[spot5050]

@ehv_nl

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ehv_nl', 'A') thing to consider on the subject of "cleverness" is this: Many of the worlds great inventions that changed the world (book printing, steam engine, wheel) where invented a few times before they had this profound impact.

[ehv_nl]

@spt0505

The point I'm trying to get across is that you need to put your attention to the question why a ptolemaian greek invented the steam engine, yet the ptolemaians didn't have an industrial revolution. Or why the mexican indians knew how to make wheels on toys, yet didn't use it for transportation.

Apparently inventions as such do not change the world. Apparently there is another ingredient neccessary for making such profound changes insociety. Offcourse since I am on this forum I think that additional ingredient has something to do with oil, energy or something like that, allthough I admit I do not know the exact details. But I think a steam engine is nothing more but a mere interesting gadget if it weren't for abundant coal to fuel them. And wheels are mere toys if it weren't for animals capable of pulling wagons, which weren't present in pre-colombian Mexico.

[fletch961]

spot5050
I was wondering what numbers you were using when computing gdp/barrel of oil used. The numbers I get from nationmaster.com for year 2000 are as follow:
------------- GDP --------------Oil used-----------------GDP/barrel
USA -----$9,612.7 billion - 7.190 billion barrels $1336/barrel
Germany -2,062.2 ------- 0.989 ----------- $2,085/barrel
France ---1,426.6 --------- 0.715 ----------- $1,994/barrel
UK --------1,404.4 -------- 0.621 ------------ $2,263/barrel
China ---- 5,019.4 -------- 1.789 ----------- $2,806/barrel

From these numbers, I come up w/ the UK getting almost 70% more GDP per barrel than the US. More efficient cars, more mass transit, and fewer miles per capita driven (due to fact europeans pay about 2.5 times as much for gas) would seem to be the main culprit behind the better numbers for europeans.

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fletch961', 's')pot5050
I was wondering what numbers you were using when computing gdp/barrel of oil used. The numbers I get from nationmaster.com for year 2000 are as follow:
------------- GDP --------------Oil used-----------------GDP/barrel
USA -----$9,612.7 billion - 7.190 billion barrels $1336/barrel
Germany -2,062.2 ------- 0.989 ----------- $2,085/barrel
France ---1,426.6 --------- 0.715 ----------- $1,994/barrel
UK --------1,404.4 -------- 0.621 ------------ $2,263/barrel
China ---- 5,019.4 -------- 1.789 ----------- $2,806/barrel

From these numbers, I come up w/ the UK getting almost 70% more GDP per barrel than the US. More efficient cars, more mass transit, and fewer miles per capita driven (due to fact europeans pay about 2.5 times as much for gas) would seem to be the main culprit behind the better numbers for europeans.

[MD]

Not that it's likely to happen of course. Don't forget our "non negotiable lifestyle".....

[Sparaxis]

fletch961, you have to be careful about using PPP-based GDP figures like this. PPP-adjusted GDP figures are designed to show what domestic purchasing power within a country is based on a standard basket of goods. However, countries can't use PPP-adjusted dollars to buy oil (since it's traded internationally), so for calculations involving international traded goods, you should just use unadjusted GDP figures based on dollars.

For these same countries then, using standard GDP and oil consumption in 2002, the result is ($/bbl):
US $1,440
Germany: $2,003
France: $1,993
UK: $2533
China: $630

The US/EU comparison holds, but China is shown in its more rightful order of being still far behind. That was what made me suspicious when I first read your numbers--there's no way China produces more value-added per barrel consumed than any EU country or even the US.

Using dollars as a basis for this comparison is somewhat misleading since efficiency of use is actually a physical matter, but for economy-wide comparisons, this is about the best this is.

[fletch961]

Thanks
I've never heard of PPP before, so I looked into it a little...and even though it is an abstract number some adjustment to the exchange rate would seem in order. China keeps its exchange rate artificially low.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')PP exchange rates are especially useful when official exchange rates are artificially manipulated by governments. Countries with strong government control of the economy sometimes enforce official exchange rates that make their own currency artificially strong. By contrast, the currency's black market exchange rate is artificially weak. In such cases a PPP exchange rate is likely the most realistic basis for economic comparison.

[spot5050]

Say the world economy expands at about 3%pa, of which about 2% is increased production and 1% is increased efficiency. Post-peak the +2% will become -2% so instead of 3%pa growth we would have 1%pa decline.

1%pa decline is not the end of the world kiddies. Yup its not as good as the life we're accustomed to, but its better than anything our ancestors had, and better than anything our descenants will have. So stop bitching and moaning about how f***ing awful the world is/will be, and start enjoying being the richest generation of human beings that will ever live. Is your glass half full or half empty?

<rant mode off>