Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Then you agree that there is still plenty of affordable, efficient energy available to mankind from various sources…???
- Status
W
weller2
Guest
There is enough energy to keep a functioning technological civilization, yes.
There is not enough energy to sustain the infinite growth paradigm, which the Western economy and philosophy is based on. Not because reserves are too small, but simply because they are finite. Sustaining growth in the present decade would require burning as much oil as has been burnt during the entire history before 2010. Observe:
Therefore, doubling recoverable reserves can only prolong the growth phase for 10 year. Quadrupling them means 20 years. To go for 30 years, one would need 8x more oil… and so on.
In fact, it appears that attempts to sustain economic growth at this point will result in collapse due to rapid resource depletion:
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
This is the Malthusian prediction that has forever failed to pan out. The reason is simple: when something becomes scare new supplies or substitues are found.
For example, people have been predicting “peek oil” for years but now we see that there is not a shortage but a glut.
There is no theoretical limit to economic growth provided that the economy is permitted to make adjustments.
W
weller2
Guest
However, each time so far the substitute was more energy dense than what was being replaced, i.e. wood < coal < oil. There is nothing which is comparable to oil, both in energy density and ease of handling.
Incorrect. Peak oil arrived in 2009, where OPEC was unable to increase production despite demand and prices shot upwards of $100/bbl, triggering recession. Present glut is caused by demand destruction during the recession. The price will drop, causing the recession to end, demand will spike above the production capacity, causing another recession, and destruction of demand; the cycle will then repeat.
Observe that world oil production stopped growing exponentially in 1974, and has been flat since 2005. Arguably Western civilization entered a crisis period in mid-1970s, because nothing of note has been achieved since. No building taller than Sears Tower (1973), no manned spaceflight further than the Moon (1969-1972; in fact, no spaceflight beyond Low Earth Orbit since 1974), no plane faster than Concorde (1976), etc. Concorde is a great example, because it was a state-of-art project with a solid economic case, which was then rendered uneconomical by the first oil crisis (when oil production stopped growing exponentially). In other words, it was an example of a technology which was not superseded, but stopped being affordable and had to be abandoned (after 25 years of sinking taxpayer’s money into it for prestige reasons).
“Theoretical” being the operative word here.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
This is the “Peak Oil” myth all over again.
It was said in 1880 that the Pennsylvania oil fields would dry up in a few years and the country would be without oil.
Come on weller…how about a new doomsday prediction for a change.
W
weller2
Guest
Well, then please explain me, how an ever-increasing consumption of oil can be implemented indefinitely on a finite planet. I’m all ears.
As for myth, Hubbert’s prediction vs. actual output (conventional crude) from US lower 48 states:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/drupal6/files/egee120/lesson12/hubbert_prediction.gif
Pretty accurate, uh?
But new deposits were discovered in Texas and California. So let’s see what new discoveries are being made, which can feed our ever-increasing thirst:It was said in 1880 that the Pennsylvania oil fields would dry up in a few years and the country would be without oil.
http://www.energyvanguard.com/Porta...ng-gap-between-discoveries-and-production.png
Oops.
BTW, you don’t find it strange that Fed keeps printing money, but economy is not moving in real terms? Keynes’ advice has always worked so far; why did it stop working now?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Sorry I can’t load charts as fast as you…but it looks like US production is on the way up.
eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a
Also you neglect to consider natural gas…
When the Fed prints money it only creates inflation.
B
BrassAnkles
Guest
Not really. Teaching is ineffective because parents send their children to school without knowledge of how they should behave in public and then disrupt the class and thus the teacher spends their time babysitting.
Worse is the teachers can’t teach right or wrong because it is relative to each person.
M
magnet
Guest
As long as the family emphasis is on parents loving children more than the parents loving each other, we will continue to believe that sacrificing our own needs for the sake of the kids will make the kids love us more and contribute to them preparing to be adults. Parents can buy the kids toys, candy, and entertainment, but these will not contribute to them becoming better adults. Nor will the kids love us more. Children will be adults someday, and there will be no more toys, candy, and entertainment provided to them on a silver platter.
I was raised in a family with limited income and we kids were expected to help make ends meet for the entire family. We were assigned household tasks. We were expected to work, especially in summer and after school. Our father worked hard, so served as a model for us to follow. Our parents focus was on preparing us for adulthood. And it worked beautifully.
I was raised in a family with limited income and we kids were expected to help make ends meet for the entire family. We were assigned household tasks. We were expected to work, especially in summer and after school. Our father worked hard, so served as a model for us to follow. Our parents focus was on preparing us for adulthood. And it worked beautifully.
W
weller2
Guest
Then one needs to ask why is it that parents don’t teach children basics. The answer is of course that they don’t have time for that because they are busy working. And why are they busy working? Because they are chasing a lifestyle that is no longer affordable. And why is the lifestyle no longer affordable? Because the economy has less energy available.
In 1950s one person working a blue-collar job could support a non-working wife and several children. That’s no longer the case; we’re now approaching a point that it takes two adults working full-time to support one child at a decent level.
People are getting poorer, and it’s not because they don’t want to work.
Effects of decreasing energy (name removed by moderator)ut on market economy are discussed in this lecture; about halfway through, she explains what is really going on today.
W
weller2
Guest
This is short-lived: resilience.org/stories/2014-08-18/iea-report-implies-us-crude-production-may-start-to-peak-2016
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12608050&postcount=670
Inflation forces people to make investments in business instead of holding money, in hopes that ROI will be bigger then inflation, and so GDP increases. Why is that mechanism not working anymore?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Exactly. Secular leftism is killing the west.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
It will work when economic conditions change. We must adjust to the conditions at hand in order to save at a rate higher than inflation.
Our current administration has made life difficult for the middle class by reducing the ability of companies to provide new jobs.
M
magnet
Guest
One reason it takes two wage earners to support a family is that we no longer have a 1950s lifestyle. When I was in high school in 1952, the family had no TV and we had only one car that my father took to work every day. (His commute was fifteen minutes) My city did not have sprawling suburbs. We kids used bicycles for transportation. There was only one telephone in the home. The only time I received gifts was at Christmas, and those frequently were clothing with an occasional bicycle thrown in. I had no spending money, taking bag lunches to school. My only bicycle was a beat up used one that my father bought for $35. Even though there was a bicycle shop several blocks away, I refurbished the bike myself. Fast food had not been invented yet. My mother prepared home-cooked meals. We almost never went out to eat.
Today, we often have more than one car per family, we pay for Cable TV and Mobile Phones, and Internet. Riding a bike to get anywhere is dangerous and destinations are often too far. Also bus service is sparse in the suburbs. Cars today are 20 times more expensive than they were in 1952 with many luxury features that were unheard of in 1952.
B
BrassAnkles
Guest
Parents do not have as much time and are working too much, this is true.
However, you are clearly minimizing the effect of secularization on this country which is promoted none other by the government and in our public schools. Leagues of children are being taught in public schools that right and wrong is relative and since God can’t be discussed many children will obviously choose a “moral stance” that benefits them the most. This is only logical and is how Americans vote as well. The concept of what is best for the community is no longer of interest to youths if it negatively affects them. The is why the majority of young adults are liberal and supported the “99%” movement.
The fall of America is due to the absence of Christian values and not economic issues as promoted by theorists. This is the direct consequences are young adults who choose “relativistic morals model 1” that need subsidized abortions and want to work as little as possible and have first world social services while those that choose “relativistic morals model 2” that don’t want to work and like drugs need to be controlled by an increasing military and legislative apparatus to maintain peace.
We are a train wreck in process and the theorists can’t see it coming even though you point them to the increasing cost and demand of social services and law enforcement. Our nation has lost the ability to use it’s common sense. As long as we can print money we can defer to obvious outcome, unlike for other countries that have to officially default.
W
weller2
Guest
Exactly!
Until ca.2005-2009 when energy (name removed by moderator)ut to the economy was increasing (slowly, but still) one could afford to collect more and more toys. Since then the toys are less-and-less affordable, so the logical idea would be to stop collecting them and revert back to 1950s lifestyle.
However the very idea of limiting one’s indulgence is taboo, because the entire culture is based on more, more, more. People have been taught to chase ever more toys, so they keep on chasing toys they cannot afford… and that makes them unhappy.
Until ca.2005-2009 when energy (name removed by moderator)ut to the economy was increasing (slowly, but still) one could afford to collect more and more toys. Since then the toys are less-and-less affordable, so the logical idea would be to stop collecting them and revert back to 1950s lifestyle.
However the very idea of limiting one’s indulgence is taboo, because the entire culture is based on more, more, more. People have been taught to chase ever more toys, so they keep on chasing toys they cannot afford… and that makes them unhappy.
W
weller2
Guest
If you swap “secularization” for “leftism”, then I would agree with you. Singling out “secularization” is mistaking symptom for the cause.
My argument here is that the leftist social model CAN work, but it requires an economy with a huge production surplus. This is very simple: you will probably agree with me when I say that leftism likes paying people for not working, right? Okay. So I posit that in order for a leftist model to work, there must be enough production surplus to afford paying all these non-contributing individuals for well… non-contributing. (BTW, non-contributing includes (part of) government bureaucrats, professional social activists, gender studies lecturers etc.) This is why leftism correlates with GDP per capita, i.e. the higher developed a society is, the more it can afford to implement leftist ideas.
So, until 2005 (or until 1975, depends, how you define the criteria) the West definitely COULD afford a leftist social model because it had economic surplus. And the reason it had economic surplus is that it had surplus in the primary energy (i.e. cheap oil). As cheap oil ended, so did the economic surplus, and the leftist model became unaffordable. However, nobody has realized that (well, Carter did, but the message has fallen on deaf ears), and so we are still pursuing the path of increasing state bureaucracy while the surplus allowing us to feed this bureaucracy diminishes.
Worse, since the bureaucracy has power, it will not yield, and continue draining resources from the productive part of the society, straining it even further. This leads to social unrest, so the government feels threatened, so it increases its grip… which costs even more. Rinse and repeat.
And even worse, we have the global warming problem, and addressing global warming requires government bureaucracy. So we are in a situation where we actually need to have “big government”, but cannot afford it. In other words, one choice is “power to the government” to lower CO2 emissions, but on that path we risk that the bureaucracy will strangle the productive part of the economy to death. The other choice is “power to the people”, but on that path we risk that the climate will get out of control due to unrestricted CO2 emissions. I believe that the very survival of Western culture depends on finding a solution to this conundrum.
Again; from my observations in Northern Europe, this is not necessarily a problem, as long as there is enough surplus to so that people are relaxed – i.e. their basic needs are met – and thus not prone to aggresion. On the other hand, if the society is strained, then survival instincts take over, and children who have never been taught a strong moral code will revert back to Neanderthal behavior patterns. I understand that this is what you’re having in US.
R
Rin
Guest
Let’s see, by percentage of Gross National Income…
*]Norway – 1.07%
*] Sweden – 1.02%
*] Luxembourg 1.00%
*] Denmark – 0.85%
*] United Kingdom – 0.72%
*] Netherlands – 0.67%
*] Finland – 0.55%
*] Switzerland – 0.47%
*] Belgium – 0.45%
*] Ireland – 0.45%
*] France – 0.41%
*] Germany – 0.38%
*] Australia – 0.34%
*] Austria – 0.28%
*] Canada – 0.27%
*] New Zealand – 0.26%
*] Iceland – 0.26%
*] Japan – 0.23%
*] Portugal – 0.23%
*] United States – 0.19%
You could say the US is on top in amount of money given in absolute terms, but that is irrelevant. You asked for a more generous country, and since generosity is measured by percentages, not amounts (as per Mark 12:43-44), there seem to be nineteen countries which are more generous than the United States.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
It never worked that way. Investors invest where they see profit and are confident that ROI will exceed inflation…they don’t “hope”.
The only one who benefits from inflation is a debtor.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
I don’t like your chart. I like mine better:
The results of the annual World Giving Index are out. And, this year, two countries share the top spot as the most generous in the world — the U.S. and Myanmar.
marketwatch.com/story/and-the-most-generous-country-in-the-world-is-2014-11-18
PS. I didn’t know Mark was an economist
- Status