[bl00k]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('burtonridr', 'H')as it really been flat lining that long? Do you have links to any related articles or information?

[BigTex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bl00k', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('burtonridr', 'H')as it really been flat lining that long? Do you have links to any related articles or information?

[r101958]

I am wondering why folks out there that think that the demand destruction we now see is a wonderful thing. If we look at it from the correct perspective we will see that the affects of PO have actually already begun.

Demand destruction does not occur in a vacuum. This demand destruction that everybody thinks is going to cure the oil problems is actually going to make more and more people lose their jobs. Housing prices will not recover quickly, if at all.

Sure, the price of oil will go down for a while...but not for long. Those that are gloating now about how PO was wrong will be eating their hats before long (perhaps literally).

I do not think oil will disappear overnight. I think the volatility we are seeing now is the offspring of the PO plateau. My feeling is that most economists still think there is an endless supply of oil out there and that all we need to do is create more 'liquidity' and the economy will kick in to gear, start growing again, and then everything will be just fine.

I think the ecomomists are in for a surprise. They continue to compartmentalize, keeping the economy and oil production in two different spheres. They will continue wondering why our economy, and the world economy, can't advance out of this inflationary recession. Soon enough to be a hyperinflationary depression.

[Cashmere]

Fourth Graph Down

The 4th chart from the top shows very nicely the undulating plateau of the last 3 years.

I expect that we'll find the edge of the plateau very shortly.

[BigTex]

When I first started hearing the term "demand destruction" used by the MSM, I was happy that some part of the peak oil thesis was being discussed.

However, the more I heard the term used, the more I began to realize that often the person using the term didn't seem to know precisely what it meant.

When you say it assertively, it sort of sounds like something cool.

But obviously, the mere existence of demand destruction suggests that there is an inadequate supply to meet existing demand. No one is asking "why is there insufficient supply to meet existing demand?"

That's the question that would lead to a good discussion.

The answer of "increases in demand from Chindia" sort of begs the question, "well, why don't we just increase production to meet the increased demand?"

The answer, of course, is that we can't increase production, because THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH PEAK OIL--YOU CAN'T INCREASE PRODUCTION!!!"

It's right there in front of them, but they don't see it.

[r101958]

BigTex....Excellent input and insight. You are right on the mark. I keep asking myself why people don't see the obvious. The only answer I can come up with is ignorance is bliss....until the truth shows itself in stark reality.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'B')ut obviously, the mere existence of demand destruction suggests that there is an inadequate supply to meet existing demand.

[r101958]

OilFinder.......your observation brings us to the next question, what does demand destruction cause? It causes lost jobs, contraction etc. Lost jobs mean houses for sale don't get sold, cars don't get bought and more jobs are lost.

It is a spiral and the only way we have extricated ourselves from it in the past has been through further growth. In the current economic paradigm growth is dependant on further demand and growth in supply of cheap, plentiful fossil fuels.

[copious.abundance]

@r101958 -

There are many countries whose oil consumption is flat or declining for some time, and yet their economies have continued to grow. This has been discussed at length here.

For example, here is a chart of German oil consumption from 1991 to 2001. It pretty much went nowhere during this time.



Yet during this same time period, the German economy grew from 1,534.60 billion euros to 2,113.16 billion euros. (source)

So no, economic growth is not "dependant on further demand and growth in supply of cheap, plentiful fossil fuels." There are many other examples of this in addition to Germany.

[vision-master]

I've listened to enough of your garbage. <IGNORE>

[TheAntiDoomer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I')'ve listened to enough of your garbage. <IGNORE>

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I')'ve listened to enough of your garbage. <IGNORE>

[Cashmere]

VM - he's the only guy on my ignore list.

I don't come here to read cornucopian bunk - that's what the MSM is for.

I wouldn't ignore someone calling me an ass, a bigot, a charlatan, and so on, but I just don't have time to read/get caught up in PO 101 with some dude who's posting here for some unknown reason.

Like I said - it's like the meat eater posting on the Vegan board about the benefits of eating meat.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')f Timex raises the prices of their watches beyond that which people are willing to pay for them, then Timex goes out of business. It is destroyed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I')'ve listened to enough of your garbage. <IGNORE>

[The_Virginian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cashmere', 'I')t's all about the crude oil. Watch crude oil, not "total liquids".
When they are burning massive amounts of NG and Oil to extract tar sands and biofuels, the "total liquids" number becomes misleading.
So you suck 100 barrels out of the ground. Then you burn all 100 barrels to produce 40 barrel equivalents of ethanol. The "total liquids" reported is 140, but the actual net is 40.
Same deal here. Watch crude. Crude is at 74. Same number as it was in 05. When crude starts falling off, it's game over, regardless of the rest of the "liquid fuels" contingent.

[copious.abundance]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'Y')EP! And worse Total Liquids Often includes ETHANOL!

[r101958]

OilFinder2......You make some interesting points but they might be a bit misleading, I think. If we can fit the population of America inside a geographical area 3.5 times the size of present Germany and inherit their infrastructure then I will sign up. Also, I wonder if those numbers take into account inflation. It just states GNP and doesn't say whether that is adjusted for inflation. Also, when was it that they changed over to the Euro...wasn't it more recent than the time you referenced? How much electrical power did they use per capita? Not sure of all this, just raising some questions.

[copious.abundance]

@r101958,

1) GDP numbers typically take into account inflation. In other words, that 38% rise over 10 years was a real 38% rise, after adjusting for inflation.
2) The numbers are in constant euros. Yes I think they changed over to the euro somewhere in the late 1990's, but prior to that they just converted the old German marks to the value they assigned it to the new euro.
3) Yes of course infrastructure plays a role. Nevertheless, it still shows that an economy can grow without consuming more oil.

If you don't trust the example of Germany due to the euro-mark issue, then look at Japan, which has had the same currency for a very long time. Between 1996 and 2006, oil consumption in Japan actually declined.



Yet, between the first quarter of 1996, and the first quarter of 2006, Japan's economy grew from 118,018.90 billion yen to 134,960.60 billion yen, a rise of 14% (source). And notice this particular chart says "GPD, real" - "real," meaning of course, that they've adjusted for inflation.