[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', '
')Do you have proof? Someone on this thread said that some people did starve. The Saudis have recently said that the current oil prices are fair, and they see no need to further increase production. They are obviously saying that because they physically can't increase production. It's pretty well known that the Saudis are about to hit their production ceiling, if they haven't done so already.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Falconoffury', '
')You can't fly or drive on nuclear or wind.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kenbathrhume', '
')Needs are infinite. Gas use in the US could EASILY fall by 50% if people "decided" to do it. But what would motivate them? Ummm...high prices causing substitution? High prices causing demand destruction? Isn't that what we're talking about? Prices going up? So prices go up b/c there's less oil...which means that people on the whole can't use as much, but if the price goes up they won't WANT to use as much.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

Some long posts on macroeconomics concepts there.

I've noticed a change in skeptical thinking. Although fewer and fewer people challenge the basic premise of peak oil, many have been more skeptical about applying conventional supply/demand analyses to oil.

Will the time come when oil economists start to get exposes published by The Skeptic Magazine? Right next to the articles debunking crop circles and perpetual motion machines?

[Falconoffury]

I won't make this long. Ken, I don't necessarily disagree with what you say about the market providing energy in its search for profit. My argument is simply that it will not be enough to prevent an economic collapse and die-off. You're mostly arguing economics and dollars. I'm trying to argue resources and supply. We are going to keep going nowhere unless we start arguing the same points.

When you referred to the word "need", I was thinking of how much oil and food we need in order to maintain a healthy society. There is a certain amount of food that a person needs to survive, and there is a certain amount of oil needed in order for companies to manufacture their gasoline, plastics, etc, in order to stay in business and earn profit.

Your arguments constantly ignore the concept of supply. Either that, or you think that one thing will make up supply for another. Such as cheap food making up for the supply of expensive food. We could easily be in a situation of scarce food with enough of a shortage in fossil fuels. Alternative energy will not simply make up a shortfall in oil. It will only make up SOME of a shortfall in oil. That means that the agriculture, chemical, transportation, medicine industries all get hurt due to low supply. Take your pick at an industry and I'll tell you how an oil shortage will hurt it.

In closing, my argument is simply that alternative energy will never make more than a small dent in the shortall of fossil fuels. You're arguments have only succeeded in showing me what directions the market will move in response to an oil shortage. They have not succeeded in showing me that society can continue down the road that it's on without serious problems. Having faith that the market will provide won't necessarily help the common man. The tobacco companies should have proven that.

[Yamaha_R6]

Ken you OWNED this thread!! Good job! You me and Jay can start a strike team to take down these pessimistic, misinformed sad sad people. We need to prove to everyone, (For their own benefit), that die offs will not happen in the United States or western European countries. Its really not going to happen people, sorry, but you have made a MASSIVE miscalculation.

Want to challenge us??? Try and take down that killer thread by Ken! HAHA good luck, and even if you do, Jay and I are here to back it up. Finally the retards have lost control. The truth will be made known.

[OilBurner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yamaha_R6', ' ')Finally the retards have lost control. The truth will be made known.

[Falconoffury]

Jay, if you want info about Saudi Arabia hitting their production ceiling, someone posted it on this forum just yesterday.

Yamaha, you can call us sad and pessimistic, but don't try and call us misinformed. We are using facts from reputable sources in order to predict the future. Some of you're ideas are very "pie in the sky". You aren't very informed about a few of the ideas you have posted on this thread in that you didn't know their limitations. At least ken has some numbers in cost, time to build, and amount of energy created.

I don't feel that ken has "owned" the thread because he hasn't shown how we are going to avert disaster from declining oil production. I agree on a few points he made about the market pursuing certain alternatives. I disagree on his statements downplaying the importance of oil on things needed for the economy to survive. I grow weary of picking through all of his statements, so I'm just trying to sum up my arguments.

As oil goes up in price and starts going down in supply, the private companies will actively pursue alternative technologies such as nuclear, wind, solar, thermal depolymerization, and even hydrogen. My argument is simply that they will fail to make up most of the shortfall we will experience from oil. Demand has a certain level of elasticity. A person can drive for leisurely activities less often, but he still needs enough gas to get to work. Ken fails to explain what happens when that elastic rubberband snaps under too much pressure. Even if the decline of oil is slower than expected, alternative energy will never make much difference. I don't feel the need to post links on the issue of alternatives. If you want to learn more, hit up all of the various peak oil websites and google.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat's the biggest problem in the US? Obesity. Who is most obese? The poor. So yeah, having food prices go up 20-30% will just kill them. Yes, people will be poorer, but it doesn't stand to reason that they'll starve. Maybe they'll just eat cheaper food.

[kenbathrhume]

<Snip - See post directly above this one...>

As for the poor, I don't think they are "forced" to eat bad food or "forced" to not get exercise. It's all about choice. Decent food isn't that expensive. It's probably cheaper than the food they are "forced" to eat.
Maybe not as tasty, who knows.

I don't know how to selectively quote stuff so this is a little disjointed.

Also, not allowing millions of illegals into the country isn't "economic terrorism". Most countries don't allow unlimited illegal immigration. Are they all terrorists? Mexico has their army on the Guatemalan border to stop illegals, but if we do it, then it's "terrorism"? Smack of the "everything American does is bad" school.

As for "stable growth" and inflation. Stable growth means there is no inflation. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. As long as the output of widgets, food, cars, houses, etc. etc. is constant then the price for those will be constant too unless there is an expanse in the amount of money. However this would raise the prices of labor as well. Prices would actually probably go down some in price as more efficient ways are always being found.

Their economies are connected to ours, sure. But I don't think their overpopulation would hurt us if we were self sufficient in food and energy.


Anyway, the peak oilers basically have as one of their postulates that endless population growth will ruin us all. OK, I agree! So the US has two choices.

1. As other countries multiply (and if you look at graphs many countries have 2-2.5 times as many in their 0-4 age cohort as they do in the 40-44 year old cohort), we will have to take in millions of these until our country is just as overcrowded as theirs are.

2. We will control immigration to have the # of people we want in this country and no more. They will destroy their countries with their overpopulation and then decide, somewhere along the way, that they shouldn't have so many kids.

So you're arguement is that we all should overpopulate together? And that if we don't want to go down with the ship, then we're "economic terrorists"? If I go over your house and eat you out of house and home and you don't like it...does that make you an economic terrorist?

People don't change unless they are forced to. Many people in overpopulating countries simply say that "God will always provide". They're going to have to see how ruinous this attitude is before they change it. Allowing them to ruin this country too will just delay their moment of realization. And result in the US looking like Bombay. Think traffic is bad now??? Wait til the population doubles in 30-40 years!!!
Oh, you don't like that idea? What are you, racist or something?

So it's not "survival of the fittest" at all. It's not "we will defeat you and take your spoils". We aren't taking anyone's spoils. We buy some goods from other countries and they buy some goods from us, no "stealing" involved. Big difference. We just aren't letting them come into our country to turn it into Bombay or Mexico City.

As far as electric cars, the battery technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. I'm pretty impressed. Soon a 220 pound battery pack will take you 60 miles or so between charges, last 5 years, charge within a few hours, and cost about $1000. The electricity would be 2c/mile. Gas is about 7c/mile at today's prices.

So if PhDs in electrochemistry are saying it is do-able, I doubt a high school student could give me a good explanation as to why it isn't. Plus the science is somewhat new. Supposedly batteries that have energy of 2 mile/kg will be possible within a few years. That would mean 200 miles on a 220lb battery pack. For longer trips people could take regular gas cars or hybrids if they wanted faster refueling. Maybe a family would have 3 cars....two moderate sized electrics for regular driving and a big joberoo for long trips. The point was that they're are substitues. You won't see widespread adoption, though, until the gas price is high enough for long enough. It was under $1.50 a gallon here for a long time. Hard to compete with that.

Inflation adjusted prices were far higher in the 1970s to early 1980s. I don't think this point is debateable. Yes it was "manufactured" but it was real, nonetheless. Supplies did fall due to OPEC. It wasn't "temporary" either. A "temporary" decrease in supplies wouldn't have lifted the price that high for that long.

Yes I was able to do OK. Mostly by "exploiting" people. What does that mean? Someone who works and is able to eat is thus "exploiting" people? If everyone in the US is not starving then they must be "exploiting" other people somewhere else? OK.

A permanent one time reduction of 15% would be manageable, sure. Prices would go up (and some of the "poor" would have less money for Nike Air-Jordans - who knows maybe they'd walk and thus be less obese?). I don't know how high prices would go, but I do know that substitutes would kick in at some point. Inflation adjusted prices were probably twice as high in the late 1970s (when my dad bought a new Corolla for $3,600 - just to give you an idea of inflation) than they are now.

It sucked cause so many people were "exploited" - I guess that means they had to work just like everyone else? Who isn't exploited? The super rich? Anyway, if prices twice as high as today in the 1970s didn't kill us I don't know why high prices today would kill us.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't know how to selectively quote stuff so this is a little disjointed.

[azreal60]

Ken, I too don t know how to post selected quotes yet, so if i paraphrase incorrectly, forgive it as my home computer kinda blew up. (thank god for work) Anyway, to the thrust of your argument.

In principle, there are some things I agree with. I think one thing we all agree with is no one know s for Sure what is going to happen in the future. So lets start with the present, that which we do know.

Many people on this site do sound like the prophets of doom. They think in worst case senarios and imminent doom, and they sound very depressing for the average person to deal with. Alot of people try to shut these people out, but when these same people counter with reasoned research and the reasons for their pessimissm, it gets harder and harder to do so.

Many people on this site are optimistic to the point of not reading things around them. Saying you need to prove to me that peak oil will exist is a simply arrogance. This site is not to prove it exists. If you notice, this is a debate site about what to DO about it, there are billion other sites out there to convince you it exists. While I will say the Form it will take can definatly be debated, can we end the whether it is going to happen debate once in for all. If you don t at least believe it will affect your life in some way, why are you here?

I am not asking for unquestioned belief in what ever person on here says. The most basic premises on this site how ever, at least know what they are before disputing them.

I would say this. The things jay, yam and ken have been saying are in some cases correct. Yes things are in some cases all from what part of the problem your looking at. I would say however look at the difference between what you say is going to be the solution, and then look at the estimates of how much time we have. The questions are then, can we do this is in time to make the difference we are going to need. This is a fundimental question that people do not like to debate or bring up with hard numbers, but either just say we will or we will not. I would suggest this is the worst way to do things, as this does not give us the solutions, but only argues if they are possible.

I have to go sooner than i wanted to, but all I will say is this. I personally do not thing the market economy will just provide on this one. I think that if we wait around and hope the market will save us, it will be to late to change. Do I think we could change? Yes, I think we can. Will we? That s really up to people like us and what we do with that we have learned now isn t it?

[Falconoffury]

To make a quote, just copy the piece of text you want. In your reply, type the word "quote" with brackets around it. Paste your text, then type "quote" with brackets again except this time throw in a "/" just to the left of the letter "q".

Ken, here's a good article for you. I found it on the news in Matt's site. It talks about economy in the USA since world war II. It provides some useful information about the challenges the dollar faces from then until today. I think it's interesting to note that the dollar is backed by oil.

http://www.lefthook.org/History/Kleftis072104.html

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for the poor, I don't think they are "forced" to eat bad food or "forced" to not get exercise. It's all about choice. Decent food isn't that expensive. It's probably cheaper than the food they are "forced" to eat.
Maybe not as tasty, who knows.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o make a quote, just copy the piece of text you want. In your reply, type the word "quote" with brackets around it. Paste your text, then type "quote" with brackets again except this time throw in a "/" just to the left of the letter "q".

[Falconoffury]

That's one way of doing it, but not real easy if you want just a few sentences out of a huge post.

[kenbathrhume]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', ' '){snip-slimmed down quote within a quote -OilBurner}

Now poverty is a choice?

Decent food is cheaper than what they choose?

So you're saying that poor fat people are choosing more expensive food that's bad for them because it tastes better?

And they could just "get some exercise" to solve their dilemma?

I'm normally pretty tolerant, but that really pisses me off.

The poor don't enroll at 24 hour fitness, or visit sushi bars, or go on vacation, or any of the things you seem to feel entitled to.

The poor work crummy jobs and struggle to get by, so that the privileged few can enjoy the spoils of victory over the masses.

The poor buy more filler foodstuffs because the protein rich diet you are accustomed to is too expensive for them. Like all impoverished people in history, it's bread which fills the belly, if protein sources are scarce.

No doubt cheap fast food contributed greatly, but not because of taste... it's because it comes in small affordable portions and is already prepared that the poor are drawn to fast food.

What I hear in your post which remains unspoken is that you think you are superior to most poor folks. That you are obviously a better human being because you succeed where they fail.
Isn't that right?

[Aaron]

You may well be correct that I'm a nut. Who am I to judge...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')any poor people are poor because of choices they make.

[Falconoffury]

Good to see this thread back on the proper forum. Let's keep it going, and keep it here.

[OilBurner]

Aaaaarggh! That's the worst thing about this loss of 3 weeks, all the old threads have been revived!!

Let this one lie guys, do we have to have the same arguments all over again!!

Chances are, it'll be straight back to the HoF before you know it!