Quote:
and speculators are thinking toward 2050 and beyond?
What non-free market entity is?
When will we run out of oil?
and speculators are thinking toward 2050 and beyond?
What non-free market entity is?
When will we run out of oil?
CHINA and KUWAIT : believe it involves ...
- Thread starter smokey1
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
What non-free market entity is?
Answer a question with a question.
Free market or otherwise, I ASSURE you ..many are thinking about it. Some are worried about it ..and surely some are figuring a way to capitalize on it ..for better or worse.
Do you disagree with that?
Quote:
When will we run out of oil?
I cannot tell when ..but there is one thing that is assured, we will. Oil production has a history that is repeatable and validated since the stuff was discovered.
As you've ignored before, we're 5% of the global population ..yet consume 25% of the energy production. With expanding global population ..and "free market" globalization ..
..just what does your common sense mathematics tell you? It's really very simple. Heck, just quadruple the current global output and JUST even out the distribution. What results puke out of your calculator? Then PRETEND that you can sustain it indefinitely.
When will we run out of a life as we know it?
What non-free market entity is?
Answer a question with a question.
Free market or otherwise, I ASSURE you ..many are thinking about it. Some are worried about it ..and surely some are figuring a way to capitalize on it ..for better or worse.
Do you disagree with that?
Quote:
When will we run out of oil?
I cannot tell when ..but there is one thing that is assured, we will. Oil production has a history that is repeatable and validated since the stuff was discovered.
As you've ignored before, we're 5% of the global population ..yet consume 25% of the energy production. With expanding global population ..and "free market" globalization ..
..just what does your common sense mathematics tell you? It's really very simple. Heck, just quadruple the current global output and JUST even out the distribution. What results puke out of your calculator? Then PRETEND that you can sustain it indefinitely.
When will we run out of a life as we know it?
How can this non-free market entity master plan 50, 100, 1000 years into the future if they can't even determine how long resources will last? This should be a simple and basic question for those promoting central planning.
This entity should be able to, with great precision, be able to tell when life as we know it will fall apart.
So far, all such predictions have been extraordinarily wrong. And yet, some people think this same small group of "experts" should control global resource allocation and population control.
This entity should be able to, with great precision, be able to tell when life as we know it will fall apart.
So far, all such predictions have been extraordinarily wrong. And yet, some people think this same small group of "experts" should control global resource allocation and population control.
Tempest, just answer the question...it's not about central planning, just I honestly want to know.
Where will the market get it's signals from in an exponential growth environment, when each doubling period consumes as much as all of history combined ?
How will the market do a complete 180 degree turn, inclusive of developing "alternatives" sufficient to meet demand, in a single doubling period ?
Where will the market get it's signals from in an exponential growth environment, when each doubling period consumes as much as all of history combined ?
How will the market do a complete 180 degree turn, inclusive of developing "alternatives" sufficient to meet demand, in a single doubling period ?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It won't have to, Shannow. It doesn't matter if 99% of the worlds resources are consumed ..and 99% of the worlds population expires in the process. "The Market" will still distribute what's left to whomever is left on a supply and demand basis.
"The Market" has no sense of success or failure to provide anything. It's just a distribution system.
That is, it has no assurance, either expressed or implied, of merchantability in terms of suitability to provide for humankind. Just those who can pay for what's there.
"The Market" has no sense of success or failure to provide anything. It's just a distribution system.
That is, it has no assurance, either expressed or implied, of merchantability in terms of suitability to provide for humankind. Just those who can pay for what's there.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Tempest, just answer the question...it's not about central planning, just I honestly want to know.
Where will the market get it's signals from in an exponential growth environment, when each doubling period consumes as much as all of history combined ?
How will the market do a complete 180 degree turn, inclusive of developing "alternatives" sufficient to meet demand, in a single doubling period ?
Can you please show me examples of where it hasn't? We have oil due to the market. We continue to have oil due the market as well as expanded supply (technology advancements). We would have more oil (and lower prices) if the market were allowed to function without "outside" interference.
We went from ~$2 gas to $4+ gas in less than a year and it caused a real decrease in usage. I'm not sure what more evidence you want that that.
Quote:
It is normal for companies to discover billions of barrels of new oil every year, but this year’s pace is unusually brisk. New oil discoveries have totaled about 10 billion barrels in the first half of the year, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. If discoveries continue at that pace through year-end, they are likely to reach the highest level since 2000.
While recent years have featured speculation about a coming peak and subsequent decline in oil production, people in the industry say there is still plenty of oil in the ground, especially beneath the ocean floor, even if finding and extracting it is becoming harder. They say that prices and the pace of technological improvement remain the principal factors governing oil production capacity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/business/energy-environment/24oil.html
Tempest, just answer the question...it's not about central planning, just I honestly want to know.
Where will the market get it's signals from in an exponential growth environment, when each doubling period consumes as much as all of history combined ?
How will the market do a complete 180 degree turn, inclusive of developing "alternatives" sufficient to meet demand, in a single doubling period ?
Can you please show me examples of where it hasn't? We have oil due to the market. We continue to have oil due the market as well as expanded supply (technology advancements). We would have more oil (and lower prices) if the market were allowed to function without "outside" interference.
We went from ~$2 gas to $4+ gas in less than a year and it caused a real decrease in usage. I'm not sure what more evidence you want that that.
Quote:
It is normal for companies to discover billions of barrels of new oil every year, but this year’s pace is unusually brisk. New oil discoveries have totaled about 10 billion barrels in the first half of the year, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. If discoveries continue at that pace through year-end, they are likely to reach the highest level since 2000.
While recent years have featured speculation about a coming peak and subsequent decline in oil production, people in the industry say there is still plenty of oil in the ground, especially beneath the ocean floor, even if finding and extracting it is becoming harder. They say that prices and the pace of technological improvement remain the principal factors governing oil production capacity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/business/energy-environment/24oil.html
Whaling is actually a perfect example of the market at work. Are we still dependant on whale oil? NO. Do we currently have BETTER alternatives to whale oil at lower prices? YES.
How much does a gallon of whale oil cost compared to a gallon of crude? It was the market that gave us these things.
So it is quite accurate to say that petroleum technology "saved the whales".
Quote:
Turning attention to the price data, we may note first how expensive whale oil was in comparison with the crude oil that replaced it. Even at its lowest historical prices, in the 1820s, the least expensive type of oil (whale oil) was priced at more than $200 (2003$) a barrel (42 gallons). At its highest price level (1855) Sperm Whale oil sold at more than $35 (2003$) a gallon, namely almost $1500 (2003$) a barrel (!). This tells us something about how difficult it may be to substitute fossil fuels with "biofuels" (bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, or other). Without the support of fertilizers, irrigation, transportation, and agricultural machinery, which all depend on fossil fuels, biofuels would probably cost as much today as whale oil did in the 19th Century. It also shows what an incredible bonanza crude oil has been. When kerosene became first available in the 1860s, a barrel of crude oil sold for some $90 a barrel in to-day's money (data from www.wtrg.com). In the 1870-80s it had already fallen to values in the order of $20 (2003$) a barrel, comparable with modern prices.
Quote:
In his 1878 book, Alexander Starbuck cited several factors for the decline of production of the whale fisheries in times that for him were recent. He seems to have believed that it was not the extermination of the whales that caused the decline but, rather, the increase of the human population which led to "an increase in consumption beyond the power of the fishery to supply." But it was also clear to him that the cost and the length of voyages had increased beyond reasonable limits. He did cite "the scarcity and shyness of whales" as a problem, but he stops short of saying that the whale stock was depleted beyond recovery. Most likely, the concept of "extinction" was alien to him, as it was to most of his contemporaries.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3338
How much does a gallon of whale oil cost compared to a gallon of crude? It was the market that gave us these things.
So it is quite accurate to say that petroleum technology "saved the whales".
Quote:
Turning attention to the price data, we may note first how expensive whale oil was in comparison with the crude oil that replaced it. Even at its lowest historical prices, in the 1820s, the least expensive type of oil (whale oil) was priced at more than $200 (2003$) a barrel (42 gallons). At its highest price level (1855) Sperm Whale oil sold at more than $35 (2003$) a gallon, namely almost $1500 (2003$) a barrel (!). This tells us something about how difficult it may be to substitute fossil fuels with "biofuels" (bio-ethanol, bio-diesel, or other). Without the support of fertilizers, irrigation, transportation, and agricultural machinery, which all depend on fossil fuels, biofuels would probably cost as much today as whale oil did in the 19th Century. It also shows what an incredible bonanza crude oil has been. When kerosene became first available in the 1860s, a barrel of crude oil sold for some $90 a barrel in to-day's money (data from www.wtrg.com). In the 1870-80s it had already fallen to values in the order of $20 (2003$) a barrel, comparable with modern prices.
Quote:
In his 1878 book, Alexander Starbuck cited several factors for the decline of production of the whale fisheries in times that for him were recent. He seems to have believed that it was not the extermination of the whales that caused the decline but, rather, the increase of the human population which led to "an increase in consumption beyond the power of the fishery to supply." But it was also clear to him that the cost and the length of voyages had increased beyond reasonable limits. He did cite "the scarcity and shyness of whales" as a problem, but he stops short of saying that the whale stock was depleted beyond recovery. Most likely, the concept of "extinction" was alien to him, as it was to most of his contemporaries.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3338
Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
I agree with Gary. ...Pure capitalism only benefits a select few and is detrimental to the working class, which is why I am not a proponent of stripping away government oversight simply to say that we have decreased the size and role of our government.
The other side of the coin is excessive government oversight and taxation. Though I support and voted for Obama, most of my values align more closely with the Republican platform. Unfortunately, neither party has understood, let alone practiced, the basic principle of "Fiscal Responsibility" for far too long. Why do we continue to spend money that we do not have? ... Long story short, I am all for doing away pork barrel projects, giveaway programs and buying "allies" under the guise of foreign aid ($50+ Billion in 2009 alone). Why do we continue to operate military installations around the globe while our borders remain unsecured? I wonder how many nations operate military installations on foreign soil?
Again, I think that it is time for the United States to protect jobs here at home. If this means imposing tariffs and quotas on goods produced in other countries, then so be it. Corporations will only manufacture and sell their products in the United States when the economics make it worthwhile for them to do so. The only alternative is to reduce our wages and standard of living to the point that we can compete with countries like China. Imagine what the United States would look like if we allow that to happen....
If your first suggestion was followed -- sharply reducing government spending, by eliminating excessive government involvement in nearly every aspect of our lives -- then there would be no Treasury debt to sell to China. Then China's trade surplus would shrink, because it would have to buy goods instead of paper assets with the dollars it acquires.
Remember that trade does not take place between countries, it takes place between individuals. Companies that import and export are merely intermediaries. Tariffs are taxes paid by consumers, like a targeted sales tax -- the higher the tax, the less that consumers will choose to buy.
The problems with protectionism are almost too many to count. First, it invites retaliation which impoverishes everyone. Second, it punishes domestic consumers directly, and only secondarily it might punish foreign producers. Third, consumers might not decide to buy a domestic alternative, they might buy something totally different. If the price of goods from China rose sharply, consumers might decide to buy goods from India or Korea or Brazil... not from the US, which I presume is the intent.
Now, if you say that the US should discourage imports from EVERY country, that would be discarding every bit of economic knowledge obtained since at least 1776 when Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations". Are you that much smarter than all those who developed a free-trade consensus these last 230+ years?
It is theoretically possible that wages and the standard of living in the US could stagnate and indeed decline versus China and other fast-growing nations. The means of preventing this are known, only the will is missing. Politicians who favor redistribution of wealth and discourage the creation of wealth are now firmly in control of our government, because the American people elected them.
I agree with Gary. ...Pure capitalism only benefits a select few and is detrimental to the working class, which is why I am not a proponent of stripping away government oversight simply to say that we have decreased the size and role of our government.
The other side of the coin is excessive government oversight and taxation. Though I support and voted for Obama, most of my values align more closely with the Republican platform. Unfortunately, neither party has understood, let alone practiced, the basic principle of "Fiscal Responsibility" for far too long. Why do we continue to spend money that we do not have? ... Long story short, I am all for doing away pork barrel projects, giveaway programs and buying "allies" under the guise of foreign aid ($50+ Billion in 2009 alone). Why do we continue to operate military installations around the globe while our borders remain unsecured? I wonder how many nations operate military installations on foreign soil?
Again, I think that it is time for the United States to protect jobs here at home. If this means imposing tariffs and quotas on goods produced in other countries, then so be it. Corporations will only manufacture and sell their products in the United States when the economics make it worthwhile for them to do so. The only alternative is to reduce our wages and standard of living to the point that we can compete with countries like China. Imagine what the United States would look like if we allow that to happen....
If your first suggestion was followed -- sharply reducing government spending, by eliminating excessive government involvement in nearly every aspect of our lives -- then there would be no Treasury debt to sell to China. Then China's trade surplus would shrink, because it would have to buy goods instead of paper assets with the dollars it acquires.
Remember that trade does not take place between countries, it takes place between individuals. Companies that import and export are merely intermediaries. Tariffs are taxes paid by consumers, like a targeted sales tax -- the higher the tax, the less that consumers will choose to buy.
The problems with protectionism are almost too many to count. First, it invites retaliation which impoverishes everyone. Second, it punishes domestic consumers directly, and only secondarily it might punish foreign producers. Third, consumers might not decide to buy a domestic alternative, they might buy something totally different. If the price of goods from China rose sharply, consumers might decide to buy goods from India or Korea or Brazil... not from the US, which I presume is the intent.
Now, if you say that the US should discourage imports from EVERY country, that would be discarding every bit of economic knowledge obtained since at least 1776 when Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations". Are you that much smarter than all those who developed a free-trade consensus these last 230+ years?
It is theoretically possible that wages and the standard of living in the US could stagnate and indeed decline versus China and other fast-growing nations. The means of preventing this are known, only the will is missing. Politicians who favor redistribution of wealth and discourage the creation of wealth are now firmly in control of our government, because the American people elected them.
As for fishing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/world/americas/01iht-usfish.4.5521465.html
Seems to be a non market problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/world/americas/01iht-usfish.4.5521465.html
Seems to be a non market problem.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Ehrlich's thesis was disproved within 24 months after his book was published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Ehrlich's thesis was disproved within 24 months after his book was published.
Exactly my point.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
If you say the free market, people making decisions for themselves, doesn't work...and some here are...then you have to ask what entity will apportion resources and limit population.
If you say that the free market managed Yankee whaling in a perfect manner, then I doubt your understanding of the free market.
(snip)
Capitalism is the fairest distribution system going. Where supply and demand are totally self regulating. What you totally fail to account for ..acknowledge ..admit ..concede is that there are absolute limits to resources and, currently, no ceiling to demand. The market's ability to foresee these inevitable ..immutable ..and assured collision with these limits is REAL. To ignore it ..pretend it doesn't have REAL meaning ..is just ..well, it's IGNOR(E)ant.
The limit on the number of whales, combined with an increased demand for oil for lighting, cosmetics, and other products, led to a search for alternatives. It was not necessary for government to intervene, to place limits on whaling or limits on the consumption of whale oil -- the marketplace worked it out through the price mechanism.
Markets, except for a very few exceptions, balance unlimited demand against a limited supply... and in some cases, against a diminishing supply. (There are things called inferior goods, which are demanded less as incomes rise. Wikipedia gives as examples such things as generic ice cream, inner-city bus service, and bologna.)
It is not just the futures markets which anticipate the future. Sometimes consumers ignore the future for a while, or focus on something else instead; but then something happens to remind them that the future is not to be ignored. Example: did you see what happened to natural gas prices this past week? People suddenly realized that natural gas is too valuable to just give away for a pittance.
Quote:
If you say the free market, people making decisions for themselves, doesn't work...and some here are...then you have to ask what entity will apportion resources and limit population.
If you say that the free market managed Yankee whaling in a perfect manner, then I doubt your understanding of the free market.
(snip)
Capitalism is the fairest distribution system going. Where supply and demand are totally self regulating. What you totally fail to account for ..acknowledge ..admit ..concede is that there are absolute limits to resources and, currently, no ceiling to demand. The market's ability to foresee these inevitable ..immutable ..and assured collision with these limits is REAL. To ignore it ..pretend it doesn't have REAL meaning ..is just ..well, it's IGNOR(E)ant.
The limit on the number of whales, combined with an increased demand for oil for lighting, cosmetics, and other products, led to a search for alternatives. It was not necessary for government to intervene, to place limits on whaling or limits on the consumption of whale oil -- the marketplace worked it out through the price mechanism.
Markets, except for a very few exceptions, balance unlimited demand against a limited supply... and in some cases, against a diminishing supply. (There are things called inferior goods, which are demanded less as incomes rise. Wikipedia gives as examples such things as generic ice cream, inner-city bus service, and bologna.)
It is not just the futures markets which anticipate the future. Sometimes consumers ignore the future for a while, or focus on something else instead; but then something happens to remind them that the future is not to be ignored. Example: did you see what happened to natural gas prices this past week? People suddenly realized that natural gas is too valuable to just give away for a pittance.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Remember that trade does not take place between countries, it takes place between individuals.
Sorry, that's not "completely" true. How is a trade imbalance settled? What happens when there's a $1B trade deficit?
Simple terms. What occurs?
After you're done with that (AFTER) then tell us who approves or blocks given products from our markets?
Remember that trade does not take place between countries, it takes place between individuals.
Sorry, that's not "completely" true. How is a trade imbalance settled? What happens when there's a $1B trade deficit?
Simple terms. What occurs?
After you're done with that (AFTER) then tell us who approves or blocks given products from our markets?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
The limit on the number of whales, combined with an increased demand for oil for lighting, cosmetics, and other products, led to a search for alternatives.
So, Tempests assertion that "cheaper" alternatives isn't "really" true, is it? It was the lack of supply to keep up with demand that made otherwise expensive alternatives viable.
..but that's not true either. Right now all the stuff that replace it is "free" other than the collecting and processing. We don't have oil farms nor domesticated oil mammals ..or anything like that, do we?
Oh, and the North Atlantic Cod and Whales have seen no rebound due to lack of harvesting. That is, their "sustainable" levels were never entertained.
Would you clear cut a forest and consume it in 1 year ..knowing that it takes 60-80 years to replace it?
That is, throw a party ...consume the proceeds ..deplete them ..so that not one enduring molecule can be shown for the energy and material that went into it ...
...and just move on figuring that someone will pull something out of their behind to "fix" the situation that you boldly ..blindly ..ignorantly ..charged into??
That would only be sensible if you assumed that you would never have to deal with the consequences ..or had a severe lack of vision.
The limit on the number of whales, combined with an increased demand for oil for lighting, cosmetics, and other products, led to a search for alternatives.
So, Tempests assertion that "cheaper" alternatives isn't "really" true, is it? It was the lack of supply to keep up with demand that made otherwise expensive alternatives viable.
..but that's not true either. Right now all the stuff that replace it is "free" other than the collecting and processing. We don't have oil farms nor domesticated oil mammals ..or anything like that, do we?
Oh, and the North Atlantic Cod and Whales have seen no rebound due to lack of harvesting. That is, their "sustainable" levels were never entertained.
Would you clear cut a forest and consume it in 1 year ..knowing that it takes 60-80 years to replace it?
That is, throw a party ...consume the proceeds ..deplete them ..so that not one enduring molecule can be shown for the energy and material that went into it ...
...and just move on figuring that someone will pull something out of their behind to "fix" the situation that you boldly ..blindly ..ignorantly ..charged into??
That would only be sensible if you assumed that you would never have to deal with the consequences ..or had a severe lack of vision.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
That's the problem with acquiring wealth through induced consumption. There may be no future in it.
..now before someone says "what are you talking about"...it's our fractional reserve system that requires continued and ever increasing levels of consumption to pay our debt service. You HAVE to expand. There no equilibrium established ..ever.
The North Atlantic Cod was not replaced with a cheaper and better product. Something else was substituted.
Tuna will not be superseded by a superior fish. It just won't be there anymore.
I'd like to see how the personal finances of people who hold "the market" in such high esteem. I doubt that the are "all in" with their lives on the line at every roll of the dice in terms of future sustainability.
Any "market" people fully leveraged on their current earning potential. 100% paying debt service in an ever expanding debt curve? Filling your house with stuff ..just to sell it on the discount block yardsale ..so you can fill it up again?
I doubt it.
..now before someone says "what are you talking about"...it's our fractional reserve system that requires continued and ever increasing levels of consumption to pay our debt service. You HAVE to expand. There no equilibrium established ..ever.
The North Atlantic Cod was not replaced with a cheaper and better product. Something else was substituted.
Tuna will not be superseded by a superior fish. It just won't be there anymore.
I'd like to see how the personal finances of people who hold "the market" in such high esteem. I doubt that the are "all in" with their lives on the line at every roll of the dice in terms of future sustainability.
Any "market" people fully leveraged on their current earning potential. 100% paying debt service in an ever expanding debt curve? Filling your house with stuff ..just to sell it on the discount block yardsale ..so you can fill it up again?
I doubt it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_El2_enNFaI . CHARLIE the tuna may get his wish .
- Status
Similar threads
