[kublikhan]

You have said multiple times that you believe in the bright green future, you are totally, "yes it will all work out" It is your mindset.. Your sig, a twist on "the glass is half full" says it all. It doesn't matter to you if the glass is being drunk down and will soon be empty, to your mind it is half full, which implies it's being refilled, not emptied. Practical reality cares nothing for wishful thinking and the corporations back of all this green tech care little for a sustainable future.

Says the guy who thinks Hitler had some really good ideas and implemented them on some of the "minority races." I am tired of correcting your lies, your delusions, and your other disgusting ideas. Piss off.

[ralfy]

Population growth is important for capitalist economies, as maximization of profits is attained only with increasing numbers of workers and consumers.

Only if you subscribe to Keynesian Economics.

Peace

It takes place outside that, too.

Capitalism is based on profits reinvested as capital. Profits are maximized given competition between businesses. To ensure that the latter goes on in the long term an economy needs more workers and consumers.

Put simply, you want to earn more money and see better returns on your investment. To ensure that, you need to produce and sell more, and the ones to which you are investing need to do the same. To produce more you need more workers and machinery. To sell more you need more buyers.

And if you have more machinery and less workers, you won't be able to sell more because it turns out that the same workers are also consumers.

That's why people ask for promotions, raises, better deals on purchases, better deals on what they borrow and lend, and so on.

[ralfy]

The view that the glass is half-full is a capitalist one. That is, there needs to be more productivity in order to make more profits. The catch is that the glass will always be seen as half-full.

And there isn't enough water.

[mousepad]

The view that the glass is half-full is a capitalist one.

Not at all. I'm a die-hard capitalist (Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production), but I realize that hard times and belt tightening are coming. And not a minute too soon. (Even though Kub is trying to convince me that solar and tesla will make for sunshine to all eternity).

That is, there needs to be more productivity in order to make more profits.

Not at all. You can also sell at a higher price to make more profits. Or lower the cost of your inputs.
And the best part? You don't even need to make more profit. Capitalisms doesn't require that. I run a small side business for 10 years and I own the business, the building and the machines and everything ( = capitalsim), yet my profit is about the same year after year. No need to make more. What for? I can't take it with me, can I?

And there isn't enough water.

There's plenty of water. World population still growing. Still too much water and too much food available.

[theluckycountry]

This Energy Crisis Is Here To Stay https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/th ... 9ed05c7ab9

[Pops]

The PO theory needs no updating, it's the same as it ever was, consumption of a finite resource starts at zero, reaches some maximum level and eventually returns to zero. That's it, everything else is detail.

Energy consumption per capita plateaued in the 80's


(Smil)

Obviously overall use continued to climb as the population increased and globalization increased incomes. If the population curve continues to bend—and the trend of nationalism continues— neither incomes nor total consumption will continue that increase. Even if renewable energy uptake and EV adoption stall, demand will peak along with globalism. That may be good ecologically, not so good for consumerism.

People my age, who were a probably a majority of the Peakers of the oughts, didn't give technology, or the ability of the government to juice the system, enough credit.

That's the problem with making predictions, especially about the future, especially where the profit motive is concerned. Back in the day it was said geology trumps economics. Maybe that's true in the long run but Wile E Coyote nonetheless makes it quite a few feet from the cliff before realizing he's overshot his mark. Other than the terminally obstinate, most acknowledge that extraction will peak at some point. Cornucopians (or the terminally bored) point to the many previous failed predictions and interim peaks as if to say "see, no peak!." But of course past experience is no guarantee of future results—that I haven't died so far doesn't mean I'm immortal, it just means that I'm 65 years closer to death.

Hubbert's simple model used past oil production to predict the the total volume of recoverable hydrocarbons. It presumed no limit to expense, demand, profit, or any other untidy input such as technological advance, fiat money, or pollution. Likewise Campbell/ laherrere, et al proposed the ultimate recoverable was predictable from past discovery, technology, and government/ corporate propaganda— all the while condemning that same as inaccurate and biased.

The entire system is beyond the limit of my brain to comprehend, let alone predict and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Really, that is the extent of what I've learned these last 25 years. What I am sure of is that oil is the core of the largest machine in history, a globe spanning web of interconnections that has enabled billions of humans to exist. That basic fact is 98% as true today as 25 years ago. "Replacement" technologies are nowhere near ready to substitute for even a small fraction of that machine. Progress has been made but the blip of inflation we've seen recently is only a glimpse of what will happen as oil constraints hit. If the dramatic strides needed to fashion a new machine continued to be tripped up by the owners of the current system and their legions of political pawns we will all ride the old one into the dirt

Some small amount of "renewable" electricity has been added to the mix and the cost is low enough that a dedicated DIYer can cobbler together enough parts to build a cushion between themselves and the machine. There are alternative means of personal transport as there have always been. The idea we will willingly forego the cheapest, densest relatively low tech energy source before we are forced to is unlikely in my opinion. So I'm still of the opinion that prepping for PO is wise, even if I'm a little long in the tooth for hoeing corn.

[theluckycountry]

Light shale oil and the liquids garnered from Gas have convinced many that the peak was erroneous but these new additions don't make diesel, the essential fuel for building modern civilization. All they do basically is waste diesel to produce products like plastic bags and fuel for personal vehicles. Personal vehicles don't build wealth, they are a luxury item, and only necessary because we have built a culture where people typically live miles away from their place of employment.

I can point to any oil producing nation and see the turning point in overall wealth creation. It occurs when that nation's conventional oil production peaked and went into decline. It was 1970 for the US, 2002 for Australia, and 1999 for the UK. (When it peaked in 1999, production of North Sea oil was 6 million barrels per day). You would have to be blind not to see the difference in living standards before and after in these countries. And this is evidenced even as consumers added mountains of debt to fund lifestyle! A decision that guarantees their future will be truly bleak.

The US oil bonanza from shale was nothing more than a corporate and Wall street money grab, a swindle that robbed investors and wasted untold valuable diesel oil. Debating peak oil theories at this stage is like debating who assassinated Kennedy. But people love that sort of stuff don't they.

Shales peaked without making money In fact, the US shale industry registered net negative free cash flows of $300 billion, impaired more than $450 billion of invested capital, and saw more than 190 bankruptcies since 2010. Global oil supply and demand started to diverge in March of 2020.

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/e ... ustry.html

With U.S. shale peaking & having “never made money,” investors lose billions
https://priceofoil.org/2020/06/26/with- ... -billions/

[ralfy]

The view that the glass is half-full is a capitalist one.

Not at all. I'm a die-hard capitalist (Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production), but I realize that hard times and belt tightening are coming. And not a minute too soon. (Even though Kub is trying to convince me that solar and tesla will make for sunshine to all eternity).

That is, there needs to be more productivity in order to make more profits.

Not at all. You can also sell at a higher price to make more profits. Or lower the cost of your inputs.
And the best part? You don't even need to make more profit. Capitalisms doesn't require that. I run a small side business for 10 years and I own the business, the building and the machines and everything ( = capitalsim), yet my profit is about the same year after year. No need to make more. What for? I can't take it with me, can I?

And there isn't enough water.

There's plenty of water. World population still growing. Still too much water and too much food available.

Capitalism also involves public ownership, as well as shared. Hence, state capitalism and cooperatives.

The view that the glass is half-full is a capitalist one because capitalists argue that with belt tightening and hard times comes good times; that is, business cycles prevail but the growth trend is still upward. That's why the glass is seen as half-full: it can be made full again, and the game changer for some involves renewable energy. After that comes more game changers.

You can sell at a higher price for more profits but your competitor can sell at a lower price, and people will buy him. Welcome to markets.

You can lower your costs but you will have to engage in more capital expenditures and/or decrease pay. The first involves more investments needed and the second another set of markets where your laborers want higher pay.

To make matters worse, it turns out that your laborers are also your customers. Lower pay means lower sales, together with higher prices. Banks come in to extend credit because that's what they do but debt levels also go up.

You need to do all that because you have to cover those capital expenditures plus deal with competitors who have the same ideas.

You don't need to make a profit as long as you live in a small world where people have small ideas and run small businesses and sell to small markets. But the real world operates differently:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

And that's the world where "real-world capitalists" live.

The catch is peak oil.

[careinke]

Population growth is important for capitalist economies, as maximization of profits is attained only with increasing numbers of workers and consumers.

Only if you subscribe to Keynesian Economics.

Peace

It takes place outside that, too.

Capitalism is based on profits reinvested as capital. Profits are maximized given competition between businesses. To ensure that the latter goes on in the long term an economy needs more workers and consumers.

Put simply, you want to earn more money and see better returns on your investment. To ensure that, you need to produce and sell more, and the ones to which you are investing need to do the same. To produce more you need more workers and machinery. To sell more you need more buyers.

And if you have more machinery and less workers, you won't be able to sell more because it turns out that the same workers are also consumers.

That's why people ask for promotions, raises, better deals on purchases, better deals on what they borrow and lend, and so on.

Do you honestly think that model is indefinitely sustainable? How about a trillion Workers looking for jobs that any AI can handle much much more cheaply. This not only includes products but services as well.

You were lied to in your economic classes. The good part is you will probably get to see the failure in real time. In the end all Fiat "money" goes to zero.


Peace

[mousepad]

You don't need to make a profit

Then we agree that capitalism simply states that you can own your stuff, produce stuff and sell stuff at the price you want.
It has nothing to do with having to make a profit and GROWTH and banks and workers and all the other things you mention.
Especially GROWTH. It's about time we lose that mindset and realize that endless growth is not possible. We should start looking at steady state in lock-step with declining population.

The catch is peak oil

Maybe, maybe not. The jury is still out on that one.
Some think renewables and teslas will save the day. I have a hunch that we will see a major comeback of nuclear, both big and small. The religion of peace will have a field day with all those targets to spread peace, tolerance and understanding.

[ralfy]

Do you honestly think that model is indefinitely sustainable? How about a trillion Workers looking for jobs that any AI can handle much much more cheaply. This not only includes products but services as well.

You were lied to in your economic classes. The good part is you will probably get to see the failure in real time. In the end all Fiat "money" goes to zero.


Peace

I'm not claiming that that's sustainable. Rather, that's capitalism.

[ralfy]

You don't need to make a profit

Then we agree that capitalism simply states that you can own your stuff, produce stuff and sell stuff at the price you want.
It has nothing to do with having to make a profit and GROWTH and banks and workers and all the other things you mention.
Especially GROWTH. It's about time we lose that mindset and realize that endless growth is not possible. We should start looking at steady state in lock-step with declining population.

The catch is peak oil

Maybe, maybe not. The jury is still out on that one.
Some think renewables and teslas will save the day. I have a hunch that we will see a major comeback of nuclear, both big and small. The religion of peace will have a field day with all those targets to spread peace, tolerance and understanding.

Nice try ignoring the rest of what I wrote.

Capitalism requires profit because that's the source of capital, and growth is based on that as well.

Now, you're calling for a steady-state economy, something which capitalism isn't.

Finally, if you're relying on nuclear power, then the jury can't still be out on peak oil. Also, oil production per capita worldwide peaked back in 1979. Finally, what affects oil also affects what's needed for nuclear power.

[mousepad]

Finally, if you're relying on nuclear power, then the jury can't still be out on peak oil.

I should have been more clear:

1. peak oil is obvious as this is a finite planet
2. Relying on nuclear might or might not have anything to do with peak oil. There's other reasons to go nuclear. Cost. Environment. Refuel frequency. Mass adoption of EV, which require electricity, not oil.
3. Although peak oil is obvious, it's also not important. The important question is the EFFECT of peak oil. And the jury is still out on that one. So far PO effect has been a dud.

Capitalism requires profit because that's the source of capital, and growth is based on that as well.
Now, you're calling for a steady-state economy, something which capitalism isn't.

The simple definition of capitalism seems too be difficult for you to grasp. I'm sorry I can't help you any further.

[ralfy]

Finally, if you're relying on nuclear power, then the jury can't still be out on peak oil.

I should have been more clear:

1. peak oil is obvious as this is a finite planet
2. Relying on nuclear might or might not have anything to do with peak oil. There's other reasons to go nuclear. Cost. Environment. Refuel frequency. Mass adoption of EV, which require electricity, not oil.
3. Although peak oil is obvious, it's also not important. The important question is the EFFECT of peak oil. And the jury is still out on that one. So far PO effect has been a dud.

Capitalism requires profit because that's the source of capital, and growth is based on that as well.
Now, you're calling for a steady-state economy, something which capitalism isn't.

The simple definition of capitalism seems too be difficult for you to grasp. I'm sorry I can't help you any further.

Effects of peak oil include increasing reliance on other energy sources and high oil prices coupled with reliance on unconventional production.

The first started after 1979 and the second started after 2005.

As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

[theluckycountry]

As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Which used to come from profitable enterprises, but now basically comes from manipulating markets and stealing pension investments, and by collecting massive interest on the outstanding debts. Everyone above a certain level of involvement in the system is getting richer and everyone below that level is getting poorer. Nuvo-capitalism.

[ralfy]

As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Which used to come from profitable enterprises, but now basically comes from manipulating markets and stealing pension investments, and by collecting massive interest on the outstanding debts. Everyone above a certain level of involvement in the system is getting richer and everyone below that level is getting poorer. Nuvo-capitalism.

There are some details here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aarFxsGUJSA

That is, assembly lines leading to higher productivity coupled with layaway plans and consumer spending as more moved from farms to factories, then from factories to the service industry, which includes financing.

[mousepad]

Effects of peak oil include increasing reliance on other energy sources and high oil prices coupled with reliance on unconventional production.
As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Complete lack of understanding and lack of finesse of thought.
It's scary to think that people like you are allowed to vote.

[ralfy]

Effects of peak oil include increasing reliance on other energy sources and high oil prices coupled with reliance on unconventional production.
As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Complete lack of understanding and lack of finesse of thought.
It's scary to think that people like you are allowed to vote.

Where does the capital come from?

[jedrider]

Effects of peak oil include increasing reliance on other energy sources and high oil prices coupled with reliance on unconventional production.
As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Complete lack of understanding and lack of finesse of thought.
It's scary to think that people like you are allowed to vote.

Where does the capital come from?

I'm just getting my feet wet with this 'capitalism' stuff (as I often hear that 'capitalism' is at fault for every ail of society, which is probably not entirely true).

Capital is the means of production, evidently. I haven't read Adam Smith, though.

[ralfy]

Effects of peak oil include increasing reliance on other energy sources and high oil prices coupled with reliance on unconventional production.
As for capitalism, the capital comes from profit.

Complete lack of understanding and lack of finesse of thought.
It's scary to think that people like you are allowed to vote.

Where does the capital come from?

I'm just getting my feet wet with this 'capitalism' stuff (as I often hear that 'capitalism' is at fault for every ail of society, which is probably not entirely true).

Capital is the means of production, evidently. I haven't read Adam Smith, though.

How do you pay for the means of production?