It's encouraging people who used to pay 80c a litre for petrol to think twice when they buy their next car because now it's $1.30. Sure, they whinge, but they consider smaller cars for the next purchase. The longer the prices climb gradually without skyrocketing, the better adapted we'll be.
And this, again, is why I say the United States will fare worse than most in the post-peak world. Because they think $7 a gallon for fuel is ridiculous and will cause the sky to fall in.
A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.
The only way people in the US can cut fuel costs is to use public transit. In the county I live in, 400,000 have no immediate access to public transit (they have to drive 10 to 20 minutes to a neighboring township), 300,000 have limited access to public tranist (they have 2 or 3 "express" buses in the morning and 2-3 in the evening), and the other 300,000 have some access to public transit. The public transit routes are the same ones in use since the 1950s before suburbia existed. Unless you work in the central down-town district, or on the way, you'll have to transfer buses 2 or 3 times, and you still might have to walk 1-3 miles to work assuming you work anywhere near a bus route in the first place. The neighboring 5 counties have no public transit so if you work there like many people do, or live there and work here like the majority do, you're screwed.
The national government could provide funding to the regional public transportation authorities to expand both bus service and bus routes, but I don't see where they will be able to find the money.
Alas, there are many who cannot cut their fuel costs for any number of reasons. People reduce consumer spending to pay for fuel, and that affects lots of businesses. Starbucks and those fast-food restaurants that rely on commuters get hit first. They cut back on employees because of reduced sales, then the bigger restaurants get hit. Inventories start piling up at retail shops and they cut back orders, then manufacturers cut back over-time. It continues to get worse, then the lay-offs start (or reduction in hours for non-union workers).
Fuel prices continue to rise, as do the prices of consumer goods. Wages are stagnant. Then more layoffs and the plant closings start. The US economy will be contracting and in negative growth long before you'll see $7/gallon.
I predict that within 10 years, the percentage of single parent families will drop from 31% to less than 12%. Marriages of convenience for money's sake. About 26% of Americans live alone now, and that will probably be cut in half also as people make other living arrangements to save money or more correctly they'll be making other living arrangements just to have money.
The run up to PO will slowly crush the US economy like a giant anaconda. By the time PO arrives, PO will be passe and just a minor footnote in history for most Americans, who will be pre-occupied with other more important things, like how to set up a clothes line to hang clothes out to dry and learning the fine art of making home-made beer, wine and spirits, since they won't be able to afford to buy it.
I think it's funny. Maybe it will teach them a lesson in humility, but I doubt it. They'll just find some excuse to invade Venezuela and take their oil.
Joined: May 13, 2007 Posts: 656 Location: Athabasca, Alberta
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
I have heard the oil peaked in the USA in 1977 and that world oil will peak somewhere between 2010 and 2018. Now as I see it everyone then worries about depleating oil production, the tail of the bell curve. I believe because of recovery technology this tail will at first be quite sharp, then will gradually become skewed declining slowly to zero.
The main restaints are the cost and timing of the recovery. The higher the price of oil the more the incentives to try tertiary and possibly quaternary recovery methods.
Additionally, an oil resevoir has a lot of oil left in it even after various recovery techniques have been implemented, possibly the only exception to this being in situ burning.
However, be warned this type of oil will not be cheap and may reach such a cost as to only be used for essential goods and services.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 7:24 am Post subject:
Mircea wrote:
It's important to understand that the US has a "car culture" and that everything revolves around "the car."
A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.
Well, Americans will adapt or perish, I suppose. But the Euros and Japanese seem to be getting along OK at prices equivalent to $7+ a gallon, and I pay $4.50 and barely notice it.
If the Yanks are so entrenched in this 'car culture' and so unable to change it, then they probably have too faint a constitution for what's around the corner. But I don't think they are. There's nothing inherent in being American that means you'll develop some terrible disease if you get into a small car or touch a bicycle.
Bingo! Our entire economy is geared to the cheap price of oil. 40% of our oil goes to gasoline. The big consumer of fuel is the airlines. Anything over $30/barrel and they can not operate at a profit. Passing on the increase to consumers at 10,000 flights/day would cascade through the economy. Look at how much effect 911 had. Like I said before, it is the canary in the mineshaft.
Sorry to quote a very old post, but now that oil is well above $30 a barrel, are you suggesting that airlines no longer operate at a profit? Or has your thinking changed over the last 3 years now you have more knowledge on the matter?
Just curious, cause the cliff seems so damn close now....
Are you kidding? $7/gal gasoline would utterly destroy any economy.
A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.
I think it's funny. Maybe it will teach them a lesson in humility, but I doubt it. They'll just find some excuse to invade Venezuela and take their oil.
Quoted patchwork for emphasis - I visited Korea in May, and people there were doing very well on 6 dollar a gallon gas. Just a lot fewer cars (per capita) on the roads. As far as the U.S., gas is still incredibly cheap here (at 3.00). Even when it's spiked up to 3.30 or so, I do not notice any real slow down in people's ridiculous waste of the resource. They still shuttle Skip and Jen into the soccer games and practices every day. When I see suburbia start to think about conserving, I'll believe demand destruction can work here.
It'll take at least 5.00/gallon to make a dent here.
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Economic growth with declining energy?
I think that economic growth is possible with declining energy, but only for those who "get it". As an example, the lobstermen here on the coast of Maine use about $250 worth of diesel per day to get their catch. If they put in solar/electric trap haulers and used a much smaller diesel they could cut their cost in half. They would be catching the same amount for half the cost. They might still be able to compete. This is just an example. The carpenter that uses a small pickup is keeping more of what he earns. Anyone who switches to more efficient ways of doing things will do better. Those who don't will be out of business. That's just the way it goes.
I just read 1000 Barrels per Second. He says the same thing. Now is the time to change things. This isn't going away. Crisis is opportunity.
Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject:
Ender wrote:
Mircea wrote:
It's important to understand that the US has a "car culture" and that everything revolves around "the car."
A post-peak world? No way. The US will bite the dust in the pre-peak world. A lot of economists are saying the US can handle $4/gallon in the short term. I don't see any evidence of that. The US could barely manage at $3.50/gallon and it's $3.29 where I'm at and people are already slashing their wrists.
Well, Americans will adapt or perish, I suppose. But the Euros and Japanese seem to be getting along OK at prices equivalent to $7+ a gallon, and I pay $4.50 and barely notice it.
If the Yanks are so entrenched in this 'car culture' and so unable to change it, then they probably have too faint a constitution for what's around the corner. But I don't think they are. There's nothing inherent in being American that means you'll develop some terrible disease if you get into a small car or touch a bicycle.
Great stuff!! And indeed. a bicyclist is considered not even really human.
Several months ago, I tried playing "my" (rented) violin for tips on University Avenue in Palo Alto. I made something like $1.50 lol. Mainly because I was not very good, I didn't have much volume, and I should have been standing up, jigging around a bit, and playing something simple'n'bouncy like some fiddle tune stuff. But the looks I got from people were like I'd expect to get if I were the anthrax virus.
One thing you'll see over and over again if you're a street musician is, the little kids love it! They'll rivet their attention on you, and dance if t there's any rhythm at all, and it's just heavenly. Their parents always hate this, and will drag them away, since as Good Americans(tm) they have to learn to be pleasure-avoidant.
Which brings us back to bicycles and even small cars. Small cars are fun to drive, and riding a bicycle makes you feel great. These are Un-American Values (tm) and have to be suppressed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
