Forum Replies Created
I hope that this gets read by all the elites.
No, that is not what they should read.
They should read the excerpt of a 1928 book I have sent to Ilargi by email.
He knows what I’m talking about…
[“If not for the constraints, whether they emanate from energy and/or finance, would growth have been able to continue at prior levels? Both the energy and the finance/political camps mostly seem to think so.
The energy crowd -peak oilers- appear to assume that if energy would have been more readily available, economic growth could have continued pretty much unabated. Or they at least seem to assume that it’s the limits of energy that are responsible for the limits to economic growth.“]
Of all constraint that will tighten the noose on us, ‘Peak Oil’ is the queen bitch of them all. But far from the only one hitting us hard;
*Demographics, and therefore LAND will (it already started decades ago for some, centuries ago for others) provide us with a crude reminder of a primal reality.
*Barring a deus ex machina discovery in physics that would transcend our energy predicament, diminishing returns on technological advancements coupled to vicious scaling issues will dissipate the fog of euphoria that’s currently acting as an anesthetic.
— i.e. There is no such thing as “Moore’s Law”. Transistor size are approaching silicon’ hard physical limits and even if they weren’t , they would not make cars fly…
[“But what kind of growth do both ‘fields’ envision? Growth to what end, and growth into what? 4 years ago, I wrote What Do We Want To Grow Into? I have still never seen anyone else ask that question, before or since, let alone answer it.
We want growth by default, we want growth for growth’s sake, without caring much where it will lead us. Maybe we think unconsciously that as long as we can secure growth, we can figure out what to do with it later.“]
You mean that a nice home, on a nice plot of land with a beautiful garden was never in the cards for every citizen of the planet ?
You’re saying that this wasn’t the overarching goal of the epic increase of productive capacity ?
One of your all time best post Ilargi…January 16, 2015 at 4:33 pm in reply to: The End Of Fed QE Didn’t Start Market Madness, It Ended It #18407
To complete Charlene Chu’s quote: “China has replicated the entire U.S. commercial banking system’s balance sheet– which took a century to build– in the span of half a decade.”
I think we don’t nearly dwell enough on that…even considering China’s exceptional ability with “regulatory forbearance” .
So we can assume that that last Chinese “run for it” boom is what drove oil and commodity prices all this time, on the presumed crest of the peak oil supply curve.
So either the newly “fully developed & vascularized” China gets a social safety net and begins consuming like we did from 1950 to 2008 and all will be well (not really, but let’s pretend)…
…demography will dictate that capitalism needs another emergent market miracle and therefore suggest India have a go at it…
…the general “malaise” get’s to be understood by enough people. Then, the shit truly hits the fan as critical mass of them realize how fucked we are…December 24, 2014 at 2:04 am in reply to: Broken Energy Markets and the Downside of Hubbert’s Peak #17761
[“Either way, the brave new world that awaits us will be characterised as the time of less that will be in stark contrast to the time of plenty many of us enjoyed during the 20th Century.”]
If you ever wonder what psychological leanings got us this far into painting ouselves in a corner; you’d probably be hard pressed to come out with a more splendid specimen:
Segment of relevance: 4:15 – 6:05
It’s quite the anthropological case of study. How a guy in his position can be so stunningly full of shit. It is not ignorance that made him look like the idiot he is; it’s Willful ignorance -aka- ideology.
Even Pickens is incredulous and started to loose it….lol
It’s hilarious if you manage to watch the thing from a detached enough perpserctive.
It’s an epic archival footage if you ask me…
It seems we are entering the historical process of not price discovery, but of reassessed maximum “sustainable equilibrium” complexity.
When push comes to shove, I find it hard to believe governments won’t “bail out” their already heavily subsidized industry. I know you’ve voiced doubts on this early this week, but I think you should clarify your point and elaborate further. There will certainly be a shake out, that’s for sure. But ultimately, in the long run…
Yep, as the quote further up the post indicates
“Iran has the highest fiscal break-even price for its budget at over $130 per barrel of Brent, compared with the UAE at around $70 per barrel and Saudi Arabia at about $90…”
–It’s [fiscal] break-even price there talking about…
On the other hand, yes ; 2$ a barrel is absolute BS in a country that has reached a such level of affluence that this sort of occurrence is thinkable…
[“His status among American elites is the single most potent fact for understanding the nation’s imperial decline.”]
Whenever I heard this guy speak in interviews, I a l w a y s asked myself: w the bloody f is this guy saying that justifies his “position” ? Is it even possible to be less insightful ?
–and always, ALWAYS– four words proceeded to float in my mind few seconds later.
“This guy’s a hack” …followed by the occasional variant “This guy’s a mediocre hack”
So you’re little quote here, I find absolutely exquisite; in addition to providing me with a good –much needed laugh, it made me incapable of resisting the urge to register, just to communicate my ecstatic pleasure of not being alone. I guess calling BS on this kind of guy is like popping a big cyst; you just know it has to be done — and then ….god what a relief …!
Thanks for the relief Ilargi !