Economic peak oil explained....

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Is this a joke?

He was pished, keep up at the back

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I think that's wrong. If American-made products were of better quality, some people would buy them even if the price was higher. The problem - and nothing exemplifies this better than the auto industry - is that all too often, American products give lower quality at a higher price.

I think a good part of this can be traced to a mindset that denigrates technologists as geeks and nerds, so that money that ought to go to R&D instead goes to styling and advertising.

I think the problem is that there aren't really very many American-made products anymore, including cars. Japanese auto manufacturers actually "make" more cars in the United States than "American" auto manufacturers.

My point wasn't just about the quality. Americans aren't buying American goods, and they aren't pressing stores to carry American-made goods. One day, when shopping, I went to three different department stores and was unable to find ANY American-made products. We complain about no jobs and no work, but as a country, we don't actually do anything ourselves.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Japanese auto manufacturers actually "make" more cars in the United States than "American" auto manufacturers.

Which makes them American made, no? Which supports my point that it's the American management mindset that's a big part of the problem.

Americans aren't buying American goods, and they aren't pressing stores to carry American-made goods.

Why should they? When I buy a product, I care about price/quality (that is, am I getting value for money?), not where it was made.

We complain about no jobs and no work, but as a country, we don't actually do anything ourselves.

Don't know who you're calling we, there. From where I stand, it looks as though most of the jobs "lost" to foreign countries would, in the absence of those countries, have been lost to industrial robots. The people who're complaining about job loss out of one side of their mouths will then go and complain about the poor working conditions out of the other, when those conditions are mostly inherent in the job.

And then the US imports tens of thousands of PhD-level research scientists & engineers, because too few Americans are motivated to become educated in those fields.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

The amount of recoverable oil left on the planet is not the real issue.

The real issue is our pitiful designs that allow us to continue to waste 80% of the energy content of each gallon of fuel we consume. It's especially pitiful when we have the capability to decrease that waste to 60% fairly easily and in a short period of time. Even as poor as 60% waste would double our average MPG, something demonstrated by many here daily.

While the successful implementation of truly revolutionary vehicle designs seems to be far in the future, the reality is there are many who will resist any dramatic change, out of fear that they would loose their economic security. Such short sightedness is always very harmful, and in the long run the "if man was meant to fly he would have wings" mentality will possibly destroy this planet.

I am not a "Greenatic" by the longest stretch of the imagination you could ever imagine.

I just despise waste.

regards
Mech

I too despise waste. So I do what serves me well on a personal level, which is a personal policy of not being wasteful.

And so, I have no guilt about being wasteful. However I don't do so out of "saving the planet", patriotic duty, or any other possible contrived, platitudinous, politically correct reasons that amount to BS that won't really change anything. I do it out of purely economic self-interest.

OTOH, governments (ALL of them, including yours, in no matter whatever country on this planet you happen to live) also act in their own self-interest. That interest is fortified and protected by accumulating as much power and wealth as can be gotten, preferably as rapidly as possible, including from a desirable, marketable commodity (read: oil). Power also flows to established political parties from money given in support to those desiring to be powerful. Votes may be needed as a formality, but votes are bought, either directly through $$$ or through influencing your mind.

So let's give Chairman Mao his due: ultimately, all power grows from the barrel of a gun. A market can also be dominated by an established clique or gang, AKA a cartel (read: OPEC) or a corporation that has reached monopoly status or as being part of a group with mutual interests. Corruption and collusion are actually forms of cooperation, implemented on a collective level, usually by tacit agreement. Again, it is self-interest - but that of a clique.

It is interesting that there is such a sudden and intense promotion of crying out against monetary greed blamed on capitalism and business recently. If you want to see REAL greed and lust for power on a much higher level which transcends any accumulation of monetary assets, think about world politics. All governments have lots of soldiers with lots of weaponry. And every government prints the money in your pocket that you think is somehow "yours".

Maybe we should instead be asking "What is peak politics?"

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Another alternative view - Just for balance, I don't know if he is right or wrong.

Op-Ed: There's plenty of room for all

I found the numbers hard to believe, and the rest of it as well.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

We have discussed this previously, and I disagree that the limit has been reached. But (genuine question, not being argumentative) what alternative system would you see being used when/if that happens, or indeed to mitigate for the effects ?

Why do we need an alternative system? All we need to do is understand (for a change) that constant growth and expansion beyond that of population growth is not necessary or desireable.

I cannot fathom that when so many spend so much of their lives standing in line, enduring long commutes, sitting virtually still on clogged roads, trying to find a 7 x 4 space on the beach, etc., that they can't or aren't willing to put 2 and 2 together. There are these things called limits and finite quantities. Forget about material resources for a moment and just consider all the B.S. we have created for ourselves as far as our living spaces. Do people really truly enjoy the chaos and cacaphony of being packed closely together? Do they prefer that over a bit of space and a bit of quietude? Really? Sure looks that way. Guess I'm the oddball.

[slowmover]

Ha, Ridley . . the belief that technology will save us! It will, at best, "save" some for a little longer than others. But not enough to matter. It is fair to say that the Scientific Revolution and fossil fuel exploitation went hand-in-hand. It's happy talk to posit that the former preceded the latter, however.

Like Daniel Yergin, Petro PR specialist extraordinaire in either The Prize or his latest book. Convenient that numbers cited by him cannot be independently verified. Heinberg may be a publicist/journalist, but we can at least examine the conclusions from their premises.

Here's a blog link on EROEI saved out for that overseas friend depending on his actual or feigned ignorance (since "neutrality" is, ipso facto, something of a falsehood). Since there was stated familiarity, am posting it anyway as the blog covers quite a few related questions in a manner pleasent to send along to the happy-talk folks of my acquaintance (none here, of course; my own notwithstanding ) The biggest hurdle is emotional. That rationality is dragged hither and yon by feelings is discounted -- thus the appeal of Murdoch & Co. -- the curse being that the latter is mistaken for the former in this country. No one, including I, will say it is an easy hurdle.

The Energy Trap | Do the Math

For more context, in .pdf form, Vaclav Smil on Energy Transitions:

OECD Background Notes

And another, from ye olde sod:

The University Times; Irish Student Newspaper

A sustainable economy? Not without food.

How to Double Global Food Production by 2050 and Reduce Environmental Damage: Scientific American

How much "the economy" matter past this is probably regionally-dependent. Some city-states (mega-regions) will be better off than others. Nation states will hollow out: the trappings of nationhood, but unable to deliver. Laws, but respective of persons, not principles.

Back to OP. Is Peak Oil affecting the economy? Ask NATO, the Bundeswehr, Suisse Re and a host of other giant institutions with chips in the game; their reports are sober enough. Definitions of Peak Oil probably matter more than anything else. Affix it as the label on the lid of Pandora's Box.

.

[gone-ot]

...the 'expanding' balloon always eventually "POPS", whether it be rubber, population, debt, empire, or galaxies.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Do people really truly enjoy the chaos and cacaphony of being packed closely together? Do they prefer that over a bit of space and a bit of quietude? Really? Sure looks that way. Guess I'm the oddball.

Generally, yes. People are drawn to where things are happening, and things are happening in big cities. Most of the U.S. is wide open space, but the people want the entertainment and salaries afforded by the city. Fortunately this is an efficient arrangement as the wide open spaces can be farmed or preserved while the masses are crammed into a relatively small space.

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

American companies (if there truly are any, anymore) only look at the bottom line, so they seek out the cheapest labor force possible. Hence, outsourcing. The American population further supports this because we would rather spend $1 on a foreign-made product than $2 on an American-made product (if you can find one), regardless of the quality...

People forget that art and music are as important to society as science. And the most egregious problem that comes out of this is that our wages are, mostly, dictated by how highly our society ranks our position.

People demand the highest quality goods at the lowest prices, this in turn forces any competitive company to find the highest quality labor they can for the lowest cost. Often this is found in other countries. This is good because it provides income to people in other countries, we get affordable goods, and the crappy menial jobs are outsourced.

Nobody [still] complains about the enormous amount of lost cotton picking jobs that came about due to advances in machinery. We shouldn't be complaining about any lost job that is due to advances in technology, or offshoring.

If the US is really interested in keeping menial jobs, then we need to get rid of the utterly worthless minimum wage law. I'm always amazed that I live in such a backwards country that would tell someone they cannot work for an amount they are willing to work for. Somehow we think it's better for a work seeker to have no job, along with higher inflation.

As to your art comment, that is entirely subjective. If I had to choose between music and not having to hunt and gather my food, I would forgo the music. This is really comes down to a question of whether form should follow function, or the other way 'round.

[Frank Lee]

Generally, yes. People are drawn to where things are happening, and things are happening in big cities. Most of the U.S. is wide open space, but the people want the entertainment and salaries afforded by the city. Fortunately this is an efficient arrangement as the wide open spaces can be farmed or preserved while the masses are crammed into a relatively small space.

Two things: they better stop *****ing about the consequences of congestion, and nothing is going to change until nature says "enough!".