by Jack » Tue 30 May 2006, 09:32:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'S')o what's your motivation?
Partly to gather information, and partly to test ideas.
I gather information from a variety of sources - this forum and several others (freerepublic, libertypost, democratic underground). In essence, I see an information flow from a variety of sources and perspectives. I also see the reaction of people within a virtual community to those news events. Sometimes I see ideas so absurd that they motivate me to do the opposite – for example, some years ago the Economist published a piece that predicted $5 per barrel oil. I started accumulating VGENX that very week.
Those different perspectives help me evaluate the impact of events. I also get inputs on different segments of society - so, on democratic underground, I see more postings about the effects of inflation on the lower economic strata. On freerepublic, I see a very different mindset. I will tell you that I see a lot of angst over increased costs and higher interest rates. I also see profound ignorance of Peak Oil and its implications. This tells me that we have some years to go before mass consciousness shifts, so the game is not yet over. It also tells me that Peak Oil is likely to sacrifice the poorest first, so we won’t see an identifiable event. The poor cannot afford gas to get to work right now. The more affluent have just purchased one of the last Hummer 1’s – and don’t know (really, truly, don’t know or care) what the mileage is. Since the working poor tend to be invisible, those of us in higher strata don’t see what’s happening to them, so we remain blind to the actual impact oil prices are having right now. Certain exceptions to the foregoing are duly noted and acknowledged.
I adopt different persona, and different vocabularies and posting styles on the various forums, which lets me test my ideas without offending the community standards too much. The persona I use here is, perhaps, the closest to reality.
PeakOil.com has been very useful from the standpoint of generating actionable investment ideas. For example, the cornucopians love the idea of coal liquefaction - which suggests more use of coal. Take a look at Peabody Coal (BTU) - which happens to be a component of both VGENX and VGPMX.
The emphasis on alternative fuels (biomass) tells me that food will go up in price - though that's a bit tougher to invest in. I think it's a non-starter due to water constraints. I will tell you that a contact who is a player...and perhaps an inside player...has informed me that China is buying soybeans equivalent to the entire production from North America. And the open interest in Wheat is at record levels on the exchange. So, this all goes together to suggest that alternative fuels will conflict with food - and hence are (in my opinion) doomed from inception. You can see how the various threads of information can be synthesized to form conclusions.
I can also use the various forums to test ideas and concepts. If other posters cannot destroy my position through logic and facts, that offers limited validation. So if I say that switch grass is no solution and the idea is drivel, and I don't get any response that shows me in detail that I'm wrong...and there aren't any other threads that would indicate I'm in error...then my conclusions are strengthened. Not proven, of course - but strengthened. I can hardly overstate the value of PeakOil.com in that area. Posters who add opinions or use clever rhetoric don’t count; they may be amusing or otherwise, but they don’t affect validation of ideas.
One factor in my doomer mindset is the dearth of effective responses I see here and elsewhere. So far, the strategies seem to be (1) ignore the problem and pray to the gods/scientists, (2) jump up and down and scream biofuels, (3) stockpile MREs and ammo, or (4) go back to the land and become a subsistence farmer. These tell me that when the bad times hit, it will get very, very nasty.
I might add that the mutual animosity I perceive between Democrats and Republicans suggests that there will be no effective government interventions. The two sides despise each other, and that shared hatred motivates them to block whatever useful ideas the opposite side might have. I think Matthew Simmons is overly optimistic when he advocates a crash program to develop alternatives – the programs will be torn apart before they can be created.
You mention activism. Actually, I evaluate most people I interact with in terms of their potential value in various scenarios. Those that seem as if they might be worthwhile get introduced to the concept. Having an informal network of people can, I think, be useful in the first stages.
So, there you have it. Information flow and critical review of concepts. Nothing new or original.