AdamB wrote:pstarr wrote: Though few are able/willing to admit it, the Greatest Recession ever was sparked in large part by the 2005 conventional oil peak and half-decade of $100/barrel oil (from $40).
Nah. But again, until we know which alternate universe you are in today, we can't fight your phantoms, so we'll just stick with the real reasons of the 2008 recession. But feel free to modify Wiki to stop calling it the "subprime mortgage crisis".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of ... _Recession
Economist James D. Hamilton has argued that the increase in oil prices in the period of 2007 through 2008 was a significant cause of the recession. He evaluated several different approaches to estimating the impact of oil price shocks on the economy, including some methods that had previously shown a decline in the relationship between oil price shocks and the overall economy. All of these methods "support a common conclusion; had there been no increase in oil prices between 2007:Q3 and 2008:Q2, the US economy would not have been in a recession over the period 2007:Q4 through 2008:Q3."[224] Hamilton's own model, a time-series econometric forecast based on data up to 2003, showed that the decline in GDP could have been successfully predicted to almost its full extent given knowledge of the price of oil. The results imply that oil prices were entirely responsible for the recession.[225][226] Hamilton acknowledged that this was probably not the entire cause but maintained that it showed that oil price increases made a significant contribution to the downturn in economic growth.[227]
pstarr wrote:Observerbrb wrote:Why are you still talking about volume? The drilling and extraction of oil volumes don't really matter. What it really matters is the final amount of energy that reachs Joe the Plumber.
There are several other measures more important than total volume. The oil exporters gain wealth through oil sales and oil-field employment, and then typically subsidize oil consumption among the general population. The Export Land Model demonstrates that exports decline faster than production increases,( should read DECREASES) wealth and the ability to pay for oil is redistributed away from the importers. Hence the collapse of oil prices down from $100/barrel.
Not only does ETP show that less energy reaches the consumer, it also suggests that money spent on low quality oil production has less economic value. Less money and oil to add value to the final product. Less oil to convert NGL's into plastic goodies.
shortonoil wrote:....
.....
Well you are right about that, but you are a brave lad to take that bet on production. It takes 50% more Shale to produce a barrel of finished product than it does light sweet crude.
onlooker wrote:Pstarr,may lose his bet because sucker investors & Banks keep propping up the Oil Industry and the Govt itself will try to also because the Oil Industry is the Economy so they will continue pumping full out. Remember money can be created out of thin air. That should give nobody comfort as that will mean we will deplete our remaining legacy reserves that much faster and thus reach that much faster the denouement of the Oil Industry
My point is that the demand>supply economic equation is broken. RM's Peak Oil Dynamic and price oscillations destroys exploration, development, and production efforts and cause regional collapses. All over the world the cost-basement of production is bumping up against the price-ceiling of consumption.
Cog wrote:Then we have no bet since I find your terms to be unreasonable.
shortonoil wrote:I don't think so. The investors can't handle $60 oil now. Certainly not the consumer.
You are certainly correct about that! $60 oil, and we would see refiners and distributors folding up like cardboard suit cases. But, like I said previously, the industry needs 2.5 mb/d/yr more just to stay even; just to compensate for declining yields. Even at $50 we could see one more big push, the banks have over $300 billion riding on this. You are betting on who is going to blink first: risky!
vtsnowedin wrote:AdamB wrote:pstarr wrote: Though few are able/willing to admit it, the Greatest Recession ever was sparked in large part by the 2005 conventional oil peak and half-decade of $100/barrel oil (from $40).
Nah. But again, until we know which alternate universe you are in today, we can't fight your phantoms, so we'll just stick with the real reasons of the 2008 recession. But feel free to modify Wiki to stop calling it the "subprime mortgage crisis".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of ... _Recession
If you read the whole wiki piece oil prices are given credit for being if not the cause but the trigger.Economist James D. Hamilton has argued that the increase in oil prices in the period of 2007 through 2008 was a significant cause of the recession. He evaluated several different approaches to estimating the impact of oil price shocks on the economy, including some methods that had previously shown a decline in the relationship between oil price shocks and the overall economy. All of these methods "support a common conclusion; had there been no increase in oil prices between 2007:Q3 and 2008:Q2, the US economy would not have been in a recession over the period 2007:Q4 through 2008:Q3."[224] Hamilton's own model, a time-series econometric forecast based on data up to 2003, showed that the decline in GDP could have been successfully predicted to almost its full extent given knowledge of the price of oil. The results imply that oil prices were entirely responsible for the recession.[225][226] Hamilton acknowledged that this was probably not the entire cause but maintained that it showed that oil price increases made a significant contribution to the downturn in economic growth.[227]
I know people that were in the restaurant business at the time. When gas hit $3.50 their tip income dropped by more then half and they could not sell or refinance their house because there were no buyers with enough spare cash to buy and the lending rules suddenly tightened. They lost the house and all the considerable cash they had sunk into it.
pstarr wrote:No risk. No bet, not with a troll . . . certainly not on the troll's terms.
shortonoil wrote:"NOTHING is Impossible with the power of Capitalism and Free Markets unleasing the creative energies of the human spirit! (Sarcasm)"
The sarcasm is certainly justified. One size fits all usually doesn't fit anything very well. Any system is dependent on a number of variables. Just because capitalism and free markets worked at one time is no guarantee that they will work at another. The apex of that system occurred at a point of phenomenally high value resources; that era is over.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests