Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Peak Oil & Economics Thread (merged)

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Where should we invest??

Postby dean » Thu 09 Sep 2004, 21:39:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the dollar tanks, this 3.7 trillion worth of bad checks is going to hit the bank.


If the dollar tanks, then where is a safe haven for net worth. Would it be in real estate, gold or maybe oil futures?
User avatar
dean
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Where should we invest??

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 09 Sep 2004, 21:56:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dean', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the dollar tanks, this 3.7 trillion worth of bad checks is going to hit the bank.


If the dollar tanks, then where is a safe haven for net worth. Would it be in real estate, gold or maybe oil futures?


Dean, I have covered this a length in other posts, but briefly, 65% of new mortgages are variable rate-not fixed. In the dollar tanks people will lose their homes and property values will plummet. Oil futures short term, but don't get caught with your pants down. Precious metals seem safe, gold, silver, and others like nickel. But no one knows and I am not an economist..but they don't seem to know either.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Postby Ayoob » Thu 09 Sep 2004, 22:39:12

It depends on how bad you think it'll get and just how stupid we all are. If I can figure this shit out for myself I'm sure there's thousands of people all over the place who know what this means. There's 2000 subscribers to the energy resources mailing list and thousands more on runningonempty2. You know these people are kind of evangelistic about the topic and tend to talk to their friends about what this means for all of us.

I know I've talked to at least ten of my friends at length on the topic, and one of them now calls me from time to time to talk about it in more depth. There's got to be tens of thousands who know. Plus, people listen to stories about it on NPR, and more people read magazines like Forbes et al, which have subscriber bases in the tens of thousands, all the books and DVD's and Chomsky's speeches... I mean there were 500,000 people in NYC out there in the street protesting, and a bunch of them were talking about oil there. This is definitely known and talked about in public.

This is a huge movement here in the US. We have over a hundred meetups on meetup.com scattered all over the place. There are seven separate meetups in the LA area alone!

We talk to each other, and I'm sure this is going to be a MAJOR ISSUE in the next election. We won't even be talking about terror anymore by then. The pretense will have been dropped. It will be totally apparent to anyone that there is trouble about this and we have to take drastic action immediately. This will be a far greater issue than the federal highway system, social security, prescription drug benefits, God, ANYTHING.

It will suck when this happens, you'll see a lot of poverty for a while. But, poverty or no, we will pull together and make some kind of useful lives for ourselves. There will be trouble, and we will deal with it humanely and responsibly. The people of this country, very much unlike the current administration, are a compassionate group who care about their neighbors and wouldn't want millions of starving homeless people in their cities. We as a nation wouldn't stand for it. You would see the Catholic Chairities, the Red Cross, the Southern Baptists, the Freemasons, the fucking COAST GUARD out there helping their neighbors get adjusted to a new reality. There will be no bizarre Mad Max nightmare to deal with out there.
User avatar
Ayoob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 10 Sep 2004, 01:20:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that PO is technologically solvable ... 250 mpg VW's, China's Pebble Bed reactors, Coal Gasification, etc. the TECHNOLOGY is there already
.

Ah, I see the impatient frustration of youth in your prose. I can understand your point. What you might want to consider is whether or not we can continue to burn those fossil fuels even if we had them. We are rapidly changing the carbon cycle of the atmosphere. Those fossil fuels are not a part of it. If you read my Peak Oil Perfect Storm post, you would see that we are set up for a collapse, PO or not. If this was 1977 and we had a stable economy, I would be in your camp. Hang in there, your energy will find a helpful use.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Postby JohnDenver » Fri 10 Sep 2004, 05:39:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that PO is technologically solvable ... 250 mpg VW's, China's Pebble Bed reactors, Coal Gasification, etc. the TECHNOLOGY is there already
.

Ah, I see the impatient frustration of youth in your prose.


I smell a strange odor emanating from your self-satisfied drivel.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I can understand your point. What you might want to consider is whether or not we can continue to burn those fossil fuels even if we had them. We are rapidly changing the carbon cycle of the atmosphere. Those fossil fuels are not a part of it. If you read my Peak Oil Perfect Storm post, you would see that we are set up for a collapse, PO or not.


Riiiiggghhhtt.... Gotta have two or three fallback disasters in reserve in case your first one doesn't pan out. Sounds like you're not too sure about anything except the fact that we're all doomed. Which leads me to question whether your position derives from sound analysis, or just an adjustment problem with the world around you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If this was 1977 and we had a stable economy, I would be in your camp.


Did we have a stable economy back the 1977? I don't think we've ever been stable, have we?
Your hysteria about debt etc. is just the same ol' bear rehash they've been pumping for the last 25 years. Like "Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad" by Davidson and Rees-Mogg, published 1987, now (mercifully) out of print. Volumes and volumes, Mbyte after Mbyte of "it's going down, man!!" and it's all a bunch of bullshit.
America is irritating people these days, but the country still plays a critical role in the world, and it will not go down for the simple reason that nobody wants that to happen (except whackos like yourself). The financial overlords of the world will not allow it to happen. I know it's hard to come to grips with that emotionally, but it's the truth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ang in there, your energy will find a helpful use.

I've been thinking we could probably drive a small city if we hooked up a generator to your keyboard fingers. Are you retired?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby ShawnAvery » Fri 10 Sep 2004, 06:38:08

i think you live in a sheltered world if you think that the world isnt ALREADY fucking screwed due to climate change. i live in arizona, its been a drought here for a looong time, the water tables are all going down way too quickly, the colorado river is fooked.. its water levels are so low.

but im not even complaining... hurricanes keep getting worse and more frequent, in case you havent noticed. im wondering what will be left of florida and the east coast in a few years.

now THAT is a perfect storm, hehe.. 150 mph winds and billions of dollars in damage, and thats not even counting the new one on the way.. ivan. i bet that one is going to TOTALLY mess some stuff up.

i read a scientific article saying the changes humanity makes to the air are delayed 50 years. so the stuff that is happening right now.. is from 50 years ago, when there were half as many people on the planet.

think really hard.. i know this is a stretch, but im going to put it to you very plainly.

6,300,000,000

humans on every continent and island, fishing every stream and ocean, farming every plot of land, killing every animal.

the only place where we DON'T normally hang out is in the deep sea and on the poles (though SOME people apparently like it that cold)

i live in the middle of the desert where the temperature never freezes, ok? if you stay outside too long here, you DIE. the sun fucking roasts you like a hot dog. oil enables people to live here comfortably, and many other places. air conditioning is life, its on right now, and its 3 in the morning!

ever seen any pictures of the planet from space? go to terraserver i think its called..

take a look around, roads everywhere, cities that cover whole sections of the planet.

ever watch star trek? remember the borg?

humanity is to earth as the borg is to the federation.

and guess what, the federation always wins, though the borg has the more baddest assed economy.
User avatar
ShawnAvery
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: arizona

Postby MonteQuest » Fri 10 Sep 2004, 12:03:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')
Which leads me to question whether your position derives from sound analysis, or just an adjustment problem with the world around you.


I think I have done my homework. I have been critically involved in these issues for almost 35 years, and I'm hardly a doomsayer. There is a post shortly following my intro on the Perfect Peak Oil Storm from an economist that mirrors much of what I have said. Yes, throughout my life, I have been rather appalled at the way mankind has treated this planet. It has a given me very strong convictions about life and how to live it. Through diversity, we have stability; through conservation, we preserve that diversity.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')merica is irritating people these days, but the country still plays a critical role in the world, and it will not go down for the simple reason that nobody wants that to happen (except whackos like yourself). The financial overlords of the world will not allow it to happen. I know it's hard to come to grips with that emotionally, but it's the truth.


History has shown us that all the great ancient empires of earth, from the Persian to the Roman, fell when they were at their peak; none withstanding. Roman civilization had many parallels to our own. The Roman Empire was a historical construct, and contemporary Romans always referred to their country as a Republic.

As to the "financial warlords" not allowing a collapse, do you consider the financial terrorism we exert over the world a comfortable and secure position? If you read my Excercise your Vote under Planning for the Future, you will see that, I, too, see that America plays a crtical role and that we need to lead.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'ve been thinking we could probably drive a small city if we hooked up a generator to your keyboard fingers. Are you retired?


No, not retired, just willing to take the time to learn more from others and try to make a difference by sharing my thoughts as well. I don't know where your anger towards me comes from. If you wish to debate my points, fine, but I hardly think I'm deserving of "whacko". 8)
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Postby StayOnTarget » Fri 10 Sep 2004, 15:40:26

Thanks Monte. I've enjoyed your posts throughout the forums. These are very cogent arguements.


I guess its all about buying gold bullion then!
User avatar
StayOnTarget
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brooklyn, NY

What will be the long term economic effect of $50 oil?

Postby WhistleWind » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 12:20:36

OK, we all know that in the long term oil will be a lot more than
$50, but we have been at that price or there abouts for 6 months,
and with new resources coming on tap, and the US economy
staggering on, I don't see why it won't continue at about this
level for a few more years, as we bump along the peak. So what
would the impact be on the world as a whole?

Basic supply and demand enforces that when supply is limited, price
will rise until those that cannot afford it, stop buying the product.
Who will that be?

My first guess is that the effect on the developed world will be
very little, maybe increased inflation, and a reduced growth rate,
but nothing to wake the slumbering masses. They will get used
to paying more , but in historic terms, it will still not be all that
expensive.

The people who will hurt are the third world, who are dependant on
cheap oil to sustain their marginal existence. They will see prices for
their products squeezed as the global markets for coffee, chocolate and luxury vegetables contract, just as their costs go through
the roof. There have already been riots in countries like Bolivia,
Nepal and Nigeria over the government contolled price of oil and
gas. I see more civil wars in oil producing countries like Nigeria, where
the starving locals cannot even afford the oil which the foreign corporations are busy pumping out of the ground they themselves
owned before being evicted by their governments in the name of progress.

In a world of finite energy, and therefore finite GDP, the only way for
the rich to get richer is for the poor to get poorer.
User avatar
WhistleWind
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: What will be the long term economic effect of $50 oil?

Postby lorenzo » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 15:15:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WhistleWind', '
')The people who will hurt are the third world, who are dependant on
cheap oil to sustain their marginal existence. They will see prices for
their products squeezed as the global markets for coffee, chocolate and luxury vegetables contract, just as their costs go through
the roof. There have already been riots in countries like Bolivia,
Nepal and Nigeria over the government contolled price of oil and
gas. I see more civil wars in oil producing countries like Nigeria, where
the starving locals cannot even afford the oil which the foreign corporations are busy pumping out of the ground they themselves
owned before being evicted by their governments in the name of progress.

In a world of finite energy, and therefore finite GDP, the only way for
the rich to get richer is for the poor to get poorer.



AHA! First let me introduce myself, I'm known on this forum as Afrodiesel man. I'm obsessed with this topic (petroleum - biodiesel - third world).

Your analysis is interesting but you are forgetting one crucial point: in most third world nations, biodiesel production is already much cheaper than import petroleum.

So your analysis must be turned around 180 degrees: the third world will start to plant biodiesel crops on a huge scale. They can do so, because they have the soils, the climate and the tropical crops to produce competitive biodiesel (oil palm, coconut). The Northern Hemisphere can only rely on ultra-low yielding canola or similar crappy crops. Super palm oil gives you between 70 and 85 barrels per hectare; crappy Euro-American crops give you about 8, maximum. You already see the tremendous advantage for tropical nations.

Here, read this article about the Coconut Cartel, which shows you that Pacific Island nations are now using coconut oil because it is far cheaper than petrodiesel.

Likewise, Malaysia is going to use palm oil to fuel its future.

Brazil is doing the same, and it is even exporting biodiesel to the wealthy Western world!

I see high oil prices as a blessing for Third World nations.


By the way, at today's oil prices and commodity prices, unsubsidized palm oil diesel is already 10% cheaper than petro-diesel. (1MT of palm oil is trading at around US$320, 1MT of petrodiesel is trading at US$350).
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ludi » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 16:21:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he third world will start to plant biodiesel crops on a huge scale.


When will they begin doing this on a wide scale? How will they do it without destroying their ecosystem?
Ludi
 
Top

Postby lorenzo » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 16:27:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')When will they begin doing this on a wide scale? How will they do it without destroying their ecosystem?


When? They are already doing it. Bioethanol has been in use in Brazil for over 3 decades, fuelling hundreds of thousands of cars. Biodiesel is being used and cultivated today.

As to your question about ecosystems: why would they want to preserve their ecosystems?
We Westerners have destroyed ours centuries ago. So why would they want to preserve theirs?
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Ludi » Tue 01 Feb 2005, 17:35:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')iodiesel is being used and cultivated today.


You give the example of Brazil. Brazil'd vehicles don't use pure ethanol, they use a mixture. Can you give examples of widescale biodeisel use? Plantations?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o why would they want to preserve theirs?


Because they aren't as stupid as the US and can learn from our mistakes. Maybe.
Ludi
 
Top

Postby spot5050 » Wed 02 Feb 2005, 16:23:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'H')ere, read this article about the Coconut Cartel, which shows you that Pacific Island nations are now using coconut oil because it is far cheaper than petrodiesel.

You're giving a slightly misleading impression of what the article says lorenzo.

The thrust of the article is this;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PORT LOUIS (AFP) article', '.')..according to Espen Ronneberg of the Marshall Islands who serves as a regional advisor to small developing islands, "Some clever people discovered that you can mix diesel and coconut oil to run the engine," he said.

So you still need diesel, but the article doesn't say what proportion of diesel and coconut oil works.

It also says;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PORT LOUIS (AFP) article', 'T')oday, residents of Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands and their fellow Pacific nations, Samoa and the Cook Islands, all use coconut oil as fuel for diesel engines but still on a relatively small scale. About 100 private buses in Vanuatu's capital of Port Vila are powered at least in part by coconut oil as are similar vehicles in the Marshall Islands, officials said.

Just because someone or some organisation or lobby group wants something to catch on, doesn't mean it is viable.

That article is just a news item, not an objective analysis of coconut oil as a possible replacement for hydrocarbons.
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Postby nocar » Thu 03 Feb 2005, 12:15:31

As I understand it, coconut oil or "butter" was previously an export crop for south sea islanders, who have always had coconuts. Now because coconut fat is a hard and saturated type of fat they can not longer sell it - people in developed countries are afraid of hardened artheries and cholesterol. It used to be put into margarine. So if the south sea islanders now have enough coconut fat to feed buses, at least they can save on petrol imports.

Instead the developed world is buying palm oil for their margarine, meanwhile encroaching on the natural habitats in East Asia. Palm oil is unsaturated, like olive oil, but cheaper. I guess it is poorer people which are displaced and do the work than the olive oil people around Mediterranean Sea.

I think the oil palm naturally grows in west Africa (but good if someone will correct me), and has been used by Africans for centuries or millenia. But if I am right, and it was so easy and good return to grow it everywhere in Africa as Lorenzo claims, IMO it would already have spread all over. The Africans started growing maize all over when it arrived there from America.

My household now uses ecological/organic butter only, great taste. Or rape/canola oil. Those things are produced here in Sweden. You will not find margarine in our fridge after I learned the truth of modern margarine.

When you want an intuitive estimate of the energy requirements of your car, just think butter/cooking oil/margarine. Volume- and weightwise they correspond rather well to either gasoline or diesel. How far can you bicycle on a gallon of butter or cooking oil or the equivalent number of food calories in your favorite forms? How much butter or cooking oil do you regularly feed your car?

You will not find a car in my household's garage. But we depend on petroleum to lubricate our bicycle chains. Several drops a season. That's why we happily eat butter - we do not believe cholesterol will kill bicyclists.

Why do you all think "petroleum" was called that, meaning "rock oil", in the first place?
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Postby nocar » Thu 03 Feb 2005, 12:20:03

The question about 50 dollar/gallon oil: I think bicyclists will be able to lubricate their chains even with oil at 500 dollar/gallon.
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Wind may be cheaper than coconuts

Postby futuretrip » Thu 03 Feb 2005, 22:44:29

I think we all agree that $50 oil is here to stay for a while, after that, it will be cheaper to use wind power (for our electricity). Natural gas is due to run out too. So is uranium! A MIT study concluded that there is enough to supply 1,000 1gigawatt plants for about 50 years - that's only about the USA total electrical usage for (estimated) 30 years with growth. Natural gas, I found, was only good for 1,000 days or so (hope I,m wrong). But the renewables will outlast, problem is, will they perform?
With Biofuels, How many square kilometers or miles of land will it take to produce the equivalent of world oil consumption - or twice that for future needs - how about 10 times to open up China and all the third world also to our standards! - I don't think the 2 diminsions of land (and sunlight hitting Earth) has it! Solar therefore should be robotically mass produced to justify the large expanse required. should also be used (in large concentrations) somehow to physically split water for hydrogen. Wind, well even large corporations are into it. That tells me that it is the choice for electricity. In fact, I'm not even worried about our electrical future! I'm, just afraid people will run out of oil before we use it to mass produce millions of large turbines. However, it's to expensive to convert that into fuel (unless you have lots of car batteries)

So what we'll have is about 1% of the people trying to figure out the solution in allsorts of crazy or newfangled ways.

In case you're wondering, I,m Robert from Big Bear CA and am too concerned about the future of energy. I'm (newly) pro wind because it will be the only source after all else is stripped away.
User avatar
futuretrip
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Postby aahala » Fri 04 Feb 2005, 13:07:16

I believe $50 oil may have economic impact but not dramatically so.

In the late 70s or early 80s, oil in real terms was 60-70% higher than $50 is now, there were significant economic aspects, then the US did apply the efficiency and consersation measures. The price of oil dropped considerably.

There is probably more "slack" in US driving habits and fleet efficiency than then. Obviously, efficiency can't solve the exhaustion of finite resources, but it can smooth out the effects.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Oil and the Economy

Postby pup55 » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 12:52:49

In the following thread:

http://peakoil.com/fortopic5726.html

We put forth the following hypothesis:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y hypothesis is that down deep, under all the fluff in the current economy, there is a core of activity that consists of making things, building things, digging things out of the ground, refining, maybe or maybe not shippign things from one place to another, but actual useful work that people are doing, and if you compute oil expenditures for "useful economic work" for this time period, compared to 1981, it's right about the same as it always was, maybe higher now.


to go below the surface of the superficial stats put forth in this article:

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome.shtml


So for the entertainment of the board, I have checked out the BEA tables and made the following calculation: The percentage of the economy that is currently involved in making things, building things, chemical conversion, transportation, and, in general, doing useful economic activity has decreased from 48% in 1987 (the tables only go back that far) to 41% now. I'm surprised it's that high. So, if you extrapolate back to 1981,
that's maybe 50-51%.

Then, adjust GDP for inflation and population (very important and usually ignored) to get an "inflation adjusted population adjusted GDP.

Then, compute the GDP dollars generated by "useful activity" as opposed to fluff, such as suing each other, etc. as described in the other thread.

Then, compare to oil consumption in each of the periods, for a measurement of "oil impact on the economy".

Here is the result:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', ' 1981 1987 2004
Oil Consumption (gb)----------- 5.86 6.08 7.33
Infl Adj GDP (2004 gigadollars) 5739 7023 11758
population------------- 229 242 290
population adjusted gdp---------- 7267 8416 11758
%useful gdp------------- 0.51 0.48 0.41
Pop Adj Useful gdp ( 2004 billions) 3,706 4,040 4,821
Adj Usfl GDP per barrel of oil $632 $664 $658
Oil Price infl adjusted------------------ 34.28 18.35 42.00
$ gdp per $ oil 18.44 36.20 15.67 ')


Conclusions:

a. As expected the actual energy input needed to do "real work" in the modern economy has remained practically unchaged since 1981 (estimated) and for sure since 1987.

b. What that says, as expected, is that the so-called "energy efficiency" of the current economy is due 100% to the fact that fewer people are making or doing useful work.

c. Does this mean that industry itself is less efficient than they used to be? Well, without further study, it is hard to say, but I imagine it's Jevon's Paradox in action: Any efficiency gained during this period in actual manufacturing, for example, was just offset by the fact that people are driving SUV's to work, and commuting farther.

d. So what are people doing with their time these days, rather than useful work? Here's a little table of the % GDP change, by industry, between 1987 and 2004:

   $this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', ' Arts, entertainment, and recreation 45.3
Administrative and waste management services 41.8
Finance and insurance 38.6
Professional, scientific, and technical services 34.2
Professional and business services 29.4
Health care and social assistance 28.5
Educational services, health care, and social assistance 28.0
Educational services 24.5
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing 15.3
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services 12.2
Real estate and rental and leasing 4.1
Accommodation and food services 3.6
Management of companies and enterprises 1.3
Other services, except government 0.9
Government -8.5
')

As predicted, we are becoming a nation of people entertaining, lending money, managing, and selling insurance to one another. Do not blame the government. Government as a percent of "adjusted" GDP is lower today than in 1981.

d. There is no telling what percentage of the manufacturing and transportation amounts are currently involved in making things that are non-mission-critical, such as DVD's, cellphones, video games, and other gadgets. The transportation sector, per the above, is not really that much bigger than it was in 1987.

e. Kustler's column this morning kind of touches on this issue as well.

f. We will have to wait to see what happens during the next downturn, but I am thinking this will not be pretty.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Postby Kingcoal » Mon 14 Mar 2005, 13:07:48

Productivity increases are fueled by automation. That automation tends to be fueled by hydrocarbons/coal. Increasing productivity means reducing the number of people required to do a particular job.

Expensive oil alters that formula. At some point it becomes more cost effective to employ people to dig a ditch by hand than to power the diesel powered shovel.
User avatar
Kingcoal
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2149
Joined: Wed 29 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron