Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 21:16:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '
')Were smallpox girl around I may have been able to elicit a conversation on human cognition based on this... actualy it is probibly worth a thread of its own in the psychology forum.



I call myself a "myriadist" because I tend to see things as a bunch of different things instead of one thing or another (not a monist, not a dualist), so I tend to see things as a result of multiple causes, usually, myself. 8O

I think seeing things as one thing may be cultural, not innately human. I suspect those researchers were only looking at civilized humans, and not at non-civilized peoples also. :)
Ludi
 

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 21:40:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') think seeing things as one thing may be cultural, not innately human. I suspect those researchers were only looking at civilized humans, and not at non-civilized peoples also. :)

True, it is most likely a product of reducing information to numbers. We can process vast amounts of contraditory sensory data in a pretty 'fuzzy' means but it is much harder when we have already reduced the data to numbers. This is probibly where people start becoming myopic.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby mos6507 » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 21:51:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')you can prattle on about the US housing crisis in Cleveland, but you have yet to explain what caused the German and Japanese recessions that predated it.


You are using the equivalent of the"global warming on mars" argument to show that AGW is caused by sunspots.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')How much clearer can we get. Too much GDP/$$ going to energy, not enough to salaries BOING: people are strapped. Can't pay mortgages. Is this so complex? Are are you a troll?


My point is that the pain of $4 gas was mostly psychological. People whined and complained about it, but were pretty much able to keep functioning by driving less, bagging a lunch, etc...

What people could not do, however, was adapt their finances to the huge jump in their mortgages with the ARM resets. That is what put people into tent cities and what destroyed the economy.

You have no sense of proportion in measuring the impact of gas on home finances vs. mortgage resets.

That being said, I do think _sustained_ $150 oil would have destroyed the airline industry and who knows what else. But it never got that far. When you look at the damage the oil spike caused, most of it was at the $100-120 pricepoint.
mos6507
 

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 22:02:07

For what it's worth (nothing) my household was not affected one bit by expensive gasoline. But we would have been very strongly affected by a sudden jump in our mortgage payment!
Ludi
 

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 22:47:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'G')ermany and Japan went into recession before the US real estate crash or the financial meltdown.

No they did not.

The US recession started in December 2007. US real estate prices began falling in 2006, if I'm not mistaken.

Japan had a recession in 2001 like the rest of the world. During the rest of the 2002-2008 (Q1) period they had a few quarters with negative GDP growth, but they did not enter a recession.

In fact, in Q4 2007 when US GDP shrank to herald the beginning of the US recession, Japanese GDP stil grew:

Image

US for comparison:
Image

Same thing with Germany (red line):

Image

Is it necessary for you to make up facts to support your claims? It appears so.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 22:57:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ne more time Mos, or should I call you short.

Every major postwar US recession was preceded (not just correlated with, but preceded by) by oil price jumps.]

And every major US postwar recession was preceeded by (not just correlated with, but preceded by) by wheat price jumps.

So I guess that means spiking wheat prices cause recessiosns. :roll:

Rice, too. :razz:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 00:21:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')his is what I found. Oildrum and Jeff Rubin's assertion $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nother issue is timing. As mentioned previously, Eurozone and Japan entered a recession in the second quarter of 2008, which was before the spike in LIBOR rates that is associated with the current financial crisis.

The spike in LIBOR rates had nothing to do with the onset of the US recession.

The recession in the US began in December 2007: (source)

Your own link just said the Eurozone and Japanese recessions did not start until Q2 2008 - that is, after the US recession had already begun.

So your claim that recessions in Japan and Germany started before the US recession is now thoroughly disproven.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 00:21:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ne more time Mos, or should I call you short.

Every major postwar US recession was preceded (not just correlated with, but preceded by) by oil price jumps.]

And every major US postwar recession was preceeded by (not just correlated with, but preceded by) by wheat price jumps.

So I guess that means spiking wheat prices cause recessiosns. :roll:

Rice, too. :razz:
And wheat grows itself? Dries itself? Delivers itself? I did not know that wheat had wings.

Perhaps you should actually read the thread to educate yourself.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 00:31:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Perhaps you should actually read the thread to educate yourself.


Yeah, we've been through THAT before. No readie, no linkee. I haven't figured out what stumps him yet, using the link, or the reading part.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 00:53:36

You said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he evidence becomes stronger every day. I am so tired of hearing that a housing boom in the "Inland Empire" or Cleveland, Ohio caused this world economic contraction. Germany and Japan went into recession before the US real estate crash or the financial meltdown.

Obviously you were implying that since Germany and Japan entered recession before the US (so you thought), the worldwide recession was not caused by a US real estate collapse. After all, if the worldwide recession was started with a US real estate collapse, how could the recessions in Germany and Japan have started first?

But now that you have been instructed that the recession in the US did, in fact, precede the recessions in Germany and Japan, it is wise for you to revisit your statement and its conclusion. If the worldwide recession was, in fact, started by a collapse of US real estate, it would make sense that the worldwide recession first began in the US.

Check, we have that verified.

Next, as mentioned by others in this thread, by no small conicidence, Germany and Japan are big exporting nations, and one of their biggest - if not THE biggest - of their customers is the USofA.

If you are a business or nation, and your biggest customer (or, one of the top 2 or 3) suddenly goes into economic spasms, your own business is going to soon follow suit.

Chekc, we have that verified, as the recessions in Japan and Germany followed the US by a few months or so.

Utterly, totally logical, onc e you have the facts straight.

As a footnote, I should mention that the economies of Germany and Japan are much less oil-intensive than the US. If your original claim that recessions in Japan and Germany preceded the US, AND they were caused by high oil prices, then it would follow that Germany and Japan would be among the LAST nations affected by high oil prices (and thus, among the LAST to enter recession), since their economies are not so sensitive to oil prices.

So, one way or another, your original claim cannot have been correct.
Last edited by copious.abundance on Sun 07 Feb 2010, 00:54:41, edited 1 time in total.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby copious.abundance » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 01:02:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'W')hy in God's name would I read your crap Oily? I am not a fan of your humor, much less your disinformation.

Translation: I do not like to read OF2's posts, because he makes too much sense and is too logical and his facts are clearly sound, but this threatens my worldview because he holds the opposite viewpoint as I.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'B')ut tell me Oily; has this recession really ended so much sooner than expected? You've spend hundreds of posts arguing the ridiculous.

Translation: I cannot counter OF2's facts pertaining to this thread, so I have to change the subject.

But since you asked, the recession is over as we speak. So sorry to inform you, I know you do not like economic growth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')r this Oily; have discoveries yet exceeded production any time in the last 40 years? Give it up troll.

Translation: I cannot counter OF2's facts pertaining to this thread, so I have to change the subject.

But since you asked, I can point you to a discovery which equals 50% of all the oil used by mankind to date. Not that you care.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 04:21:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bratticus', '
')But wasn't the super-spike just an inevitable consequence of world peak oil?


Not $147/oil. Maybe $100-120 tops. Speculation made the superspike look worse than it was.

If the economy hadn't tanked, and speculation had been controlled, we'd probably be at $150 or above by now. Supply and demand didn't justify such an abrupt spike.


I ran some numbers just now; the average price spiked in Feb 1981 at $36.93/bbl. If we were following the same pattern down it would be at $105.24/Jan. The Dec-Jan product supplied numbers aren't out yet, but if I average out what they give for 4 week moving averages and impose the same pattern we should be at 1100 kb/d less now. So, in the early 80s, with lower demand and no speculation (NYMEX didn't open until 1983) we were paying the equivalent of ca. $31/bbl more.

Rough numbers and I'm having to extrapolate various bits of it, but you get the picture. Speculators can as easily depress prices, you know. It's all about greed.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 04:29:05

Get a load of the countries which were showed negative GDP on an annual basis for 2007:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'Fiji
Zimbabwe
Tonga
Micronesia, Federated States of
Comoros Islands
Congo, Republic of (Brazzaville)
Puerto Rico
Kiribati & Tuvalu Gilbert Islands
Chad
St Lucia
Brunei')

:?:
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 11:38:34

This is the state of peak oil movement circa early 2010...



Pstarr and those like him are still desperately seeking to rationalize peak oil as the cause of the credit crisis in order to keep the peak oil meme alive considering that threats of imminent zombie doom by the likes of Matt Simmons and company did not materialize on schedule. (In fact, didn't Matt Simmons say, after oil prices tanked, that "rust" would create a superspike in 6-9 months? Still hasn't happened. Chalk up another massive fail to the master debater.)

We went through an extended period starting in the fall of 2008 when oil prices tanked in which peak oil completely fell off the radar in favor of the credit crisis.

The Pickens Plan failed. EV projects exist only because of government handouts. SUV sales have at least partially recovered. Happy motoring (for those who have jobs) is back.

It was necessary to superimpose peak oil as the "grand unification theory" to explain the credit crisis to attempt to keep the issue in the public eye.

It failed.

It failed despite the fact that Obama issued his best catchphrase "shock to trance".

It failed because the public has extremely short-term memory, but it ALSO failed because peak oilers' main theory prior to the credit crisis was too simplistic. Peak oilers overstated their case and therefore opened themselves up to "boy who cried wolf" criticisms by the likes of Michael Lynch.

The reason I'm playing whistleblower on this issue is that I was NOT just looking at peak oil and only peak oil at the time. I was tracking both peak oil AND the housing bubble. I knew the bubble was going to pop, and peakers did not. Despite that, I did buy into the Matt Simmons doomer scenarios, and I'm ashamed that I did. You know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

My feeling is that the need that peakers have to point at charts and "call" inflection points just causes them to look like idiots again and again.

And the past year HAS had an unusually large number of oil discoveries. Are these "easy oil"? No. Are these going to start pumping tomorrow? No. But peakers should concede these discoveries.

Peakers harm the movement by trying to build a simplistic straight-line narrative about doom, and of constantly ret-conning the narrative every time the real flow of history throws them a curve-ball.

Someone could write a War and Peace novel with all of the failed predictions over the last 5-6 years. Peak oil doom is always "imminent" or in the past tense, awaiting shockwaves.

I say this not to disprove peak oil, but to call in question the over-eager peakers who are always slinging dates and predictions out of their *sses that don't match up with reality.

The trucks are still delivering to wal-mart. Airline travel is still feasible to the masses. You can still get your plastic pumpkins. Despite "Obamavilles" and such, Toecutter and his band of mutant zombie bikers are nowhere to be seen.

Yes, we're in a recession, but a recession != peak oil doom. The dot com crash was not peak oil doom. the S&L crisis was not peak oil doom. The Great Depression was not peak oil doom. Apples and oranges!!! The recession is probably indicative of the larger narrative of the collapse of the US that perhaps started to gain momentum when US oil peaked in 1970, but it is not a function of global geological peak oil, aka the 2005 date that TOD posits, nor the $147/bbl peak pricepoint. I despise this intellectual crossing of the wires between $147 oil and the US oil peak of 1970.

People like Jeff Rubin are merely higher profile names that use much the same rhetorical argument as Pstarr and the like. I do not defer to their authority on these matters because they too are blinded by peak oil glasses. You can tell, you can just tell when you read or listen to Rubin that the guy is freaked out along the same lines as Ruppert. He's gone the way of Charlton Heston. "Soylent Green is Peeeeple!" They see doom in the mirror as many of us do, and you know what, they are flawed human beings just as we are. They can connect the dots wrong just as, let's say Michael Lynch at the WSJ can. I'm telling it as I see it, as an independently minded thinker who doesn't have to be TOLD what to think either by deniers or uberdoomers.

Look, I understand how being a strident Cassandra makes sense given that people feel the need to boil in the pot before they try to jump out of it. But I do not support cooking the books. I believe in looking at the facts that we have, even if it doesn't add up to the doom we were all expecting.

The Hirsch report et. al. indicated that we have to begin transitioning off oil a few decades at least before peak oil happens. Well, human nature being what it is, even if everyone on the planet conceded that peak oil was 2020 or 2030, they WON'T begin transitioning until oil prices permanently recede into the stratosphere.

THAT is what makes me doomer. I don't have to bash the IEA for setting a peak date at 2020 or 2030. To me, 2020 is already too close for comfort. I'm not going to knee-jerk accuse the IEA of fudging the numbers because I still have that magic 2005 date from The Oil Drum burned into my skull. It's about trying to find some happy medium between overly doomer peakists and overly corny energy experts.

But no, peakers have to gather this warchest of cherry-picked datapoints in order to push their agenda and to try to hide, conceal, or discredit any data that runs counter to their narrative.

And God forbid anyone claim that doom isn't literally hours away or they will be accused of heresy and burned at the stake.



Look, I'm worried about peak oil. I had (what I think) was an anxiety attack last week and was in the ICU with an IV in my arm over cumulative stress and worries over how I'm going to get myself and my daughter through the combined sh*tstorm of the US economic collapse, peak oil, and global warming. So I am not some kind of shortonsense denier when it comes to the big picture. But if I don't tow the party line about "peak oil caused the credit crisis", then stuff it. It doesn't make me a troll for not bobbleheading in a thread like this.
mos6507
 

Re: 4% of GDP is $80 oil = Recession

Unread postby TheDude » Sun 07 Feb 2010, 12:10:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'A')nd the past year HAS had an unusually large number of oil discoveries. Are these "easy oil"? No. Are these going to start pumping tomorrow? No. But peakers should concede these discoveries.


I have a fun quote from the EIA for you:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') 1. This graph shows the 2 percent production growth rate with the 3 USGS resource levels.

2. Note that the timing of the estimated production peak is relatively insensitive to variations in the resource base estimate. For example, adding 900 billion barrels - more oil than the world has produced to date - to the mean resource estimate on the 2 percent growth path only delays the estimated production peak by 10 years. Similarly, subtracting 850 billion barrels from the mean resource estimate on the 2 percent growth path accelerates the estimated production peak by 11 years.


PPT Slide. Hubbert made the same point in one of his papers.

Don't know why the rest of your post, or a thousand like it, is really necessary. So you and your opponents are hanging onto to a theory for psychological succor, so what? Give me a data point.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron