[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'M')y philosphy on investments is this:

A. In a "fast crash" - i.e. something happens, we all bug out and run for the hills, no invesment will mean anything except food, water, seed, and skills.

B. In a slower crash - one where we slip into a "Dim Ages" for 5-15 years, the right investments might help.

Example: I think silver is about as good an investment as you're going to see right now. So let's say I invest $10,000 in silver. Then as the debt bubble bursts, that might double in value. I can then use that wealth to continue to invest in things like taking classes or agriculutre, etc. . .

The idea is not so much "to get rich" (although there is nothing wrong with that) but to maximize your ability to acquire the skills/resources that will be valuable in a post-oil world.

Additionally, for somebody who needs medication - the right investments could be a life saver. For instance, let's say you're like my dad who needs thyroid medication every day. Without it, he would die in 3-4 days.

Well if his son is smart and invests silver and that silver doubles or triples in value, he can use that to purchase his medication, which no doubt will become more expensive as the market begins to dissolve.

Overall, I think you're better off in investing in acquiring skills. But there are some tangibles - like medication - for which money/investments is absolutely necessary.

Matt

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')anada, I have been slowing digesting and absorbing the Kopits presentation. The first 40 minutes pretty much amount to Kopits proving we are in a oil supply-constrained economic environment.

Previously under the demand-constrained environment, oil production was managed by OPEC quotas (in response to economic pressure) which propped up prices to ensure exploration and development of new fields. That model has driven economic analysis for 100 years. It always assumed that GDP growth to be exogenous, the independent variable in the oil-use equation. Now oil-supply is the driving factor. This profound realignment has yet to be accepted, does not yet dominate global economics and strategic thinking. But it must. And when it does there will be a earthquake realignment of expectations and demands. The tipping point.

I am on the 25 minutes and will watch it again. For those who want a clear sharper PDF to read along with the youtube presentation go here; Oil and Economic Growth: A Supply-Constrained View

[Newfie]

It strikes me that a slow crash is dialed in, for many reasons.

However, I feel strongly it will not be a smooth glide downwards. For sure there will be localized catastrophes, famines, epidemics, drought, whatever. Where and when they occur is anyone's guess.

There may well be global catastrophes via financial collapse or what ever. That bit could get right nasty.

I would also add that certain folks have realized this for quite some time. IIRC there was a German Army paper some two or three years ago that foresaw regional realignments and rapprochement with regional governments outside NATO or the EU in order to sustain their energy needs. I'm sure the US and Russia all all reading from a similar play book.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')t strikes me that a slow crash is dialed in, for many reasons.

However, I feel strongly it will not be a smooth glide downwards. For sure there will be localized catastrophes, famines, epidemics, drought, whatever. Where and when they occur is anyone's guess.

There may well be global catastrophes via financial collapse or what ever. That bit could get right nasty.

I would also add that certain folks have realized this for quite some time. IIRC there was a German Army paper some two or three years ago that foresaw regional realignments and rapprochement with regional governments outside NATO or the EU in order to sustain their energy needs. I'm sure the US and Russia all all reading from a similar play book.

[Pops]

Good post T. It's pretty clear that if huge investment the last 10 years was going to bring on additions to supply we'd have seen some sign of it by now. They went to the ends of the earth and all we got was a lousy few billion barrels of LTO.

It's kind of surprising to me that demand has fallen so much in the US. The BlS would tell you that today's $100 oil is $80 oil in 2005 dollars but ShadowStats would say it's more like $30. Even so, we've not exceeded 3.5% of income spent on energy since the '80s yet demand has dropped quite a bit.

The best surprise was tight gas and we'll find out if it has legs or not pretty soon. But even with the nominally high FF prices, "renewables" have only grown by what: a couple of percent of the total - with the full support of relatively abundant FFs?

The questions at this point in my mind are how much tight gas is profitable (because keeping the lights on is important) and if the LTOs can expand beyond a few areas profitably but most importantly is how long before the new little fields can't keep up with depletion of the elephants that produce 80% of all supply and what that decline rate looks like when they can't. Basically how fast is decline.

Insufficient profits to support investment is the kicker but remember, most of the the profit goes to governments one way or another now and that amount is not set in stone as it were. The choice will be either lots of gov and higher oil prices or cheaper oil and somewhat less gov. I think that is the next step along the path that will begin to reveal itself and one we don't talk about much.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'G')ood post T. It's pretty clear that if huge investment the last 10 years was going to bring on additions to supply we'd have seen some sign of it by now. They went to the ends of the earth and all we got was a lousy few billion barrels of LTO.

It's kind of surprising to me that demand has fallen so much in the US. The BlS would tell you that today's $100 oil is $80 oil in 2005 dollars but ShadowStats would say it's more like $30. Even so, we've not exceeded 3.5% of income spent on energy since the '80s yet demand has dropped quite a bit.

The best surprise was tight gas and we'll find out if it has legs or not pretty soon. But even with the nominally high FF prices, "renewables" have only grown by what: a couple of percent of the total - with the full support of relatively abundant FFs?

The questions at this point in my mind are how much tight gas is profitable (because keeping the lights on is important) and if the LTOs can expand beyond a few areas profitably but most importantly is how long before the new little fields can't keep up with depletion of the elephants that produce 80% of all supply and what that decline rate looks like when they can't. Basically how fast is decline.

Insufficient profits to support investment is the kicker but remember, most of the the profit goes to governments one way or another now and that amount is not set in stone as it were. The choice will be either lots of gov and higher oil prices or cheaper oil and somewhat less gov. I think that is the next step along the path that will begin to reveal itself and one we don't talk about much.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Based on those Kopits links you so kindly put up to ruin my 2014 (just kidding) the fall in US consumption is duel sourced. First the job market stinks, a lot of people like me used to commute half an hour every morning and eve and now we are unemployed. The second half is price rationing.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Based on those Kopits links you so kindly put up to ruin my 2014 (just kidding) the fall in US consumption is duel sourced. First the job market stinks, a lot of people like me used to commute half an hour every morning and eve and now we are unemployed. The second half is price rationing.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', '
')
After all the years and conversations on here things continue to surprize me. I thought by now we would have rationing and discretionary driving would no longer exist. I also thought the suburban pick up/SUV sales would have stopped by now, but they are still a large part of the new vehicle purchase market. Instead of instituting measures I think would have helped the powers that be instituted money printing. Who knows, we have managed to limp along for five years, maybe they can stretch that out for another five.

[Quinny]

I agree Ibon. Although we need to learn how to do without all the energy slaves, what do they actually do for us?

Had a hard day yesterday and actually made some progress for once, and I did it without (most of my) power tools. Not any kind of statement just couldn't be bothered finding them. I've got the tools and could have found them if necessary but they just weren't to hand so I just cracked on without them. I was aching at end of day and we went to bed early without watching a movie our normal bedtime 'treat'.

I slept like a log, still a bit stiff, but woke up feeling great this morning. I'd probably have made a bit more progress with power tools, but it doesn't really matter that much.

I think one of the main benefits of the energy slaves is that they are all about faster and more! We've become addicted to getting the job/journey done and not enjoying the work/trip.

PS I had to edit and add the (most of my) because I remembered I'd also felled a tree and I did use my chainsaw.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') agree Ibon. Although we need to learn how to do without all the energy slaves, what do they actually do for us?

Had a hard day yesterday and actually made some progress for once, and I did it without (most of my) power tools. Not any kind of statement just couldn't be bothered finding them. I've got the tools and could have found them if necessary but they just weren't to hand so I just cracked on without them. I was aching at end of day and we went to bed early without watching a movie our normal bedtime 'treat'.

I slept like a log, still a bit stiff, but woke up feeling great this morning. I'd probably have made a bit more progress with power tools, but it doesn't really matter that much.

I think one of the main benefits of the energy slaves is that they are all about faster and more! We've become addicted to getting the job/journey done and not enjoying the work/trip.

PS I had to edit and add the (most of my) because I remembered I'd also felled a tree and I did use my chainsaw.

[Quinny]

I think that applies when you do muscle work all day everyday as in manual labour to meet the needs of bosses or profits. I don't believe it would be necessary to work all day everyday in such a way to simply provide for one's and the communities needs. Not saying life would be easy, but many hands make light work even at harvest time.

One of my neighbours rarely shopped, wasn't self sufficient, but he's as close as I've seen to being so used to work about 3 1/2 days a week on his little patch of land. His wine was wonderful and he spent more time making his wine than on his food, he also hunted but mainly for fun. An even larger part of his time was spent eating and drinking (especially the wine - happy days).