[ralfy]

In fact I sorta did just that. I moved from an expensive area where i could commute and make good money but had to spend every bit, to a cheaper area where I make less money but have no commute, no mortgage, lower taxes, etc.

I was making $125 but now make $25 and low and behold I have no savings to invest! LOL

I'm the winner!

According to the liquidity pyramid shared here:

http://www.creditcontraction.com/

total global money supply is around $300 trillion, and this does not include derivatives which have a notional value of over $1 quadrillion. Much of it is in the hands of corporations that control the global economy:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... world.html

and which provides the credit to the global population. Only a fraction of this is needed to cause consumption of various resources to rise:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/pe ... e-problem/

which is why whatever money is saved (i.e., not spent to buy physical goods or pay for services) is invested in various financial schemes where returns can take place only if more resources and energy is used. This explains why there is a growing global middle class in BRIC and emerging markets, with a combined population that will overwhelm that of OECD countries.

That is why consumption of various resources and energy has been rising globally, not just to feed that growing global middle class but to meet even the needs of the rest of the world's population, with credit made available by corporations that can only earn by lending more.

That is why there will be no lack of savings (i.e., money to invest), as there is too much credit in the global economy. The problem is that there won't be enough resources to cover that increasing credit, and thus no resources saved, because as some try to use fewer resources either out of choice or because they have no money, then others will use more resources as they have more money to spend.

[Pops]

The problem is that there won't be enough resources to cover that increasing credit, and thus no resources saved, because as some try to use fewer resources either out of choice or because they have no money, then others will use more resources as they have more money to spend.

LOL, every discussion is not about macro economics. The OP here isn't Leaving FFs in the Ground, it is Reducing Personal Exposure To Rising Cost via Mass Transit. I've no doubt we'll burn every bit we're able or that "emerging economies" receive more utility. The question is whether we will learn to achieve more utility.

If all the FFs are going to be burned anyway, do I care if a billion Chinese or even my neighbor use the FFs I "saved" through using mass transit?
Answer: I don't. It doesn't affect me. All that matters is that I've reduced my exposure to rising cost.

I, me personally, eliminated my commute and drive a couple thousand miles a year. Do I care if the balance of my "15k mile US average consumption" is split between a thousand motor-scooting Asians?

[Timo]

I agree with Tanada. If time were unlimited, perhaps not quite as much, but given the fact that all predictions on GW are presently being increased, in some cases doubled, all within the time frame of less than 100 years, we're at present already 1/2-way down the drain.

[ralfy]

LOL, every discussion is not about macro economics. The OP here isn't Leaving FFs in the Ground, it is Reducing Personal Exposure To Rising Cost via Mass Transit. I've no doubt we'll burn every bit we're able or that "emerging economies" receive more utility. The question is whether we will learn to achieve more utility.

What is it that you don't understand about what the OP wrote and my point? The argument is that with more efficiency trillions of dollars will be saved. My point is that the trillions of dollars saved will be invested elsewhere, which means more resources will be used. In capitalist systems, "[achieving] more utility" leads to more consumption because of profit motives.

Your previous point refers to not having money or having less money. In which case, you are hoping that those who own some of those urban transport systems will pass on the savings to you. But that doesn't happen in capitalist systems unless there is dominant state intervention.

If all the FFs are going to be burned anyway, do I care if a billion Chinese or even my neighbor use the FFs I "saved" through using mass transit?

That's my point. In capitalist systems, resources that owners of modes of production save are sold to others. Money saved as costs are lowered are invested in other businesses, where the return on investment is made possible through more production, and thus use of resources.

Why else do you think we're facing problems like peak oil?

Answer: I don't. It doesn't affect me. All that matters is that I've reduced my exposure to rising cost.

Actually, it does affect you. The fact that you're running out of money doesn't mean you've "reduced [your] exposure to rising cost." Rather, you are forced to lower consumption because you have less money. And the rising cost will continue.

And why is there rising cost? Because oil consumption has been rising worldwide:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/pe ... e-problem/

In short, your money decreased because of economic crisis caused by financial risk-taking while oil prices went up because more people worldwide are beginning to consume what you can't.

And how is it possible that they're consuming more? Because the money supply worldwide is many times greater than the value of resources, and only a portion of that supply trickling down to people can lead to greater resource use, which is exactly what is happening.

I, me personally, eliminated my commute and drive a couple thousand miles a year. Do I care if the balance of my "15k mile US average consumption" is split between a thousand motor-scooting Asians?

FWIW, you are now one of those "thousand motor-scooting Asians."

Why should you care? Did you ever wonder how those "thousand motor-scooting Asians" were able to afford scooters only recently? Go back to my points above to find out.