[Ibon]

Remember that the large affluent global middle class we have today is an anomaly compared to any past civilization. Even today in the US the economic woes are a scratch only. Oil enabled this high consumption affluence to spread through such a high percentage of the worlds population and allowed population to grow exponentially. We can look at the middle class consumption as a built in reserve of energy and resiliency in the current system and If the elite keep the masses compliant and subdued we can ride this fossil fuel train for another couple of hundred years.

How does that truth make you feel?

Sometimes I think expecting black swans around the corner to throw this train off the tracks is wishful thinking and there is still for the foreseeable future no threat to the status quo.

Maybe we are all deluded that change is just around the corner.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Northwest Resident', ' ')That the powers that be would put so much effort into maintaining that illusion is, in my opinion, a sign of just how bad the reality really is. Am I wrong?

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'R')emember that the large affluent global middle class we have today is an anomaly compared to any past civilization. Even today in the US the economic woes are a scratch only.

[h2]

americandream, a nice flashback to the old simplistic labor theory of value, personally I prefer a much simpler, but also more comprehensive, way of seeing it. Rather than focus on only one part of the system, labor, where costs are externalized, then called 'growth / profit', I think it's more useful to simply note that resources in general are exploited, the costs are then externalized, and the result is called 'growth/profit'. Calling this process 'capitalism' seems as good a description as any, since few on any sides of the discussion disagree that is the term to use to describe the resource exploitation process we are so furiously engaged in.

Human energy being one among many resources used, however, in the context of this discussion, non renewable energy is far more important I believe, humans during our historical era of civilizations have been a constant, what is new is the degree of dependence on non renewable resources, oil in the case of this forum and it's subject matter. I know Marx liked to ignore everything but labor/capital, but that doesn't mean we have to. It's too bad Marx was such a humanist, a sign of his times I guess, made him ignore the rest of what was going on right in front of his face in England at the time, all that 'dead' matter flowing out of holes in the ground, extracted and manipulated by massive collections of transformed matter, made it hard to see it for what it was because it was so present.

And that's what keeps me coming back to peakoil.com, the question of what happens when one key resource, not too inaccurately called the master resource, or one of them, begins to rise in cost, grow far more difficult to locate and extract new sources of petroleum energy (In deference to John_A, who seems to prefer to call this reality something other than what it is, peak oil, I"ll leave it as simply a general observation of facts, price, costs, etc). Costs are up, production is leveling, China is locking in long term supplies, since they clearly suffer under the delusion that there is a finite production pool available, here, now, today, and if they don't lock it up, there won't be more available. Sounds a lot like peak oil action to me, but I'm sure the Chinese will grow to realize their error soon as vast pools of hard to extract oil are flooded onto the world market, dropping prices to a level that will make the long term Chinese lockins look like the world's biggest mistake. Or not.

Today, or yesterday, there was a headline in the Norwegian media about a new oil find, 100 million barrels or so. 20 years ago that would not even have warranted a mention anywhere but highly specialized oil trade media.

Problem with plateaus on a global level is that it's hard to really react to the plateau, like, today is much like yesterday, and tomorrow promises to be the same, so it's hard to trigger that human reaction response. But we keep burning hydrocarbons, the environment keeps reacting to our global actions, pollution builds up, ecosystems respond, and costs keep getting externalized in the almost farcical attempt to call it all 'progress'.

I'm sure every major historical epoch when it changes to something else is similar, the systems, being very large, have a lot of inertia, and people, being people, don't like fundamental change, never have, never will I suppose. Then they have to change because things have changed, you can only keep acting the same so long, it's like walking on a plank over a chasm, at some point you'll hit the end, then you have to adjust. Would be easier to just stop but I think that's not how most people are wired, our culture certainly isn't, too wedded to non sustainable use of everything in our day to day living.

As to what really keeps me coming back though, if rockman weren't posting here not sure I'd check in very often to be honest.

[dinopello]

Look'n for love (in all the wrong places). Seriously, I put on my match.com profile that I was looking for someone "aware and prepared" and I think I scared everyone off

In terms of intellectual content, I like how we can discuss a very wide range of topics with peak oil as an underlying commonality.

[dcoyne78]

After the Bakken and Eagle Ford peak in 2016, it will be difficult for other tight oil plays to make up for the rapid decline. Are the niobrara, granite wash mississippian and wolf berry up to the task? I think it unlikely.

Dennis Coyne

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')What has surprised me is how relatively well the global economy has handled the higher oil prices. The last big question: for how long?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Northwest Resident', 'R')ockman and others: Thanks for your greetings. Since that panicked moment not long ago when I realized "we are going down", I have become a voracious reader on all things related to peak oil, the debt-driven economy and the prospects of BAU continuing for much longer (zero percent).

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dcoyne78', '
')
After the Bakken and Eagle Ford peak in 2016, it will be difficult for other tight oil plays to make up for the rapid decline. Are the niobrara, granite wash mississippian and wolf berry up to the task? I think it unlikely.

Dennis Coyne

[americandream]

h2

I think it is less a case of granting labour value some special status, but rather recognising that the social relations thrown up by the social economy revolve around accumulation from labour value (which essentially is the fulcrum across which all the other functions including oil, pivot.) Recognising the nature of existing social relations explains many of the behaviours we encounter even at this phase of globalisation and of course, then places the whole dynamic, peak oil included, in context.

I could of course discuss each of the various elements in its own details which I don't, something which has frustrated SG from day one (for some obscure reason), but my approach is to stand back and observe the core element and the manner in which it is being played out and of course, the resulting effects (which will eventually act as a catalyst for capitalism's dialectic.)

I suspect were more to take this approach, we would see the rise of organised resistance. As it is, with people fluffing around taking potshots at the banks, oil companies, conspiracy groups, aliens (both terrestrial and cosmic), multi-nationals and such like, this fiasco is set to run its course. I will occasionally post reminders as I periodically do in the hope that more may grasp the fundamentals (not that I hold out much hope with climate change lumbering its way onto our collective radars.)

[h2]

ad, you're missing the point I believe. I don't believe 'value' is created by labor, that's a very short term idea that Marx thought up, and which I don't think is holding up very well. In my opinion, what we call 'wealth' is simply the process of non sustainable resource exploitation. Previous systems only exploited land and humans, we called those 'feudalism', but we have gotten far more ambitious, and have decided to exploit it all, and we call this 'capitalism', whether state, private, or a combination. Focusing on labor is largely a waste of breath and typing, it's just not sufficient to explain what is happening, and it most certainly will not prove to be any solution via any theorized workers utopia, that idea always relied on the continuity of industrial production, which is the problem, not the solution. As the Chinese are proving so nicely for us, it matters not the slightest if a society is 'communist' or 'capitalist', in fact, they have proven that they can mix the two at will, without any hiccups at all.

It's time to let such dated concepts go in my opinion, orthodox marxism hasn't been interesting or viable for almost a century now as an idea. Real world application of the ideas have proven that if you don't stop the process of resource extraction and exploitation, aka, non sustainable production, it matters not in the slightest how you arrange the social control over that process, except that the communist version tends to be a bit worse in most cases due to fewer external limiting controls, weak as they may be here in the west, they do exist.

China is again a good example of the real world in almost every sense when it comes to these ideas meeting reality.

The point is not to modify or improve the labor theory of value, the point is to dump it and move on. It's clear to me that our wealth does not come from labor, it comes from non sustainable resource extraction and consumption and exploitation. Particularly around hydrocarbons. Labor has nothing to say beyond wanting its piece of the pie, that's why the US working 'class' is voting right wing more and more, hardly an example of anything progressive there I have to say, beyond the occasional diamond in the rough that pops out.

Oil production, coal extraction, all these feed industrial production, cars, airplanes, etc, they have nothing to do with labor except that labor forms a consumption pool of varying sizes. Hard to see why anyone in today's day or age would actually use these dated marxist concepts to be honest, but I guess there's always going to be a few holdouts in the end.

That's what is interesting about oil production in particular, you know, all those real world working guys that drive around in their big pickups, living in energy hog suburban ranch houses? What possible interest would they have in any actual alteration of the social control of wealth, they are already wealthy beyond past era's wildest dreams, and that's mostly from oil, not their labor. Remember, oil contains a vast amount of labor equivalent energy, coal too, labor was just a very early and crude step in the process, still a part, but not a big enough part to actually worry about at this point.

Anyway, it is nice to see the old ideas drift around and resurface, not interesting, but refreshing in a sense just because it makes me nostalgic for a time one could actually believe it, though personally I don't think it was ever viable, even in Marx's day, coal was the big power, it was coal, not human energy that was creating most of the wealth of that phase of industrial development. Focusing on labor is just continuing the humanist bias, focus on energy, raw materials, those are what make the actual world we live in. A small crew using heavy equipment/oil/asphalt/explosives can make and pave a road in a small fraction of the time it would take to make it by hand tools, and that fraction is the actual value of the labor in that process, to simplify things a bit.

Ignoring the costs, the true costs, of such ruthless exploitation of the earth is something that is extremely dangerous long term, far more dangerous than relatively sustainable exploitation of humans ever was, even at its worst. Kicking your mother in the stomach repeatedly while sucking out her blood just isn't a very good idea long term.

But this is why I follow peak commodity issues, it's better to see it than pretend it's not happening in my opinion, on every level, even if it does no good to see it in any larger sense.

[americandream]

h2

I think that is where you and I will have to agree to differ. Labour value is very much the heart of the system and explains why for example, "pragmatic" "communist" countries such as China are embraced warmly by Western capitalists whilst other more ideological ones such as Cuba and the USSR are vilified (daily....even after its demise, the USSR still garners fear in the capitalist).

Now as regards systems, what distinguishes capitalism and feudalism is the capture of value. In capitalism, the rise of the urbanised labour has accompanied the rise of the factory and specialisation. In addition, the consumer economy has emerged to give life to the urbanising of the masses and their value extraction. In contrast, the feudal era found wealth encapsulated in land with work largely limited to seasonal, the absence of the market, with a mix of servitude and the commons. In other words, there was no organised extraction of value from labour nor was there a market to speak of. Wealth was hereditary and tied up with land.

It is labour that gives life to otherwise dead commodities. Oil...yes...does amplify labour value. So does securitisation and other commodities and intangibles. But the seat of the process is labour with a whole raft of amplifiers added. This is capitalism.

This process has been with us from the outset. It is merely being notched up with globalisation. Of course, China, India and other places stand testimony to the centrality of labour in capitalism.

Anyways, I shall leave it there before I get SG in a lather at my "intransigence" in daring to breach Coc rules.

[americandream]

AND...understanding the social economy gives you an even more profound understanding of peaking resourcing as one realises that nothing....not even "sustainability" can rescue capitalism from resource collapse (apart from a fleet of freighter space ships to the sky, day in, day out.)

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'R')emember that the large affluent global middle class we have today is an anomaly compared to any past civilization. Even today in the US the economic woes are a scratch only. Oil enabled this high consumption affluence to spread through such a high percentage of the worlds population and allowed population to grow exponentially. We can look at the middle class consumption as a built in reserve of energy and resiliency in the current system and If the elite keep the masses compliant and subdued we can ride this fossil fuel train for another couple of hundred years.

How does that truth make you feel?

Sometimes I think expecting black swans around the corner to throw this train off the tracks is wishful thinking and there is still for the foreseeable future no threat to the status quo.

Maybe we are all deluded that change is just around the corner.

[SeaGypsy]

Another 'botlike' response- as pointed to by Ibon. You are quite an enigma AD. Labor, labor labor- do you differentiate between machine and manual labor? It's not at all clear that you do despite the centrality of this factor in many key economic equations. For one who makes his living by that most enigmatic form of labor- playing markets- I would have thought this paradox if one wishes to call it that, quite obvious- much as the contradiction of someone who announces his love of a nicely brewed beer whilst touting summary execution for pot smokers. Quite the hypocrite.

[americandream]

SG

It is not bot like, it is succinct. Until you learn to clear your confusion, you and all those who sense something is afoot will not have the intellectual resources to confront the issues.

Another point. I did address the machine question in my above post by noting the centrality of labour rich China and India in global capitalism.

My posts invariably cover all the issues including peak oil. What you take from them is of course up to you. It pays to read and consider what I post before letting fly. If of course, you can't be bothered, be certain of one thing. My analysis is always thorough.

Anyways, before we devolve into a shouting match, I am out of here. Its you thread so you are well within your entitlement to curtail whats posted.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'C')ould go even higher. Maybe it SHOULD go even higher, if people are serious about cutting CO2 emissions from burning the stuff.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'R')emember that the large affluent global middle class we have today is an anomaly compared to any past civilization. Even today in the US the economic woes are a scratch only. Oil enabled this high consumption affluence to spread through such a high percentage of the worlds population and allowed population to grow exponentially. We can look at the middle class consumption as a built in reserve of energy and resiliency in the current system and If the elite keep the masses compliant and subdued we can ride this fossil fuel train for another couple of hundred years.

How does that truth make you feel?

Sometimes I think expecting black swans around the corner to throw this train off the tracks is wishful thinking and there is still for the foreseeable future no threat to the status quo.

Maybe we are all deluded that change is just around the corner.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('h2', '
')Anyway, it is nice to see the old ideas drift around and resurface, not interesting, but refreshing in a sense just because it makes me nostalgic for a time one could actually believe it, though personally I don't think it was ever viable, even in Marx's day, coal was the big power, it was coal, not human energy that was creating most of the wealth of that phase of industrial development. Focusing on labor is just continuing the humanist bias, focus on energy, raw materials, those are what make the actual world we live in.

[americandream]

OK Ibon

I will try and explain how the Marxist notion of social economy actually ties in with a more humane relationship with the planet in a few words (you fellows seem to think that I am some objectifying humanist despite the reams I have written over almost 10 years).

Humanity has through the accident of history spawned a social and economic system that is at odds with the planet and its resources. At the heart of this system lies the actions of a few who are in effect harvesting the masses for the purpose of acquiring wealth. The masses are thus both labourer and consumer.

Of course, in order to achieve this, the planet and its resources are exploited unflinchingly. This goes without saying.

ONLY by a complete removal of the harvesting process (Marxists term this "accumulation") will we achieve the necessary equilibrium as a species to relate with the planet (and ourselves) in a manner that is as close to a closed loop as we can get (or at the human level is free of alienation). We will never achieved a totally closed loop, but we can get close to it by removing the harvesting at source (remove the factory economy) and the end of the line (remove the market.)

This is only achievable through collective living (communes in other words). It is also inter-generational as in we are in essence creating a new mass culture.

If we preserve capitalism in any form....small, within the nation, etc, etc, it will break free to globalise again.

As you can see, this is very contemporary and has nothing to do with coal mines or Queen Victoria. Now I must really call it a day or SG will be spitting chips.