Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for peak oil than the US
January 5, 2007 10:14 AM Subscribe
...The point that I do want to stress is that when this economy collapses, it is bound to be much worse. Another point I would like to stress is that collapse here is likely to be permanent. The factors that allowed Russia and the other former Soviet republics to recover are not present here. In spite of all this, I believe that in every age and circumstance, people can sometimes find not just a means and a reason to survive, but enlightenment, fulfillment, and freedom. If we can find them even after the economy collapses, then why not start looking for them now? Thank you.Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for peak oil than the US
This post was deleted for the following reason: previously
Doom.
posted by IronLizard at 10:24 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by IronLizard at 10:24 AM on January 5, 2007
It is a double. In any case the Soviets were better prepared because their society was less dependent on energy, which in turn is because their day-to-day society was less technologically advanced. The Sudan is probably better prepared for peak oil than we are, only because the differences pre and post would hardly be noticeable.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:25 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by Pastabagel at 10:25 AM on January 5, 2007
I searched the link and Orlov and missed it. And it was just last month. My apologies.
posted by y2karl at 10:34 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by y2karl at 10:34 AM on January 5, 2007
I think I read this once before, definitely not to be missed if it is the same thing.
posted by Acey at 10:34 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by Acey at 10:34 AM on January 5, 2007
Advising clients to invest in canned goods and shotguns, are we?
posted by dglynn at 10:38 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by dglynn at 10:38 AM on January 5, 2007
The majority of the US vs USSR post-collapse slides are bullshit.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:40 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by Krrrlson at 10:40 AM on January 5, 2007
If I have shotgun and ammo I don't need canned goods.
posted by Mister_A at 10:40 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 10:40 AM on January 5, 2007
eBay will do well.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:41 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:41 AM on January 5, 2007
I always felt the Sudan handled the Tulip Bubble rather well.
posted by yerfatma at 10:44 AM on January 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by yerfatma at 10:44 AM on January 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Mister_A : If I have shotgun and ammo I don't need canned goods.
I'll see your basic shotgun and ammo and raise with an double barreled shotgun, ammo, and Australian cattle dog, and an old muscle car sitting in my garage.
All I gotta do next is cut the sleeve off my leather jacket and I'm set.
posted by quin at 10:55 AM on January 5, 2007
I'll see your basic shotgun and ammo and raise with an double barreled shotgun, ammo, and Australian cattle dog, and an old muscle car sitting in my garage.
All I gotta do next is cut the sleeve off my leather jacket and I'm set.
posted by quin at 10:55 AM on January 5, 2007
The majority of the US vs USSR post-collapse slides are bullshit.
if it does happen, you'll turn right around and blame the people and institutions who tried to warn us about it
posted by pyramid termite at 10:59 AM on January 5, 2007
if it does happen, you'll turn right around and blame the people and institutions who tried to warn us about it
posted by pyramid termite at 10:59 AM on January 5, 2007
Yeah, I think the premise fails.
1. In economies that aren't based on magic Soviet-era numbers tricks, collapses occur (the Great Depression) and the economy and government work their way out.
2. Economies that are roughly based on the nonsense Karl invented and that involve mostly misreported or purposely distorted data, which then collapse, are not so lucky.
Bah.
posted by ewkpates at 10:59 AM on January 5, 2007
1. In economies that aren't based on magic Soviet-era numbers tricks, collapses occur (the Great Depression) and the economy and government work their way out.
2. Economies that are roughly based on the nonsense Karl invented and that involve mostly misreported or purposely distorted data, which then collapse, are not so lucky.
Bah.
posted by ewkpates at 10:59 AM on January 5, 2007
Totally worth the double-post. (Yeah I missed it the first time round)
I'm not so confident that our magic 90's era numbers tricks are that much better than magic Soviet-era numbers tricks.
Enron, etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:07 AM on January 5, 2007
I'm not so confident that our magic 90's era numbers tricks are that much better than magic Soviet-era numbers tricks.
Enron, etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:07 AM on January 5, 2007
K. Eron was fraud.
Now imagine that every sector of the economy commits fraud, and then the government which is the only entity allowed to review the economic numbers JUST CHANGES THEM WITH A MAGIC WAND (pencil).
Right. So. That's not gonna happen here.
posted by ewkpates at 11:10 AM on January 5, 2007
Now imagine that every sector of the economy commits fraud, and then the government which is the only entity allowed to review the economic numbers JUST CHANGES THEM WITH A MAGIC WAND (pencil).
Right. So. That's not gonna happen here.
posted by ewkpates at 11:10 AM on January 5, 2007
1. In economies that aren't based on magic Soviet-era numbers tricks, collapses occur (the Great Depression) and the economy and government work their way out.
perhaps ... but then, that's what germany in the early 30s managed to do, too, and look how that turned out ... when collapses occur, there's no guarantee that a society is going to do what's right in the long run
i worry about how people in the u s would react to a collapse
posted by pyramid termite at 11:10 AM on January 5, 2007
perhaps ... but then, that's what germany in the early 30s managed to do, too, and look how that turned out ... when collapses occur, there's no guarantee that a society is going to do what's right in the long run
i worry about how people in the u s would react to a collapse
posted by pyramid termite at 11:10 AM on January 5, 2007
Totally worth the double-post. (Yeah I missed it the first time round)
Absolutely. I'm really glad I got a second chance to read this, it's a fascinating thought experiment.
posted by greycap at 11:11 AM on January 5, 2007
Absolutely. I'm really glad I got a second chance to read this, it's a fascinating thought experiment.
posted by greycap at 11:11 AM on January 5, 2007
So far, the comments in the other post were much more thought-provoking and thoughtful. I haven't given up hope yet for this one, however.
posted by psmealey at 11:20 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by psmealey at 11:20 AM on January 5, 2007
It's going to be deleted, be glad there is no img tag at the moment.
posted by IronLizard at 11:21 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by IronLizard at 11:21 AM on January 5, 2007
The only British political party that seem to be taking peak oil seriously is the BNP. Scared yet?
posted by Acey at 11:23 AM on January 5, 2007
posted by Acey at 11:23 AM on January 5, 2007
ewkpates, what about blanking on M3? What about global warming deniers? What about understating Iraqi violence by a factor of 10? What about how utterly inaccurate the various labor measurements are? Let's not be holding ourselves to mythical high standards...there's been plenty of private and public sector shenanigans that border on magic number tricks.
Also, to say we're reliant on oil doesn't quite grasp the picture. Being reliant on oil would mean that we could just walk away by switching. Our problem is that our entire way of life in INTEGRATED both horizontally and vertically on oil. The expansion away from cities requires oil, the production and consumption of goods requires oil, commutes from the suburbs to workplaces require oil, and investors speculate on oil. There are WAY too many stakeholders who will willingly make a switch away from petroleum (note how the Prez states "dependence on foreign oil" (meaning Middle East, which is like 15% of our consumption, with large amounts from Mexico, Canada, and South America) and not "dependence from oil". And all the while, oil keeps the political machinery humming and campaign coffers full.
Our economy and society are based on oil. When oil supply tightens to the edge, the economy and society will fail, all else being equal. To sit and pretend that magical technology and/or economic growth are going to wisk away our problems is naive bordering on negligent. I strongly, strongly recommend eveyone read "The Fourth Republic" by Stirling Newberry.
posted by rzklkng at 11:25 AM on January 5, 2007
Also, to say we're reliant on oil doesn't quite grasp the picture. Being reliant on oil would mean that we could just walk away by switching. Our problem is that our entire way of life in INTEGRATED both horizontally and vertically on oil. The expansion away from cities requires oil, the production and consumption of goods requires oil, commutes from the suburbs to workplaces require oil, and investors speculate on oil. There are WAY too many stakeholders who will willingly make a switch away from petroleum (note how the Prez states "dependence on foreign oil" (meaning Middle East, which is like 15% of our consumption, with large amounts from Mexico, Canada, and South America) and not "dependence from oil". And all the while, oil keeps the political machinery humming and campaign coffers full.
Our economy and society are based on oil. When oil supply tightens to the edge, the economy and society will fail, all else being equal. To sit and pretend that magical technology and/or economic growth are going to wisk away our problems is naive bordering on negligent. I strongly, strongly recommend eveyone read "The Fourth Republic" by Stirling Newberry.
posted by rzklkng at 11:25 AM on January 5, 2007
ewkpates: Now imagine that every sector of the economy commits fraud, and then the government which is the only entity allowed to review the economic numbers JUST CHANGES THEM WITH A MAGIC WAND (pencil).
Right. So. That's not gonna happen here.
One of Mr Orlov's themes is that having an economy entirely based around growth and returning value to shareholders is itself a form of fraud, in that it pushes responsibilities, inconveniences and problems forward into the future so that today's economic graphs still trend upward.
That's a fairly widespread fraud...
Spending a few hundreds of billions on an unnecessary war is another.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:27 AM on January 5, 2007
Right. So. That's not gonna happen here.
One of Mr Orlov's themes is that having an economy entirely based around growth and returning value to shareholders is itself a form of fraud, in that it pushes responsibilities, inconveniences and problems forward into the future so that today's economic graphs still trend upward.
That's a fairly widespread fraud...
Spending a few hundreds of billions on an unnecessary war is another.
posted by Artful Codger at 11:27 AM on January 5, 2007
I'm not sure if I believe that the US economy/political system can stand every challenge that it will face over the next 50 years, but I do believe that the end of cheap oil will be one of the ones it will stand. There is a tremendous amount of waste in our oil economy, and our economy is based on different goods and more importantly, services. As long as the computers work, we'll be ok. Same with most of western europe, Japan maybe not.
Did this thread just get stealth Godwin'ed above?
posted by sfts2 at 11:34 AM on January 5, 2007
Did this thread just get stealth Godwin'ed above?
posted by sfts2 at 11:34 AM on January 5, 2007
I really enjoyed reading that.
However, I think he's ignoring the fact that the US is not a closed system. If it goes down spectacularly, the entire western world and a big chunk of asia will go down with it.
posted by empath at 11:36 AM on January 5, 2007
However, I think he's ignoring the fact that the US is not a closed system. If it goes down spectacularly, the entire western world and a big chunk of asia will go down with it.
posted by empath at 11:36 AM on January 5, 2007
and our economy is based on different goods and more importantly, services. As long as the computers work, we'll be ok.
You're kidding right? We just need a big fat service pyramid scheme to keep things rolling along?
Service industries need people with money to pay other people to perform a service. Do we just keep printing the money and things will work OK?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:41 AM on January 5, 2007
You're kidding right? We just need a big fat service pyramid scheme to keep things rolling along?
Service industries need people with money to pay other people to perform a service. Do we just keep printing the money and things will work OK?
posted by Artful Codger at 11:41 AM on January 5, 2007
How people discuss the US/Western economic system sounds so much like how the tech bubble was discussed before it collapsed - one side saying "no, it's all different now, this is the new way of doing business, and it's sustainable", another saying "Nuh-uh, there is no Magical New Economics, the same fundamentals are as true as ever, and your accountancy just isn't adding up. This cannot hold out".
In every country, there is no shortage of people predicting doom for all the usual and unlikely reasons (such as sour grape idealogical disagreement with whichever political group is currently in power, or Hmmph Those Young People Today, or whatever), but when it comes to an adjustment of the US economy, the whole thing seems eerily familiar.
/Nearly completely uninformed opinion
posted by -harlequin- at 11:54 AM on January 5, 2007
In every country, there is no shortage of people predicting doom for all the usual and unlikely reasons (such as sour grape idealogical disagreement with whichever political group is currently in power, or Hmmph Those Young People Today, or whatever), but when it comes to an adjustment of the US economy, the whole thing seems eerily familiar.
/Nearly completely uninformed opinion
posted by -harlequin- at 11:54 AM on January 5, 2007
Here to answer the questions any first year econ major could, but not quite as well... let's give a big round of applause... iiiiiit's ewkpates! (thank you. thank you. no. thank you.)
what about blanking on M3?
To be honest, I had no idea what the M3 was. I wish we had a first year econ major here. We don't. But we do have... wait for it... Google! Google tells me that there are some crazy econ majors (now holding down jobs) that decided to crunch the m3 numbers themselves. It's almost like we have a real economy where investors consider risk and find out things themselves as opposed to the USSR, where, as I mentioned, there was no publicly available info, and all the info was lies anyway.
What about global warming deniers?
I don't see global warming as anything but an economic golden opportunity. Right now we are thinking about paying third world countries. As California's coastline begins to disappear, you can bet your bippie (if you still have one that isn't underwater) that better ideas will surface in Congress who might not be willing to pay poor people not to cut down rain forests but would pay an international corp to plant them. (get it? surface?)
What about understating Iraqi violence by a factor of 10?
You might have had a point if you had pointed out that the forecast for the cost of the Iraq war (none was given) was hugely inaccurate (it's really really expensive) but you didn't, so you don't really have a point.
an economy entirely based around growth and returning value to shareholders is itself a form of fraud
Oh-kay. Fraud is when you take someone's money, tell them you are going to build them a big machine that will fix it all, and then spend the money on hot co-eds and vegetarian spring rolls. Since investors actually get what they pay for, which is stock in a company, a purchase might I add which involves risk, then really, sadly, the co-eds and the spring rolls are out, as is the premise that capital investment is somehow fraud.
posted by ewkpates at 11:54 AM on January 5, 2007
what about blanking on M3?
To be honest, I had no idea what the M3 was. I wish we had a first year econ major here. We don't. But we do have... wait for it... Google! Google tells me that there are some crazy econ majors (now holding down jobs) that decided to crunch the m3 numbers themselves. It's almost like we have a real economy where investors consider risk and find out things themselves as opposed to the USSR, where, as I mentioned, there was no publicly available info, and all the info was lies anyway.
What about global warming deniers?
I don't see global warming as anything but an economic golden opportunity. Right now we are thinking about paying third world countries. As California's coastline begins to disappear, you can bet your bippie (if you still have one that isn't underwater) that better ideas will surface in Congress who might not be willing to pay poor people not to cut down rain forests but would pay an international corp to plant them. (get it? surface?)
What about understating Iraqi violence by a factor of 10?
You might have had a point if you had pointed out that the forecast for the cost of the Iraq war (none was given) was hugely inaccurate (it's really really expensive) but you didn't, so you don't really have a point.
an economy entirely based around growth and returning value to shareholders is itself a form of fraud
Oh-kay. Fraud is when you take someone's money, tell them you are going to build them a big machine that will fix it all, and then spend the money on hot co-eds and vegetarian spring rolls. Since investors actually get what they pay for, which is stock in a company, a purchase might I add which involves risk, then really, sadly, the co-eds and the spring rolls are out, as is the premise that capital investment is somehow fraud.
posted by ewkpates at 11:54 AM on January 5, 2007
I'm not kidding at all, perhaps being a trifle simplistic.
Do you think oil is just going to disappear? Thats not what is going to happen. We will have a period of years, where oil will become steadily more and more expensive. The market economy will develop alternative energy sources and wasteful practices will become uneconomical (eg commuting, christmas lights, etc etc etc).
What makes you think services are a pyramid scheme? "Just keep printing the money and everything will be ok" I don't recall where I said or even implied that, and fail to see how it even is a relevant concept. How are you relating money supply to this discussion?
Information technology, financial services, (oilfield services too) many other mainstays of the current economy will still be in use, probably in even greater demand. The oil economy is a global one, if oil is expensive for us (% of GDP), it will be even more for most other nations, just as it is now. With any luck, the changing economy will reduce significantly the number of wasteful uses of oil and energy that are prevalent in the US and becoming world-wide patterns of behavior.
We just might find ourselves fitter, more secure, and happier. If not, I have the guns, ammo, fuel oil, and fresh water that I need. :-)
The US will weather the end of cheap oil quite well compared to China, Japan, landlocked Europe, Africa, and South America. Don't forget how important oil is everywhere. Here it is way more of a convienience, and given time, we are in quite a good position to adjust. For example, the tar sands in Western Canada and US contain more oil than all that has been pumped to date, its just not economically feasible at $60 a barrel.
posted by sfts2 at 11:59 AM on January 5, 2007
Do you think oil is just going to disappear? Thats not what is going to happen. We will have a period of years, where oil will become steadily more and more expensive. The market economy will develop alternative energy sources and wasteful practices will become uneconomical (eg commuting, christmas lights, etc etc etc).
What makes you think services are a pyramid scheme? "Just keep printing the money and everything will be ok" I don't recall where I said or even implied that, and fail to see how it even is a relevant concept. How are you relating money supply to this discussion?
Information technology, financial services, (oilfield services too) many other mainstays of the current economy will still be in use, probably in even greater demand. The oil economy is a global one, if oil is expensive for us (% of GDP), it will be even more for most other nations, just as it is now. With any luck, the changing economy will reduce significantly the number of wasteful uses of oil and energy that are prevalent in the US and becoming world-wide patterns of behavior.
We just might find ourselves fitter, more secure, and happier. If not, I have the guns, ammo, fuel oil, and fresh water that I need. :-)
The US will weather the end of cheap oil quite well compared to China, Japan, landlocked Europe, Africa, and South America. Don't forget how important oil is everywhere. Here it is way more of a convienience, and given time, we are in quite a good position to adjust. For example, the tar sands in Western Canada and US contain more oil than all that has been pumped to date, its just not economically feasible at $60 a barrel.
posted by sfts2 at 11:59 AM on January 5, 2007
the forecast for the cost of the Iraq war (none was given) was hugely inaccurate (it's really really expensive)
Hunh? How can a non-existent forecast be inaccurate?
posted by owhydididoit at 12:15 PM on January 5, 2007
Hunh? How can a non-existent forecast be inaccurate?
posted by owhydididoit at 12:15 PM on January 5, 2007
ewkpates: Karl's economics is really borked -- but not much more so that "our" economics (free market capitalism, neoclassical economics, whatever you want to call it).
Seriously. Debunking Economics. Read it.
The collapse of the 30s was a magic wand numbers trick. The 90s bubble was a magic wand numbers trick. So was Enron. So are 95% of all business models, which are built upon a fanciful and nonsensical religious faith in this magic thing called "growth."
America doesn't have a central agency as powerful as the Soviet government to control the numbers trick, but our economies play the same kind of games nonetheless. The lack of a central lying authority (hopefully) reduces the dangers of collapse like occurred in the Soviet Union, but it in no way makes everything OK.
Econ 101 is the most dangerous course anyone will ever take in college. Everything you learn in that course is complete crap, based on nonsense (and I mean disproven by mathematical proof and empiricism [generally by economists], not hand waving).
it's almost like we have a real economy where investors consider risk and find out things themselves
Never mind that with almost every single American business, there is deliberate lying in the numbers you read, and that standard neoclassical economics models rely fundamentally on said investors having infinite number crunching capacities, very complete knowledge, and fully "rational" economic decision making (of which, not a single one of those assumptions is valid, nor even a reasonable approximation of reality). But hey, why quibble when Econ 101 tells us all is well?
The Western belief in free market capitalism is religion, not all that much unlike Marxian economics or Catholicism, minus the morality. We've done OK with it so far, but it's not going to guarantee us anything, because most of our successes with it we fundamentally misunderstand, and are nothing more than luck.
That luck will run out, eventually.
posted by teece at 12:17 PM on January 5, 2007
Seriously. Debunking Economics. Read it.
The collapse of the 30s was a magic wand numbers trick. The 90s bubble was a magic wand numbers trick. So was Enron. So are 95% of all business models, which are built upon a fanciful and nonsensical religious faith in this magic thing called "growth."
America doesn't have a central agency as powerful as the Soviet government to control the numbers trick, but our economies play the same kind of games nonetheless. The lack of a central lying authority (hopefully) reduces the dangers of collapse like occurred in the Soviet Union, but it in no way makes everything OK.
Econ 101 is the most dangerous course anyone will ever take in college. Everything you learn in that course is complete crap, based on nonsense (and I mean disproven by mathematical proof and empiricism [generally by economists], not hand waving).
it's almost like we have a real economy where investors consider risk and find out things themselves
Never mind that with almost every single American business, there is deliberate lying in the numbers you read, and that standard neoclassical economics models rely fundamentally on said investors having infinite number crunching capacities, very complete knowledge, and fully "rational" economic decision making (of which, not a single one of those assumptions is valid, nor even a reasonable approximation of reality). But hey, why quibble when Econ 101 tells us all is well?
The Western belief in free market capitalism is religion, not all that much unlike Marxian economics or Catholicism, minus the morality. We've done OK with it so far, but it's not going to guarantee us anything, because most of our successes with it we fundamentally misunderstand, and are nothing more than luck.
That luck will run out, eventually.
posted by teece at 12:17 PM on January 5, 2007
The only question here is how the FPP was titled anything other than "Boondoggles to the Rescue!" (Slide 26).
posted by rokusan at 12:22 PM on January 5, 2007
posted by rokusan at 12:22 PM on January 5, 2007
That luck will run out, eventually.
I should add: that's not the only possibility, nor the one I prefer. My hope is that we'll wake the fuck up and eliminate some of our ignorance (especially in the area of economics), but I'm only so optimistic.
We really have no idea how our economy will respond to something as huge as peak oil. No idea at all.
posted by teece at 12:28 PM on January 5, 2007
I should add: that's not the only possibility, nor the one I prefer. My hope is that we'll wake the fuck up and eliminate some of our ignorance (especially in the area of economics), but I'm only so optimistic.
We really have no idea how our economy will respond to something as huge as peak oil. No idea at all.
posted by teece at 12:28 PM on January 5, 2007
What makes you think services are a pyramid scheme? "Just keep printing the money and everything will be ok" I don't recall where I said or even implied that, and fail to see how it even is a relevant concept. How are you relating money supply to this discussion?
I'm no econ genius, but I believe the following oversimplification is essentially correct: Wealth ultimately starts from somewhere - the minerals we dig up, the oil we find, the trees we cut, the food we grow. We will always grow food; but we won't so much need oil or minerals or lumber or the products we make from them, or dry-cleaning or landscaping or plastic surgery if we somehow lose the ability to pay for these things or services.
No demand -> no production -> no big job-jar of services needing to be performed.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:32 PM on January 5, 2007
I'm no econ genius, but I believe the following oversimplification is essentially correct: Wealth ultimately starts from somewhere - the minerals we dig up, the oil we find, the trees we cut, the food we grow. We will always grow food; but we won't so much need oil or minerals or lumber or the products we make from them, or dry-cleaning or landscaping or plastic surgery if we somehow lose the ability to pay for these things or services.
No demand -> no production -> no big job-jar of services needing to be performed.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:32 PM on January 5, 2007
The US will weather the end of cheap oil quite well compared to China, Japan, landlocked Europe, Africa, and South America. Don't forget how important oil is everywhere. Here it is way more of a convienience, and given time, we are in quite a good position to adjust. For example, the tar sands in Western Canada and US contain more oil than all that has been pumped to date, its just not economically feasible at $60 a barrel.
posted by sfts2 at 2:59 PM EST on January 5
Exactly. Furthermore even though it is not economically feasible at $60 now, they are actually producing from there. The purpose of doing that it to develop the technologies to make it efficient at $60.
IF the price of oil doubles, it means that the oil-derivate component of goods will double. That does not mean the price of the good itself doubles. IF widget X costs $1, and $0.07 of that is oil related (trasnportation, energy, materials, etc), doubling of the oil component pushes the price to $1.07 - a 7% increase.
The more advanced the widget or service - i.e. the more intellectual and creative input is required to supply it - the less oil price matters.
This is why peak oil for China = death. and Peak oil for US means goofy energy alternatives. It's quite difficult to run a massive manufacturing and shipping economy on solar or wind power. IT is very easy to run a service and information economy with those resources.
It may mean you replace your durable goods every X+y years instead of every X years. So?
posted by Pastabagel at 12:36 PM on January 5, 2007
Sorry, but I had to speak up here. I'm in agreement with you, sfts2, until your fifth sentence:
The market economy will develop alternative energy sources...
It's not a market problem. It's an energy problem. There is simply no combination of energy sources that can come online in less than 20 years that can substitute for the cost-to-energy ratio of oil. "The market" is not a magic wand that you can wave, believing that everything will come out right.
Ethanol is not a substitute. Biofuels are not a substitute. Solar power is not a substitute. Hydrogen is not a substitute.
There is, as always, a chance that a breakthrough will be made. Nuclear fusion is one, although we've been trying to crack that for 40 years. Synthesizing oil from algae is another. But even if such a breakthrough occurred, replacing the existing infrastructure would take more than 20 years and tremendous expense (read: trillions of dollars). And note that the "oil by other means" model continues the pollutant problem that we have right now.
Information technology, financial services, (oilfield services too) many other mainstays of the current economy will still be in use, probably in even greater demand...
So long as the electricity for those services doesn't depend on oil or coal-based electrical generation, sure. But I'm not sure how much use bean-counters will be when the ability to grow beans with oil-based fertilizers is threatened.
We just might find ourselves fitter, more secure, and happier. If not, I have the guns, ammo, fuel oil, and fresh water that I need. :-)
"Screw you, Jack, I'll be alright."
The US will weather the end of cheap oil quite well compared to China, Japan, landlocked Europe, Africa, and South America.
Please provide sources for this statement. According to my research, with the possible exception of Japan, the US has by far the greatest dependence on oil, any way you measure it.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 12:46 PM on January 5, 2007
The market economy will develop alternative energy sources...
It's not a market problem. It's an energy problem. There is simply no combination of energy sources that can come online in less than 20 years that can substitute for the cost-to-energy ratio of oil. "The market" is not a magic wand that you can wave, believing that everything will come out right.
Ethanol is not a substitute. Biofuels are not a substitute. Solar power is not a substitute. Hydrogen is not a substitute.
There is, as always, a chance that a breakthrough will be made. Nuclear fusion is one, although we've been trying to crack that for 40 years. Synthesizing oil from algae is another. But even if such a breakthrough occurred, replacing the existing infrastructure would take more than 20 years and tremendous expense (read: trillions of dollars). And note that the "oil by other means" model continues the pollutant problem that we have right now.
Information technology, financial services, (oilfield services too) many other mainstays of the current economy will still be in use, probably in even greater demand...
So long as the electricity for those services doesn't depend on oil or coal-based electrical generation, sure. But I'm not sure how much use bean-counters will be when the ability to grow beans with oil-based fertilizers is threatened.
We just might find ourselves fitter, more secure, and happier. If not, I have the guns, ammo, fuel oil, and fresh water that I need. :-)
"Screw you, Jack, I'll be alright."
The US will weather the end of cheap oil quite well compared to China, Japan, landlocked Europe, Africa, and South America.
Please provide sources for this statement. According to my research, with the possible exception of Japan, the US has by far the greatest dependence on oil, any way you measure it.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 12:46 PM on January 5, 2007
Don't forget how important oil is everywhere. Here [USA] it is way more of a convienience
... scuse me? when oil is unobtainable I'd rather be in Europe than in the US.
The more advanced the widget or service - i.e. the more intellectual and creative input is required to supply it - the less oil price matters.
Oil price matters when your oil-dependent service or product is no longer viable, and you are out of work and thus in no position to pay for said intellectual and creative service.
If no-one can or will pay for services, there's no service industry. Even I get that.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:49 PM on January 5, 2007
... scuse me? when oil is unobtainable I'd rather be in Europe than in the US.
The more advanced the widget or service - i.e. the more intellectual and creative input is required to supply it - the less oil price matters.
Oil price matters when your oil-dependent service or product is no longer viable, and you are out of work and thus in no position to pay for said intellectual and creative service.
If no-one can or will pay for services, there's no service industry. Even I get that.
posted by Artful Codger at 12:49 PM on January 5, 2007
The market economy will develop alternative energy sources and wasteful practices will become uneconomical
Market economy develop a whole lot of nothing : researchers, engineers, chemist and the whole bunch of people does. That's nor marxism, that's reality.
Outsource that to india,china, youname it and you have a failure waiting to happen, because people ready to produce isn't prepared overnight and , my oh my, where are they supposed to get the experience they need to test, try and produce their skills ? A semester in china ? Remember that capitalism has no geographic limitation, rich and powerful just change country, even if it costs a lot.
Similarly in Russia they had quite a number of skilled scientist and technicians, but their potential couldn't be fully realized as what failed was the entire direction of the show because it was centralized for political purposes...monopolies in economies have a similar effect.
So if ABCX supercoporation outsources the production becase it looks VERY good in accounting, they also in _practice_ outsource the human infrastructure needed to run an economy of "goods"...leaving behind a looong list of MBAs colleagues of mine, lawyers and similars...which are not necessarily useless, but aren't that useful in a collapsed economy and if they have ZERO experience because their jobs really are in the far east.
For instance a project manager, which can coordinate the work of many, resolve arising human conflict, promote the existence of goods, help collect the information regarding the expected market for the good, learn a ton of technical details about the product and see if the damn thing actually meets the demand isn't prepared overnight.
Notice how the author says
"The problem was that the graduates had no jobs to look forward to upon graduation. Many of them lost their way."
Not surprisingly. Too young to guide themselves and too busy surviving.
On top of this a culture of _consumption_ slowly, but steadly disintegrates a culture of _construction_ if the user is not allowed to mingle with the produce goods or produce their own and if the pupils are not encouraged to create, develop, assemble and disassemble.
No no.... American Idiot is on TV. Too bad it is spreading to europe by format sale :<
posted by elpapacito at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2007
Market economy develop a whole lot of nothing : researchers, engineers, chemist and the whole bunch of people does. That's nor marxism, that's reality.
Outsource that to india,china, youname it and you have a failure waiting to happen, because people ready to produce isn't prepared overnight and , my oh my, where are they supposed to get the experience they need to test, try and produce their skills ? A semester in china ? Remember that capitalism has no geographic limitation, rich and powerful just change country, even if it costs a lot.
Similarly in Russia they had quite a number of skilled scientist and technicians, but their potential couldn't be fully realized as what failed was the entire direction of the show because it was centralized for political purposes...monopolies in economies have a similar effect.
So if ABCX supercoporation outsources the production becase it looks VERY good in accounting, they also in _practice_ outsource the human infrastructure needed to run an economy of "goods"...leaving behind a looong list of MBAs colleagues of mine, lawyers and similars...which are not necessarily useless, but aren't that useful in a collapsed economy and if they have ZERO experience because their jobs really are in the far east.
For instance a project manager, which can coordinate the work of many, resolve arising human conflict, promote the existence of goods, help collect the information regarding the expected market for the good, learn a ton of technical details about the product and see if the damn thing actually meets the demand isn't prepared overnight.
Notice how the author says
"The problem was that the graduates had no jobs to look forward to upon graduation. Many of them lost their way."
Not surprisingly. Too young to guide themselves and too busy surviving.
On top of this a culture of _consumption_ slowly, but steadly disintegrates a culture of _construction_ if the user is not allowed to mingle with the produce goods or produce their own and if the pupils are not encouraged to create, develop, assemble and disassemble.
No no.... American Idiot is on TV. Too bad it is spreading to europe by format sale :<
posted by elpapacito at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2007
It's quite difficult to run a massive manufacturing and shipping economy on solar or wind power. IT is very easy to run a service and information economy with those resources.
OK, this is just blatantly silly.
Can the IT guy make you shoes? Build your house? Put meat and potatoes on your plate? Etc. etc.
Can any service or information economy worker?
FUCK NO! Goods and manufacturing/farming is not luxury -- it is necessity. In the event of complete energy collapse, we will be much, much worse off than China et. al. They will take a major hit, but they have the means to produces the goods they need.
We DO NOT, not without a massive and painful economic retooling. Without oil, we can not feed ourselves or shelter ourselves very well at all. The great majority of the goods you have (you know, trivial stuff like houses, clothes, cars, foods, medicines) comes from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Without cheap oil, if it comes at all, it will come at an astounding premium.
You seem to think of an economy as something magic. It ain't.
And Bora Horza is right on oil -- it is an energy problem, not a market problem, and one to which there is no guarantee of a solution, even though free market fundamentalists insist that is so.
posted by teece at 12:54 PM on January 5, 2007
OK, this is just blatantly silly.
Can the IT guy make you shoes? Build your house? Put meat and potatoes on your plate? Etc. etc.
Can any service or information economy worker?
FUCK NO! Goods and manufacturing/farming is not luxury -- it is necessity. In the event of complete energy collapse, we will be much, much worse off than China et. al. They will take a major hit, but they have the means to produces the goods they need.
We DO NOT, not without a massive and painful economic retooling. Without oil, we can not feed ourselves or shelter ourselves very well at all. The great majority of the goods you have (you know, trivial stuff like houses, clothes, cars, foods, medicines) comes from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Without cheap oil, if it comes at all, it will come at an astounding premium.
You seem to think of an economy as something magic. It ain't.
And Bora Horza is right on oil -- it is an energy problem, not a market problem, and one to which there is no guarantee of a solution, even though free market fundamentalists insist that is so.
posted by teece at 12:54 PM on January 5, 2007
"There's no place like home, there's no place like home."
Problem solved.
posted by nofundy at 1:08 PM on January 5, 2007
Problem solved.
posted by nofundy at 1:08 PM on January 5, 2007
Ethanol is not a substitute. Biofuels are not a substitute. Solar power is not a substitute. Hydrogen is not a substitute.
We don't need a substitute because peak oil does not mean the oil vanishes. It means production from known wells . As oil prices rise, oil use/energy will become more efficient.
The US is amazingly resilient. It survived the depression, wars, (not all of them victorious), the disintegration of it's manufacturing base, etc. and only now is it being challenged by a country 5 times larger.
when oil is unobtainable I'd rather be in Europe than in the US
This statement is supremely idiotic. Before anyone had any use for oil, Europeans were coming to the US. There is a war in Europe (Chechnya), there was another one a few years ago (Serbia), staggering unemployment, racial tension that spills into rioting on a regular basis, significant non-assimilated populations, etc. Europe isn't just France and Germany. It's Romania and Russia too.
Don't confuse the ineptitude of the US.. government with the American people. The smart people here don't go into politics.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:10 PM on January 5, 2007
We don't need a substitute because peak oil does not mean the oil vanishes. It means production from known wells . As oil prices rise, oil use/energy will become more efficient.
The US is amazingly resilient. It survived the depression, wars, (not all of them victorious), the disintegration of it's manufacturing base, etc. and only now is it being challenged by a country 5 times larger.
when oil is unobtainable I'd rather be in Europe than in the US
This statement is supremely idiotic. Before anyone had any use for oil, Europeans were coming to the US. There is a war in Europe (Chechnya), there was another one a few years ago (Serbia), staggering unemployment, racial tension that spills into rioting on a regular basis, significant non-assimilated populations, etc. Europe isn't just France and Germany. It's Romania and Russia too.
Don't confuse the ineptitude of the US.. government with the American people. The smart people here don't go into politics.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:10 PM on January 5, 2007
Wheeeeeee! Look at the armchair economists go!
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:15 PM on January 5, 2007
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:15 PM on January 5, 2007
We don't need a substitute because peak oil does not mean the oil vanishes. It means production from known wells . As oil prices rise, oil use/energy will become more efficient.
You really do not have a good grasp of the situation, Pastabagel.
America currently lives in debt. If oil prices quadruple in price, we're in trouble. It is guaranteed that not only are oil prices going to quadruple, they're going to keep on going right past that. The only part we can't figure out is the when.
There is not enough efficiency in the world to take a debtor nation out of collapse when oil costs that much, especially if you consider how oil plays a part in the price of damn near every good or service that exists in this nation.
Add to that, a significant amount of our tangible goods come from oversees -- in a $200/barrel oil market, getting those goods is essentially impossible.
Your Econ 101 can't save you here: your Econ 101 does not model the real world. Societies can and do collapse in the face of such difficulties, and it's long past time to abandon the religious belief of "everything will just be alright, and we don't have to think about it."
posted by teece at 1:21 PM on January 5, 2007
You really do not have a good grasp of the situation, Pastabagel.
America currently lives in debt. If oil prices quadruple in price, we're in trouble. It is guaranteed that not only are oil prices going to quadruple, they're going to keep on going right past that. The only part we can't figure out is the when.
There is not enough efficiency in the world to take a debtor nation out of collapse when oil costs that much, especially if you consider how oil plays a part in the price of damn near every good or service that exists in this nation.
Add to that, a significant amount of our tangible goods come from oversees -- in a $200/barrel oil market, getting those goods is essentially impossible.
Your Econ 101 can't save you here: your Econ 101 does not model the real world. Societies can and do collapse in the face of such difficulties, and it's long past time to abandon the religious belief of "everything will just be alright, and we don't have to think about it."
posted by teece at 1:21 PM on January 5, 2007
A lot of conflation going on here.
First off, anyone who thinks that the most likely scenario is a complete energy collapse is probably over-stating the issue. Additionally, anyone who thinks that the US is not in a pretty good relative position regarding food production, fresh water, and other essential for life natural resources along with the industrial capacity to adjust to different energy sources over the next 50-100 years has a greatly different understanding than I do.
Secondly, I said nothing about pollution and nothing about the US being unaffected, but I have to believe that the issue will be more likely more 'rape of land' than accelerated 'fossil fuel induced global warming' in the event fossil fuels become frighteningly expensive.
Energy problem, market problem = semantical games. For the next hundreds of years, there is more than enough fossil fuel. It just becomes increasingly expensive and polluting. My analysis time horizon is 50-100 years, not 500, who knows what will happen then?
I am an IT guy, and I can make shoes, clothing, food and fresh water, all using dirty polluted crap through the wonder of information. Can the rest of the world?
Lastly, artful and teece, I have no desire to argue, and I'd prefer to be in Europe as well, but for probably different reasons. Suffice it to say, that in my view, your logic is circuitous and not very compelling.
posted by sfts2 at 1:25 PM on January 5, 2007
First off, anyone who thinks that the most likely scenario is a complete energy collapse is probably over-stating the issue. Additionally, anyone who thinks that the US is not in a pretty good relative position regarding food production, fresh water, and other essential for life natural resources along with the industrial capacity to adjust to different energy sources over the next 50-100 years has a greatly different understanding than I do.
Secondly, I said nothing about pollution and nothing about the US being unaffected, but I have to believe that the issue will be more likely more 'rape of land' than accelerated 'fossil fuel induced global warming' in the event fossil fuels become frighteningly expensive.
Energy problem, market problem = semantical games. For the next hundreds of years, there is more than enough fossil fuel. It just becomes increasingly expensive and polluting. My analysis time horizon is 50-100 years, not 500, who knows what will happen then?
I am an IT guy, and I can make shoes, clothing, food and fresh water, all using dirty polluted crap through the wonder of information. Can the rest of the world?
Lastly, artful and teece, I have no desire to argue, and I'd prefer to be in Europe as well, but for probably different reasons. Suffice it to say, that in my view, your logic is circuitous and not very compelling.
posted by sfts2 at 1:25 PM on January 5, 2007
You can make shoes? My IT guys can't sew worth a crap.
posted by Mister_A at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 1:29 PM on January 5, 2007
"when oil is unobtainable I'd rather be in Europe than in the US"
This statement is supremely idiotic.
That's fitting because I am an idiot.
Notwithstanding, comment stands. I didn't say Europe was perfect, but they currently are better at the problems of running large urban areas, mass transport, health, education and the like.
When working-class Americans lose jobs and can't drive everywhere anymore and no longer have air conditioning and big screen TVs and X-Boxen to stay distracted with, you'll get to see upclose what social unrest really looks like.
sfts2:I am an IT guy, and I can make shoes, clothing, food and fresh water, all using dirty polluted crap through the wonder of information. Can the rest of the world?
You are an EMPLOYED IT guy. When/if the US economy collapses and you're let go, you won't be doing any of that. "Can the rest of the world"... Ever heard of Bangalore?
posted by Artful Codger at 1:30 PM on January 5, 2007
This statement is supremely idiotic.
That's fitting because I am an idiot.
Notwithstanding, comment stands. I didn't say Europe was perfect, but they currently are better at the problems of running large urban areas, mass transport, health, education and the like.
When working-class Americans lose jobs and can't drive everywhere anymore and no longer have air conditioning and big screen TVs and X-Boxen to stay distracted with, you'll get to see upclose what social unrest really looks like.
sfts2:I am an IT guy, and I can make shoes, clothing, food and fresh water, all using dirty polluted crap through the wonder of information. Can the rest of the world?
You are an EMPLOYED IT guy. When/if the US economy collapses and you're let go, you won't be doing any of that. "Can the rest of the world"... Ever heard of Bangalore?
posted by Artful Codger at 1:30 PM on January 5, 2007
I am an IT guy, and I can make shoes, clothing, food and fresh water, all using dirty polluted crap through the wonder of information.
You evidently can make drugs too and use them liberally. Pray tell this idiotic audience how would you make stuff from information alone ?
But let's go to the point : you may be able to assemble the PC like many, but that isn't the same as running a CPU fab. Similarly you may enjoy aluminium cases, but do you know how to collect al ore, smelt it and the amount of energy that process requires ? Not mentioning machining the stuff. You also need to extract the gold, tin, copper for the circuits and know how to mass produce motherboards to make the cost tolerably low for a mass market.
Oh and say hello to the mass of people you need to organize and make work in concert to obtain that ! They really really love you, like you and are deeply concerned about your well being.
My IT guys can't sew worth a crap.
Try a freshly minted McPunjaby MCSE, they can do anything including levitation and all the nice indian tricks.
posted by elpapacito at 1:40 PM on January 5, 2007
You evidently can make drugs too and use them liberally. Pray tell this idiotic audience how would you make stuff from information alone ?
But let's go to the point : you may be able to assemble the PC like many, but that isn't the same as running a CPU fab. Similarly you may enjoy aluminium cases, but do you know how to collect al ore, smelt it and the amount of energy that process requires ? Not mentioning machining the stuff. You also need to extract the gold, tin, copper for the circuits and know how to mass produce motherboards to make the cost tolerably low for a mass market.
Oh and say hello to the mass of people you need to organize and make work in concert to obtain that ! They really really love you, like you and are deeply concerned about your well being.
My IT guys can't sew worth a crap.
Try a freshly minted McPunjaby MCSE, they can do anything including levitation and all the nice indian tricks.
posted by elpapacito at 1:40 PM on January 5, 2007
Additionally, anyone who thinks that the US is not in a pretty good relative position regarding food production, fresh water, and other essential for life natural resources along with the industrial capacity to adjust to different energy sources.
Heh. "adjust to different energy sources" == economic depression and/or collapse.
You can make your shoes: being glib? I assume so, because I know you can't seamlessly switch from programming/admin/whatever to being a cobbler as your means of income, and nor can any significant proportion of the service or information sector.
"Adjusting" is always going to happen. Duh. The thing is, that adjustment is currently looking quite painful.
posted by teece at 1:43 PM on January 5, 2007
Heh. "adjust to different energy sources" == economic depression and/or collapse.
You can make your shoes: being glib? I assume so, because I know you can't seamlessly switch from programming/admin/whatever to being a cobbler as your means of income, and nor can any significant proportion of the service or information sector.
"Adjusting" is always going to happen. Duh. The thing is, that adjustment is currently looking quite painful.
posted by teece at 1:43 PM on January 5, 2007
... peak oil does not mean the oil vanishes.
You are quite correct.
We don't need a substitute... [peak oil] means production from known wells.
You couldn't be more wrong. While Hubbert curves certainly describe the production of oil wells, both individually and in aggregate, it's a fairly obvious fact that the biggest and most accessible oil reserves are going to be found and exploited first (see: oil drilling in the Los Angeles basin and SA's Ghawar, places in which the oil was literally pooling on the surface.) As exploration continues and the wells dry up, the fields found tend to be smaller, less accessible and considerably harder (and thus more expensive) to exploit. (See: the North Sea (now past peak), drilling in SA's Empty Quarter).
The oil-bearing areas of the world have been mapped and, for the most part, exploited, with the exception of extremely remote areas (super-deep offshore feilds, Siberia and the poles). The general opinion of the industry is that there are no super-giant fields left to be found, and that the fields that have not yet yeilded to discovery are small and not economically viable unless oil hits at least $100 per barrel (take a look at the cost overuns on Alberta's oilsands and the extremely inefficient yield: you need to mine and process (with a huge amount of hot water and/or natural gas) at least a cubic meter of tar sands (weighing over one ton) to produce a barrel of crude).
All of this while world demand for oil is rising. Yes, greater energy efficiencies will help. But it's like taking smaller sips of a sundae - it's still being used up.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 1:45 PM on January 5, 2007
You are quite correct.
We don't need a substitute... [peak oil] means production from known wells.
You couldn't be more wrong. While Hubbert curves certainly describe the production of oil wells, both individually and in aggregate, it's a fairly obvious fact that the biggest and most accessible oil reserves are going to be found and exploited first (see: oil drilling in the Los Angeles basin and SA's Ghawar, places in which the oil was literally pooling on the surface.) As exploration continues and the wells dry up, the fields found tend to be smaller, less accessible and considerably harder (and thus more expensive) to exploit. (See: the North Sea (now past peak), drilling in SA's Empty Quarter).
The oil-bearing areas of the world have been mapped and, for the most part, exploited, with the exception of extremely remote areas (super-deep offshore feilds, Siberia and the poles). The general opinion of the industry is that there are no super-giant fields left to be found, and that the fields that have not yet yeilded to discovery are small and not economically viable unless oil hits at least $100 per barrel (take a look at the cost overuns on Alberta's oilsands and the extremely inefficient yield: you need to mine and process (with a huge amount of hot water and/or natural gas) at least a cubic meter of tar sands (weighing over one ton) to produce a barrel of crude).
All of this while world demand for oil is rising. Yes, greater energy efficiencies will help. But it's like taking smaller sips of a sundae - it's still being used up.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 1:45 PM on January 5, 2007
« Older Top 10 Mashups Hispanos de Google Maps | Hey you got your chocolate in my peanut butter... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pyramid termite at 10:18 AM on January 5, 2007