Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economics vs. ETP

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 02:41:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')Who are these people, specifically?


The investors who want to see a return on their investments.


This is not a response. There are no investors who don't.

Names? Occupations?
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby shortonoil » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 07:38:25

"Unfortunately, there's a limit to goods and services that First World consumers can buy, and markets have to keep expanding to ensure that more goods and services produced are sold. That means expanding markets in other countries."

It should be realized that the Third World's ability to absorb goods and services is rather limited. Here is a good graph that puts that limitation into perspective.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-1 ... nning-maps

The hype about the impact of emerging markets has been a tad bit over estimated. They may have grown on a percentage basis rather rapidly recently, but when starting off from zero the percentage can be very high, while the total is still close to nothing. Resource constraints will undoubtedly have a very significant impact on their future growth rates; especially petroleum.
User avatar
shortonoil
False ETP Prophet
False ETP Prophet
 
Posts: 7132
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 10:58:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
This is not a response. There are no investors who don't.

Names? Occupations?


If there are no investors who don't, then why do you need names and occupations?
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 11:17:42

How does this
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')If there are no investors who don't,


relate to this?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')hen why do you need names and occupations?


You are telling us that there are people out there who believe that they absolutely have to ensure that more and more of the third-worlders become happy consumers, and for this purposes these people go looking out for more and more oil. You are so confident in it that it looks like you are well-informed about their thinking and intentions. Yet you are unable to name a single such person.

Whom are you talking about then?
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 11:20:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '
')
It should be realized that the Third World's ability to absorb goods and services is rather limited. Here is a good graph that puts that limitation into perspective.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-1 ... nning-maps

The hype about the impact of emerging markets has been a tad bit over estimated. They may have grown on a percentage basis rather rapidly recently, but when starting off from zero the percentage can be very high, while the total is still close to nothing. Resource constraints will undoubtedly have a very significant impact on their future growth rates; especially petroleum.


The problem isn't hype based on comparisons between the U.S. and emerging markets, but the material resource and energy needs to sustain the latter.

Growth rates for these markets took place across several years, and in some cases up to 10 pct growth per year across three decades:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29960335

The result across various emerging markets was a global middle class almost doubling in only a decade:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

coupled with increasing consumption across the board for three decades:

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/05/t ... in-charts/

Obviously, investors were involved in such significant consumption increases. The catch is limits to growth.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 11:36:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', 'H')ow does this
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')If there are no investors who don't,


relate to this?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')hen why do you need names and occupations?


You are telling us that there are people out there who believe that they absolutely have to ensure that more and more of the third-worlders become happy consumers, and for this purposes these people go looking out for more and more oil. You are so confident in it that it looks like you are well-informed about their thinking and intentions. Yet you are unable to name a single such person.

Whom are you talking about then?


The relationship is obvious. If all investors want a return on investment, then there's no need to give names and occupations. Or are you arguing otherwise?

Again, the point isn't to make "[Third Worlders] become happy consumers." It's to ensure returns on investment through economic growth, which ultimately involves businesses growing in terms of production and sales. It just so happens that more of those consumers buying what is produced are Third Worlders because their countries are the source for expanding markets.

Finally, if you really want to find out more about this topic, then why not look at names of businesses that opened shop in emerging markets the past three decades, then research on the names of investors and banks that bought stocks or lent to these businesses? It won't be so difficult. Just think of names of famous brands for all sorts of products, from cars to motorcycles to cell phones to food snacks, that were introduced in emerging markets the past three decades. Then look at the names of banks (many of them are famous and multinational) that have been investing in these businesses through stocks and other means. Finally, think of names of businesses in these emerging markets that are either becoming part owners or even buying those famous brands. Several names are given in this article:

https://hbr.org/2006/10/emerging-giants ... -countries
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 15 Oct 2016, 11:56:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Again, the point isn't to make "[Third Worlders] become happy consumers." It's to ensure returns on investment through economic growth, which ultimately involves businesses growing in terms of production and sales. It just so happens that more of those consumers buying what is produced are Third Worlders because their countries are the source for expanding markets.


That's a bit of deviation, previously you talked specifically about investors ensuring third-world consumption for some clever purposes. But anyway, please do not make generalisations, name a single investor who is doing something in line of the your narrative above. If this investor is yourself, this is fine. Do you make investments "to ensure return on investments through economic growth?" Just look at how this sounds.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')ames of businesses that opened shop in emerging markets


Again, could you provide a single specific name? Is this an investor? Businesses are not investors, are they. They are not even living beings, so how can they make any actions that you relate to them?
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 16 Oct 2016, 06:12:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
That's a bit of deviation, previously you talked specifically about investors ensuring third-world consumption for some clever purposes. But anyway, please do not make generalisations, name a single investor who is doing something in line of the your narrative above. If this investor is yourself, this is fine. Do you make investments "to ensure return on investments through economic growth?" Just look at how this sounds.



I shared an article that referred to dozens of businesses that have been opened shop in emerging markets, if not bought businesses in the latter. I am sure those expanded operations involved investments. You will find names of more companies here:

http://ccsi.columbia.edu/publications/emgp/ (mentioned in several reports, including top non-financial multinational companies)

Other similar organizations mentioned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_ ... nly_listed

It has even worked both ways, with companies from emerging markets now expanding operations in other countries:

http://www.consultantsmind.com/2014/09/21/bcg-100/

Several of them were mentioned in the article shared earlier.

The top 10 drug companies engaged in emerging markets:

http://www.fiercepharma.com/special-rep ... ng-markets

Car companies are mentioned here:

https://www.thefinancialist.com/drive-t ... g-markets/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0050101364

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers ... sector.asp

Next, it's not so much "ensuring third-world consumption" that's involved but ensuring consumption. And given competition, that means growing consumption. It just so happens that it is taking place in Third World markets, and only because First World ones have been saturated.

What we are looking at is not so much "clever purposes" but the internal logic of capitalism. Investors can engage in speculative risk-taking, but the main goal of sustained growth is ultimately possible only through a steady growth of sales of goods and services, in turn requiring more oil and other material resources. If these are not achieved, then financial and commodity markets become volatile.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Again, could you provide a single specific name? Is this an investor? Businesses are not investors, are they. They are not even living beings, so how can they make any actions that you relate to them?


Actually, businesses are legal entities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

They can also operate as investors, either in their own operations or in other businesses.

Finally, are you looking for major investors in emerging markets who state that they are less interested in speculating than in ensuring that businesses have steady growth? If so, might this help?

"The Warren Buffett Way: High Quality Stocks in Emerging Markets"

http://multi-act.com/warren-buffett-way ... g-markets/

Another is George Soros, who I think focuses on private equity investments in Third World countries:

"George Soros: Why the Billionaire is Investing in Africa"

http://www.profitconfidential.com/econo ... in-africa/

Of course, in the end, limits to growth overwhelms, which is why the title thread should be questioned.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Sun 16 Oct 2016, 07:41:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')
Actually, businesses are legal entities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

They can also operate as investors, either in their own operations or in other businesses.


Of course they can invest, but you relate conscious actions to them, such as "looking for oil to ensure consumption". Legal entities do not take conscious actions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;George Soros: Why the Billionaire is Investing in Africa"

http://www.profitconfidential.com/econo ... in-africa/



A clear response from your linked article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')t is time to consider its investment potential and George Soros has pointed the way. Not because he is a humanitarian but because he is a billionaire, who, above all else, wants to make a profit.


According to you, he should be doing everything to ensure middle-class consumption in the third world and, therefore, he should be looking for oil for these purposes.

But he simply says that he is there to make profit. Nothing about oil or nursing "middle class to ensure consumption." Presence of profit opportunity means investment, absence of profit opportunity means no investment.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 17 Oct 2016, 12:19:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
Of course they can invest, but you relate conscious actions to them, such as "looking for oil to ensure consumption". Legal entities do not take conscious actions.



Corporations are run by human beings.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')According to you, he should be doing everything to ensure middle-class consumption in the third world and, therefore, he should be looking for oil for these purposes.

But he simply says that he is there to make profit. Nothing about oil or nursing "middle class to ensure consumption." Presence of profit opportunity means investment, absence of profit opportunity means no investment.


The article refers to long-term investments, which means they don’t involve quick profits. These include dams, agricultural production, and energy plans which will cost up to $25 billion, plus investments in "insurance products, savings and credit," etc.

Don't forget the other articles.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Mon 17 Oct 2016, 15:53:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')
Corporations are run by human beings.


Exactly. And these human beings are management rather than investors, and their motivation is well-known and has nothing to do with "ensuring middle-class consumption".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
The article refers to long-term investments, which means they don’t involve quick profits. These include dams, agricultural production, and energy plans which will cost up to $25 billion, plus investments in "insurance products, savings and credit," etc.

Don't forget the other articles.


Investors don't create conditions to generate profits. They come where these conditions already exist. Namely, where the conditions for inflow of money (dollars) are in place. As far as third world countries are concerned, this happens in two situations:

1. Where the respective third world country has tradeable natural resources.
2. Where this country offers work-force at a discount to the market.

In the first situation, a middle class may emerge if the per capita resource base is sufficient. The investors have nothing to do with its emergence.

In the second situation, the entire investment case is based on maintaining the majority of the third-worlders involved in utter poverty. The middle class may constitute a small number of intermediaries between the work-force and the investors.

The investors have nothing to do with the creation of these conditions. They do not do any machinations to ensure the emergence of the middle class, and they are not plotting to extract more oil for these purposes. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that the consumption in the third world has to rise continuously, whether the natural "limits to growth" are in place or not.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 17 Oct 2016, 19:11:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'C')omparing the Etp Model to economics is like comparing a cyclotron to a Ouija Board. They both missed each other by 500 hundred years.

Utter nonsense.

Economics has provided a practical working model via microeconomics of concepts like supply and demand (the main point re economics of Tanada's post which kicked off this thread). ALso, the history of economic thought shows us that concepts of why economics worked and why societies organized into things like cities for trade was understood well over 2000 years ago. So by no means some flash in the pan.

https://cobe.boisestate.edu/lreynol/WEB ... 3MICRO.pdf

A Ouija board, OTOH, is a toy. It's only "practical" value is to entertain. Comparing these two things as very little meaning, and you're completely wrong on the time frame for economics.

If this kind of thinking is supposed to convince educated people of how "correct" ETP is, that's a big fail.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 18 Oct 2016, 11:13:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
Exactly. And these human beings are management rather than investors, and their motivation is well-known and has nothing to do with "ensuring middle-class consumption".



Now, you know how "legal entities take action."

You forgot to add that managers are answerable to the investors of the business, and the main goal of the business is to maximize profits. Not surprisingly, the returns of the investors come from those profits.

The connection with "ensuring middle-class consumption" is very obvious. Given competition, managers have to ensure that they gain as much market share as possible, and that includes accessing untapped markets. That's where part of the profits as well as new investments come in: open new offices, factories, etc., especially in places where there are lots of opportunities to earn.

In time, businesses go beyond selling basic needs and start producing goods and services ranging from smart phones to game consoles. Guess where the growing sales for those are taking place?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Investors don't create conditions to generate profits. They come where these conditions already exist. Namely, where the conditions for inflow of money (dollars) are in place. As far as third world countries are concerned, this happens in two situations:

1. Where the respective third world country has tradeable natural resources.
2. Where this country offers work-force at a discount to the market.



That's right. They "create conditions to generate" more profits. That's why you have growing sales of cars, appliances, etc., in emerging markets, something that didn't happen decades ago.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
In the first situation, a middle class may emerge if the per capita resource base is sufficient. The investors have nothing to do with its emergence.



Actually, it involves investors in the form of creditors. That's how the middle class grew in the U.S. at the start of the twentieth-century, e.g., lay-away plans for Model Ts, iceboxes, etc.

Guess what happened in emerging markets.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
In the second situation, the entire investment case is based on maintaining the majority of the third-worlders involved in utter poverty. The middle class may constitute a small number of intermediaries between the work-force and the investors.



And yet reality shows otherwise:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Also, the previous articles I shared also explain that growth in sales of various products and services, the businesses involved, and investors.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
The investors have nothing to do with the creation of these conditions. They do not do any machinations to ensure the emergence of the middle class, and they are not plotting to extract more oil for these purposes. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that the consumption in the third world has to rise continuously, whether the natural "limits to growth" are in place or not.

Actually, they do. They provide the credit to businesses to expand production and operations on a global scale, and they provide credit to consumers to buy what is produced.

They are not "plotting to extract more oil for these purposes." Rather, they already invested billions of dollars in such, especially in unconventional production. That's why the oil industry is now deep in debt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... to-survive

Resource consumption has been rising globally for several decades, together with credit. That consumption rise did not take place magically but through credit extended by a financial elite.

What will not allow it to continue is limits to growth.

That's why the topic thread is questionable, as no amount of credit creation can reverse energy returns.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 18 Oct 2016, 11:18:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'C')omparing the Etp Model to economics is like comparing a cyclotron to a Ouija Board. They both missed each other by 500 hundred years.

Utter nonsense.

Economics has provided a practical working model via microeconomics of concepts like supply and demand (the main point re economics of Tanada's post which kicked off this thread). ALso, the history of economic thought shows us that concepts of why economics worked and why societies organized into things like cities for trade was understood well over 2000 years ago. So by no means some flash in the pan.

https://cobe.boisestate.edu/lreynol/WEB ... 3MICRO.pdf

A Ouija board, OTOH, is a toy. It's only "practical" value is to entertain. Comparing these two things as very little meaning, and you're completely wrong on the time frame for economics.

If this kind of thinking is supposed to convince educated people of how "correct" ETP is, that's a big fail.


Supply and demand implies that given high oil prices consumers can find other energy sources that have the same or better energy returns, as well as features similar to oil, ranging from high energy density to production of petrochemicals. There are no such sources.

Also, the type of system that is involved to which economics becomes practical is capitalist, which means it requires continuous growth to meet the needs of not just a growing population but a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Unless that model can explain how increased credit can reverse diminishing returns:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... fall-ahead

then I don't see how it can still be seen as practical.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 18 Oct 2016, 16:49:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Supply and demand implies that given high oil prices consumers can find other energy sources that have the same or better energy returns, as well as features similar to oil, ranging from high energy density to production of petrochemicals. There are no such sources.

Wrong. Supply and demand predicts how buyers will react when prices shift. No one credible ever said this magically ensured all the supplies of every form anyone wanted. No one credible ever implied this altered the laws of physics.

The fact that despite it's being very difficult, that alternative sources (like green electricity) are slowly becoming available due to various economic and governmental pressures, is telling though. The profit motive and people wanting alternatives at a viable cost is part of this. It's economics, and it works.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Also, the type of system that is involved to which economics becomes practical is capitalist, which means it requires continuous growth to meet the needs of not just a growing population but a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470


Nonsense. Economics measures and theorizes how people make choices about finite resources. Economics covers all sorts of competing economic systems. People living in socialist Venezuela still make supply and demand decisions based on things like how much food they have in the pantry. Here's some info about the four most commonly cited types of economic systems, which are all influenced by supply and demand to some extent: http://www.shmoop.com/economic-systems/types.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Unless that model can explain how increased credit can reverse diminishing returns:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... fall-ahead

then I don't see how it can still be seen as practical.


You may not be able to see it, but that doesn't make it impractical.
A model doesn't have to be perfect or cover every possible imagined belief or scenario to be practical. Can your car scrub your floors or change a baby's diapers? No, and yet, billions of people find a car a very practical thing.

So sorry, supply and demand isn't going to magically fix the planet's woes. That does NOT mean the economic principles behind supply and demand don't exist or are "impractical".
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Tue 18 Oct 2016, 17:11:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')You forgot to add that managers are answerable to the investors of the business, and the main goal of the business is to maximize profits. Not surprisingly, the returns of the investors come from those profits.


Exactly. The investors don't care about "ensuring middle-class consumption". They care about share price and returns, and that's it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he connection with "ensuring middle-class consumption" is very obvious.


There is no connection. Nobody "ensures" middle-class consumption. Investors exploit existing conditions that are not created by them and they don't care about "middle-class" a slightest bit. I discussed the way these conditions arise in the third world in the previous post, and there is virtually nothing to add there.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:03:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')Wrong. Supply and demand predicts how buyers will react when prices shift. No one credible ever said this magically ensured all the supplies of every form anyone wanted. No one credible ever implied this altered the laws of physics.


From what I know, the supply curve shifts to the right to maintain equilibrium, but for that to happen, quantity has to shift to the right as well. Given limits to growth, which includes peak oil, as well as diminishing returns, will quantity increase indefinitely?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The fact that despite it's being very difficult, that alternative sources (like green electricity) are slowly becoming available due to various economic and governmental pressures, is telling though. The profit motive and people wanting alternatives at a viable cost is part of this. It's economics, and it works.


But these sources have low energy quantity and quality. In order to maintain market equilibrium in supply and demand, they need to have the same of both or better compared to oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Nonsense. Economics measures and theorizes how people make choices about finite resources. Economics covers all sorts of competing economic systems. People living in socialist Venezuela still make supply and demand decisions based on things like how much food they have in the pantry. Here's some info about the four most commonly cited types of economic systems, which are all influenced by supply and demand to some extent: http://www.shmoop.com/economic-systems/types.html



The source argues that capitalist systems will be able to deal with the problem of scarcity, and yet the same systems are unable to reverse diminishing returns:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... fall-ahead

That means in order to ensure that the supply curve keeps shifting to the right and market equilibrium is achieved, other sources of energy will be needed that are as good as or better than oil (which is the point I made in my earlier message).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
You may not be able to see it, but that doesn't make it impractical.
A model doesn't have to be perfect or cover every possible imagined belief or scenario to be practical. Can your car scrub your floors or change a baby's diapers? No, and yet, billions of people find a car a very practical thing.

So sorry, supply and demand isn't going to magically fix the planet's woes. That does NOT mean the economic principles behind supply and demand don't exist or are "impractical".


Actually, it's supposed to in capitalist systems, as technological advances are supposed to allow for the supply curve to keep shifting to the right and thus maintain market equilibrium. Otherwise, those systems fall apart.

In this case, the curve should shift easily if it can be shown that alternatives to oil are as good as it or better.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:16:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
Exactly. The investors don't care about "ensuring middle-class consumption". They care about share price and returns, and that's it.


The share prices and returns generally go up if there are increased sales, and that's something important given competition. That's why consumption has to keep rising, which is exactly what happened globally, and particularly in Third World countries, where the middle class more than doubled in only a decade, and where sales for cars, appliances, etc., grew.

That increased production was funded by investors. The credit extended to consumers was also funded by investors.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
There is no connection. Nobody "ensures" middle-class consumption. Investors exploit existing conditions that are not created by them and they don't care about "middle-class" a slightest bit. I discussed the way these conditions arise in the third world in the previous post, and there is virtually nothing to add there.


The conditions you gave ignored the fact that businesses are not created magically from a resource base; investors fund the building of roads, dams, factories, power plants, offices, and purchases of equipment needed to manufacture and even ship goods made from that base. You also ignored the fact that investors through banks also extend credit not only to businesses but even to workers. That's how the middle class emerged in the U.S., as factory workers took advantage of layaway plans to buy Model Ts, iceboxes, and more. Guess what's been happening in many Third World countries the past two decades?
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:21:02

"...that alternative sources (like green electricity) are slowly becoming available..." Yes indeed they have. While at the same the non-alterrnative sources have quickly and significantly have become even more available:

In the last 15 years: global oil consumption has increased 10%, global NG consumption has increased 30% and global coal consumption has increased 60%. In fact not only has global CO2 production increased 30% in the last 15 years it has been increasing at the highest rate ever recorded.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Economics vs. ETP

Unread postby radon1 » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 16:41:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('radon1', '
')
Exactly. The investors don't care about "ensuring middle-class consumption". They care about share price and returns, and that's it.


The share prices and returns generally go up if there are increased sales, and that's something important given competition. That's why consumption has to keep rising,


Why, WHY does it have to be rising? It does not. No increased sales=> no share price growth=>no returns=> no investment. Full stop. There is no need for the consumption to be rising out of nowhere.

What is the objective force that makes the consumption rising, can you explain this please, instead of continuing these general declarations that "it has to be rising"? What is the specific mechanism?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat increased production was funded by investors. The credit extended to consumers was also funded by investors.


This is delusion. Investors don't fund anything. To the contrary, they draw consumer money from the consumers. This is the only reason they turn up out there in the third world countries.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he conditions you gave ignored
These conditions did not ignore anything. These are the only conditions which may attract money (dollars) into a country, which in turn attract investors into the country.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron