[Colorado-Valley]

Shhhh!

Aren't we supposed to keep this stuff quiet?

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') read the article, but it doesn't say who wrote it. How are you sure?

[NEOPO]

Does this mean that there is hope for scholars of economics?

[Cobra_Strike]

NO NO NO NO NO!!!! BAD....The sheep must not be allowed to do anything. It would undermine any chance of mass panic, and therefor long term suffering would take the place of riots/confusion/murder.

This guy need to keep his head down, until enough American Idol watchers die. Some of the rest might be worth saving.

[RdSnt]

Relax, even the majority of readers of this site aren't turning a wheel to prepare.
There are plenty who say they understand but inside they really haven't clued in that TSIAGTH (The Shit Is Actually Going To Hit) and within the lifetime of the majority of us.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cobra_Strike', 'N')O NO NO NO NO!!!! BAD....The sheep must not be allowed to do anything. It would undermine any chance of mass panic, and therefor long term suffering would take the place of riots/confusion/murder.

This guy need to keep his head down, until enough American Idol watchers die. Some of the rest might be worth saving.

[minnesotan]

"Even this doesn't get at all the things that have been going on, and the more perceptive have probably noticed that the moon and stars have been misaligned for a number of years now, or that anomalous weather has not just been an Earth phenomenon, but a phenomenon of other planets in the solar system as well."

The above was in the article too. It all sounded pretty sensible. then this...

[MrBill]

So, WTSHTF are we to believe that all those who have something to sell because they grew it, produced it or manufactured it, will not want to sell it to someone in order to support themselves, trade it for what they need and put bread on their own table? That, my friend, defies logic. Not just economics. Of course, 6000 years of human history and trade may be completely wrong, but who knows?

The guy is a fooking wacko. I really do not understand your headline at all? Nothing in his post has anything to do with economics and could have just as easily been published in Guns & Ammo magazine. No wonder he is no longer working as an economist and is probably working in a call center by now.

[Micki]

Sorry to always argue your posts MrBill, but I did write "economist" not "economics" in the headline.
And if you carefully read my posting, he still works with invetments for an asset management company. Possibly investing in tents, shovels and outdoor clothings...what do I know.

Furthermore, the post does describe the potential impact of disruptions to oil import or the aftermath of a global derivats crash so although taking the subjects to it's extreme I belive it belongs in the topic "depletion economics".

He is a bit more extreme than for instance myself in his predictions, but that doesn't mean his views can't be expressed in the forum.

I however found it interesting that a person of his background is so doomerish.

I also have a distant relative who is a senior bond advisor in Singapore with one of the major foreign banks.
When we discussed possible inpact of a global US$ currency, his comment were "good you got a large backyard, you may want to start growing more vegetables". Never heard anything like it from him previously but his opinion was that it had the potential to throw countries into barter economies.

[MrBill]

Oh, absolutely, Micki. I have made it clear here what I do for a living, but having the farm back home is a nice insurance policy if things do go pear shaped. It is like knowing a trade in addition to having an education. It is a hobby that you may be able to fall back on in hard times. Having choices is more important than one may think when everything is going well.

I guess none of us would be here at peak oil dot com if we did not understand the implications of hydrocarbon depletion and the end of our current living standards as we now enjoy them. That is a reality even if it is a distant one or somewhat more immediate as some here suggest it is.

What I really hate though are the fear mongers! My father, may he rest in peace, got caught up in the whole The World Will End back in the 1970's. Used to read The Coming Great Depression of 1975/76/77/78..... Doomers such as The Ruff Times. I have back issues of Mother Earth and Harrowsmith stacked to the rafters. There is no time like right now to stock-up on dehydrated food in your basement.

He never bought stocks or bonds. Just worthless pieces of paper. We were property rich and perennially cash poor. But we have three of every hand tool known to modern man! Okay, someday, some how those may come in really handy. Along with the knowledge of how to use them. But you have to also plan for future just in case the world does not blow-up on schedule.

An accumulated return of sensible investment strategies over the past 30-years would have also provided more than enough financial security for the coming perfect storm.

Wealth accumulation is still necessary. Especially if you expect hard times. What you then do with your wealth is another story. Save and invest sensibly. Sure I can say that because I already own enough cold weather gear to sleep in an ice cave. And I know how to build one. But that is another story!

p.s. I think corporate bonds are a mug's game by the way. Bond holders have very few rights when it comes to new issuance or M&As or take-overs all of which can erase those bonds worth quite quickly. By the time you read AT&T is being broken up into Baby Bells your blue chip corporate bonds have lost their AAA rating. Stocks are easier to dump. Especially as scumbag hedge funds and their corporate raiders are fond of buying solid investments like utilities with steady cash flows and then loading them up with debt turning them into junk bonds.

But I am one of the good guys! Trust me. I am a banker! ; - )

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'B')ut you have to also plan for future just in case the world does not blow-up on schedule.

[vision-master]

If that's what I got to do to survive, I'd rather put myself out of my own misery.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'S')o, WTSHTF are we to believe that all those who have something to sell because they grew it, produced it or manufactured it, will not want to sell it to someone in order to support themselves, trade it for what they need and put bread on their own table?

[MrBill]

I have been doing some reading recently about food production, processing and fuel usage. Some interesting findings. The Economist did an article on it a few weeks ago.

They concluded that tightly packed crates of food delivered to the store near you in containers probably used less energy, or in this case petroleum, than the SUV used to drive to the corner store to buy the groceries.

And there is less waste in terms of spoiled produce. Also a factor. Spoiled food is of no use to anyone, but it still takes land, water and energy to grow.

Also, I am lucky to get German TV via satelite and they seem to do a lot of programs on food processing. I am struck by how efficient these factories are. I am also convinced they are far more fuel efficient than having decentralized processing done in many smaller batches.

I will agree that if we run out of petroleum that long distance transport of perishables will cease to happen.

However, stationary sources of power will still run much of the food processing done to preserve food. It is simply way more efficient than human labor. Labor that also has to be fed to keep it working.

And I think ditto for water usage. Yes, these plants use a tremendous amount of water for processing, but divided by the sheer tonnage of food processed (or however you measure it) they are very efficient.

Basically, the Germans are legendary engineers, which is probably why they lead the world in exports two years in a row now, but one machine easily does the work of hundreds of workers. And that is a huge saving in terms of manpower and expense not to mention making food cheaper for the consumer.

I do not see peak oil depletion as changing that. We have used a period of cheap energy to introduce best practices into food manufacturing as well as spreading crops to many countries from their country of origin, and this somewhat insulates us from crop failure in any one region of the world.

How we grow food will no doubt have to change. Especially western practices dependent on artificial fertilizers, irrigation and petroleum powered machinery. And long distance trucking will have to be replaced by rail and water transport. That means central depos and local distribution. Maybe even by bicycle or horse drawn wagon if necessary.

But in general I do not see mom and pop shops popping up everywhere to replace modern factories that operate that much more efficiently. Remember living standards will be declining with less energy. So the most efficient plants will be even more important. There really is no going back.

Now, if we run out of all conventional sources of energy and there are no alternatives then we might be well and truly out of luck, but even then I suspect centralized factories with solar power will still be more efficient than everyone doing everything manually again.

[Leanan]

Wow. If is Nathan Lewis of Polycomics, he's a supply-sider. I thought they believed the solution to all problems was to cut taxes.

[JustinFrankl]

There are some good ideas here, but I'd like to think things through a little further.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') have been doing some reading recently about food production, processing and fuel usage. Some interesting findings. The Economist did an article on it a few weeks ago.

They concluded that tightly packed crates of food delivered to the store near you in containers probably used less energy, or in this case petroleum, than the SUV used to drive to the corner store to buy the groceries.

[mgibbons19]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')I guess none of us would be here at peak oil dot com if we did not understand the implications of hydrocarbon depletion and the end of our current living standards as we now enjoy them. That is a reality even if it is a distant one or somewhat more immediate as some here suggest it is.

What I really hate though are the fear mongers! My father, may he rest in peace, got caught up in the whole The World Will End back in the 1970's. Used to read The Coming Great Depression of 1975/76/77/78..... Doomers such as The Ruff Times. I have back issues of Mother Earth and Harrowsmith stacked to the rafters. There is no time like right now to stock-up on dehydrated food in your basement.

He never bought stocks or bonds. Just worthless pieces of paper. We were property rich and perennially cash poor. But we have three of every hand tool known to modern man! Okay, someday, some how those may come in really handy. Along with the knowledge of how to use them. But you have to also plan for future just in case the world does not blow-up on schedule.

[RdSnt]

While all the comments so far are quite sensible, what people here are not considering is the "Panic Factor".
Consider New Orleans (Katrina) and what a balls up mess that was. Lots of talk about how it was the gov'ments fault, but little if any critique of the civilian reaction. And that was for an identifiable event.

If the general public is panic'ed they can collectively believe an awful lot and do incredibly stupid things.

You're rational discussion won't mean a thing then.

[Bas]

funnily enough, when searching google with "nathan lewis economist", the third hit was THIS thread on THIS forum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Nathan+Lewis+economist

[Micki]

That is quite an unfair way of judging.
Selection of the third word makes a big difference. i.e. he may have published lots of articles just none containing the
work "economist". i.e. search on "nathan lewis economy" would already give a different result.

Having that said, I have no idea who this bloke is.
But given that the daily reckoning published his article, one would think that he can't be a total nobody.

Secondly whether he is right or wrong is a differnt matter.
Even media superstars seem to be more wrong than right nowadays. I follow most of them for their entertainment value and listen carfully only to a few, like Marc Faber.

[Bas]

well, ok, a second search resulted in "better" links. Are there more than 1 nathan lewis' btw? (I also saw nathan lewis miller and a Nathan S. Lewis, are these persons one and the same?