Employment Report: IT SUCKS

[Daniel_Plainview]

US Needs To Generate 246,600 Jobs A Month To Get To Pre-Depression Employment By End Of Obama Second Term new

How about if the Obama administration just keeps reclassifying 500,000 unemployed each month as "discouraged" and no longer counts them in the unemployment statistics as it did in December and January.

And for those unemployed Americans that it doesn't reclassify as discouraged, the govt can tweak the seasonal adjustments and the birth-death models until it finds a number it can live with ...

[Xenophobe]

Lets step back from any politics. Isn't this what we should expect from post peak oil? Oil prices up, government throwing paper at the problem. No solutions? Got preps?

Peak oil was supposed to start with shortages. Rationing. Obviously, when demand runs into no supply, bad things are supposed to happen, and it all was going to start with the fuel.

The heavy duty relationship to all things financial is primarily a revisionist game by those disappointed with how peak oil in 2005 actually went.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Lets step back from any politics. Isn't this what we should expect from post peak oil? Oil prices up, government throwing paper at the problem. No solutions? Got preps?

Peak oil was supposed to start with shortages. Rationing. Obviously, when demand runs into no supply, bad things are supposed to happen, and it all was going to start with the fuel.

The heavy duty relationship to all things financial is primarily a revisionist game by those disappointed with how peak oil in 2005 actually went.

There never has been a uniform theory as to precisely how peak oil's consequences will play out. The most widely held view is that PO will lead to successive ratchetings of a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery" followed by a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery." This has been playing out to a tee since 2008. Where have you been? Did you miss the collapse of 2008 and the extremely weak "recovery" of 2009-2011?

[pstarr]

Lets step back from any politics. Isn't this what we should expect from post peak oil? Oil prices up, government throwing paper at the problem. No solutions? Got preps?

Peak oil was supposed to start with shortages. Rationing. Obviously, when demand runs into no supply, bad things are supposed to happen, and it all was going to start with the fuel.

The heavy duty relationship to all things financial is primarily a revisionist game by those disappointed with how peak oil in 2005 actually went.

There never has been a uniform theory as to precisely how peak oil's consequences will play out. The most widely held view is that PO will lead to successive ratchetings of a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery" followed by a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery." This has been playing out to a tee since 2008. Where have you been? Did you miss the collapse of 2008 and the extremely weak "recovery" of 2009-2011?

That is one theory---Greer's "catabolic collapse." I no longer subscribe to it, as I consider the alternative--systemic failures in a tightly coupled tightly wound entropic infrastructure to be more likely. The obvious vulnerability of the Suez Canal/Homuz Straits has reminded me of that fact.

Yo Xeno. Go pleasure yerself.

[Daniel_Plainview]

Lets step back from any politics. Isn't this what we should expect from post peak oil? Oil prices up, government throwing paper at the problem. No solutions? Got preps?

Peak oil was supposed to start with shortages. Rationing. Obviously, when demand runs into no supply, bad things are supposed to happen, and it all was going to start with the fuel.

The heavy duty relationship to all things financial is primarily a revisionist game by those disappointed with how peak oil in 2005 actually went.

There never has been a uniform theory as to precisely how peak oil's consequences will play out. The most widely held view is that PO will lead to successive ratchetings of a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery" followed by a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery." This has been playing out to a tee since 2008. Where have you been? Did you miss the collapse of 2008 and the extremely weak "recovery" of 2009-2011?

That is one theory---Greer's "catabolic collapse." I no longer subscribe to it, as I consider the alternative--systemic failures in a tightly coupled tightly wound entropic infrastructure to be more likely. The obvious vulnerability of the Suez Canal/Homuz Straits has reminded me of that fact.

Yo Xeno. Go pleasure yerself.

So are you arguing that PO hasn't happened yet, but when it does, it will lead to systemic collapse; or are you arguing that PO has already happened, and we're now in the midst of a systemic collapse?

[pstarr]

So are you arguing that PO hasn't happened yet, but when it does, it will lead to systemic collapse; or are you arguing that PO has already happened, and we're now in the midst of a systemic collapse?

the latter. I was willing to consider a possible US economic rebound to be a new stasis, a somewhat stable stair step on the bumpy decline. Now consider any temporary respite here (or in Germany) to be an exemption. The rest of world, Chinidia included, are sinking slowly as we speak.

[Daniel_Plainview]

So are you arguing that PO hasn't happened yet, but when it does, it will lead to systemic collapse; or are you arguing that PO has already happened, and we're now in the midst of a systemic collapse?

the latter. I was willing to consider a possible US economic rebound to be a new stasis, a somewhat stable stair step on the bumpy decline. Now consider any temporary respite here (or in Germany) to be an exemption. The rest of world, Chinidia included, are sinking slowly as we speak.

OK, so a systemic collapse takes several years to play out, and it can involve temporary reprieves (respites / recoveries) as the global economy falls inexorably into a vortex of economic despair. This seems quite plausible, my only qualm being that the concept of a "systemic collapse" seems to envision a sudden toppling of the house-of-cards rather than a gradual unwinding.

[Xenophobe]

There never has been a uniform theory as to precisely how peak oil's consequences will play out.

True. However, a review of most pre-2005 Doomer documents at dieoff.org reveals that the word "shortages" and "rationing" appears in nearly all of them.

People, prior to the financial shenanigans of home owners, equated peak oil with oil type problems. Once peak oil was called in 2005...and nothing much happened...the revisionist history began.

The most widely held view is that PO will lead to successive ratchetings of a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery" followed by a "severe recession" followed by a "weak recovery."

I disagree that this was the most widely help view prior to peak oil in 2005. This is a common view now, AFTER it became obvious that peak oil might not even be ABOUT a peak, but a plateau, lasting an indeterminate amount of time. Of course, it all becomes even more complicated, and will prove my theory right (again) if something even worse happens like....another peak....

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/12/p ... crude.html

[Sixstrings]

Canada, with less than 10% of our population, added almost TWICE the jobs we did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/canada-adds-69-200-jobs-in-january-while-jobless-rate-increased-to-7-8-.html

[Daniel_Plainview]

There never has been a uniform theory as to precisely how peak oil's consequences will play out.

True. However, a review of most pre-2005 Doomer documents at dieoff.org reveals that the word "shortages" and "rationing" appears in nearly all of them.

People who adopted the "shortages/rationing" paradigm obviously failed to adequately factor-in demand destruction. The concept of "demand destruction" has been the single most import PO concept since 2008.

[Xenophobe]

People who adopted the "shortages/rationing" paradigm obviously failed to adequately factor-in demand destruction.

I would agree. One of the important things we have learned from the peak of 2005 is that demand destruction is much more powerful than natural field declines. Of course, if your agenda is to scare people, you don't even mention a HINT of demand destruction.


For example, did you know that Matt Savinar doesn't even use the phrase "demand destruction" in his 2004 classic, "The Oil Age Is Over"? Doesn't use the word mortgage either. Like I said, revisionist history is primarily what you find on peaker websites because it is very difficult to make a slow crash point PRIOR to peak oil happening.

Everyone wanted peak oil for an apoclypic trigger and all they got was a recession related to housing....I'd be cheesed as well if I had been foolish enough to get even the industry causing the problems wrong.

The concept of "demand destruction" has been the single most import PO concept since 2008.

Of course. Like I said, it's a revisionist history thing. People waited until 3 years post peak, and then went banana's all over whatever they could find. And this demand destruction was one of the face savings revisions.

[Plantagenet]

Everyone wanted peak oil for an apoclypic trigger and all they got was a recession related to housing....

The effects of Peak Oil aren't over yet.

In fact, they've hardly gotten started.

[Daniel_Plainview]

For example, did you know that Matt Savinar doesn't even use the phrase "demand destruction" in his 2004 classic, "The Oil Age Is Over"?

In retrospect, one of the great lapses of people like Matt Savinar and Matt Simmons is their failure to adequately account for "demand destruction."

The concept of "peak oil" is much more than a mere geological concept; instead, PO embodies and comprises human behavior, psychology, micro economics, macro economics, finance, politics, law, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, environmental sciences, public policy, and even religion/philosophy. To pretend that there is one monolithic rubric that espouses a majority view of "peak oil" is to do a disservice to the interdisciplinary nature of the concept of PO.

[Xenophobe]

Everyone wanted peak oil for an apoclypic trigger and all they got was a recession related to housing....

The effects of Peak Oil aren't over yet.

In fact, they've hardly gotten started.

Isn't that the entire point? Energy analysts like Lundberg were imagining that peak oil effects would be near catastrophic within a matter of days. Deffeyes actually said that the 2000-2009 time period would be the real killer for peak oil, if we cleared 2010 we would be much better off. We cleared that hurdle just fine.

Simmons back in 2003 was claiming that the solution was to PRAY...and that was a 2006 time frame event.

Are you aware of any pre-peak oil effect which said "peak oil will cause a recession, the cause of which will appear to be a real estate, lending and credit crisis bubble. Oh yeah, and the real price of crude will be about what it was in...oh....in 1864"?

[Xenophobe]

For example, did you know that Matt Savinar doesn't even use the phrase "demand destruction" in his 2004 classic, "The Oil Age Is Over"?

In retrospect, one of the great lapses of people like Matt Savinar and Matt Simmons is their failure to adequately account for "demand destruction."

It would be just as easy to say, "one of the great lapses....is their failure to predict the future any better than anyone else." Makes just as much sense.

Colin Campbell claimed it would lead to a PERMANENT (his word, not mine) doubling and tripling of prices. We haven't even managed to sustain the real crude price in 1864, undoubtedly caused by the Reb's and their resource war against the Burning Springs oilfield in West Virginia.

The concept of "peak oil" is much more than a mere geological concept; instead, PO embodies and comprises human behavior, psychology, micro economics, macro economics, finance, politics, law, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, environmental sciences, public policy, and even religion/philosophy.

You just described most of the reasons for why EVERYTHING on the planet happens. Little bit wide of a net to be explanatory in nature, don't you think? Certainly I don't recall Hubbert explaining in any detail how sociology would cause more or less oilfields to be found, or even account for the conventional/unconventional bookkeeping trick invented by others to conceal how poorly the idea worked in the first place.

To pretend that there is one monolithic rubric that espouses a majority view of "peak oil" is to do a disservice to the interdisciplinary nature of the concept of PO.

I believe that this "interdisciplinary nature" of PO is one of those revisionist concepts as well. For example, are you aware of a single reference or claim, created prior to the most recent peak in 2005, which argues that peak oil can be effected, either negatively or positively, by the application of the science of the sociology? I would argue that most debates against peak oil argue that sociology doesn't matter in the least, that people are people, won't change, and will all die because of it.

[OilFinder2]

This will be revised upward

One set of figures not subject to revision is the Treasury Department’s data on receipts from income taxes. And those numbers are giving a more positive signal, said Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York.

The amount of money deducted from paychecks was up 5.2 percent at the start of this month from February 2010, according to Riccadonna’s calculations. That exceeds the Labor Department’s measure of weekly earnings, which showed a 2.5 percent year-over-year increase in January.

“That tells me the trend in payroll revisions is going to be higher,” Riccadonna said.

[Serial_Worrier]

Blah blah big business is greedy, so what? What purpose do soup kitchens serve anyways? Oh you want a neo-WPA program? To build what?

[mos6507]

Oh you want a neo-WPA program? To build what?

These would be a good start.

[mos6507]

People who adopted the "shortages/rationing" paradigm obviously failed to adequately factor-in demand destruction. The concept of "demand destruction" has been the single most import PO concept since 2008.

Excellently stated.

Heinberg and others have attempted to retroactively claim they always supported a stairstep collapse model with oil prices tanking (due to demand destruction) and recovering, but I don't really buy it. I think everyone felt that prices would only go up.

[Xenophobe]

People who adopted the "shortages/rationing" paradigm obviously failed to adequately factor-in demand destruction. The concept of "demand destruction" has been the single most import PO concept since 2008.

Excellently stated.

Heinberg and others have attempted to retroactively claim they always supported a stairstep collapse model with oil prices tanking (due to demand destruction) and recovering, but I don't really buy it. I think everyone felt that prices would only go up.

Of course they did. The earliest reference I can find to a see-saw economic cycle related to peak oil is Ruppert, somewhere in 2005/2006 I believe. Of course, he also wins the prize for claiming all consequences to peak oil in a shotgun manner, apparently adopting the peak oiler approach of always claiming its coming...waiting...claiming it again...and continuing ad infinitum in the hopes of being right sometime or another.