by Schmuto » Sat 28 Mar 2009, 09:07:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'E')nd of the day, this is what is . . .
OIL=GDP.
As oil production declines, so to will "the GDP derived from oil". Do you prefer that phrasing?
If your counter is that "we can substitute other energy supplies for oil, thereby raising GDP" then I'd say you are incorrect, but that is another argument, and time will show that you incorrect.
Note that "time will show that you are incorrect" is nothing but an opinion, a naked assertion supported by no evidence whatsoever. Where's your proof that "we cannot substitute other energy for oil and raise GDP", Schmuto? You can't expect people to simply take your word for it, especially since common sense suggests that you very much can use other forms of energy to grow GDP.
Well, JD, if your contention that my prediction for the future is an opinion, then I agree, and you win today's
badge of obviousness:
I really have no interest in arguing with you JD - your entire mindset is based on a failing presumption. You are like an Israeli who must cling to the sorry proposition that they have done nothing to bring their misery on themselves, lest they admit they are in the wrong.
You think, what? Oil will peak in 30 years and we'll all be driving solar powered cars?
Right?
I have no interest in a back and forth with somebody who is starting from that quicksand-based position.
But I'll offer this to our readers:
What JD is trying to do is to cherry pick short sections of time where oil consumption was flat and GDP was increasing in order to rejoin my thesis.
What's obviously wrong with that is that GDP does not react instantaneously to any inputs, and particularly not oil. For example, printing money, lowering loan rates, and pumping the economy all have the short term effect of showing a rise in GDP - but that is illusory. The short term pop in GDP must come back down, like it is now, and like it always will. Because energy creates GDP, not bankers. And oil is the meat and bones of energy.
The Dude's graph shows the relationship perfectly.
Energy is life.
Oil is GDP. As Oil is removed from the economy, GDP is removed from the economy. It's as simple as that.
JD and other cornucrapians will try to tell you that we can substitute with coal and this and that.
Of course, that begs the basic question - why haven't we done so already? Why be dependent on something produced by "evil" people? Why not just use coal, instead (we have a 7,000 year supply after all)?
The answer is, of course, that oil is the Cadillac of energy, and other sources fall far short of oil's versatility.
We don't use coal instead of oil because using coal wouldn't be as efficient - that is, would reduce GDP relative to oil.
But, as I said, time will tell.
When we look back in 20 years the drop off in GDP will completely track the drop off in oil consumption.
My best estimate is that oil production in 20 years will be about 25% of what it is now, and I expect world GDP to be down about 75%.
The best part of all of this is that when that happens, or some close approximation, JD will be going on about, despite the correlation, there was some other reason for the drop in GDP.
Why do you even post here?
You're like a beef fanatic posting on a vegan site. Why not just go find some beef site?