Outcast_Searcher wrote:SO much babbling. No citations. But lots of preaching.
Money, in all its forms,(be it Dollars, Yuan, gold, bitcoin, NFTs, stocks, real estate, bs artwork, commodities, etc) are merely nothing more than human social construct of abstract proxy tokens meant to symbolize and account for and help make sense of these energy flows and resource deposits/allocations.
Increasing the money supply while actual resources are all being depleted and whilst EROEI keeps diminishing means modern money is now almost entirely decoupled from what it was meant to represent.
it was only after the invention of agriculture that there was an net energy surplus (there was more than enough food so some members of society could spend their days working on other things) so that the surplus energy could be used for things like building Great Wall of China or the Pyramids in Egypt etc...
In these modern times, on average for every calorie of food that we consume, roughly nine other additional calories of net energy went into the production and transportation of that food. In a very real sense, we are basically converting fossil fuels (fertilizers and pesticides are all byproducts of petroleum) into food in order to feed the vast majority of the global human population.
It is also the reason why that as energy becomes more scarce and EROEI continues to diminish that lower paid workers of society can no longer afford to even drive across town for their jobs and at the same time businesses cannot afford to increase real wages because their own "work and productivity multiplier" has drastically decline as well, hence the seemingly contradictory juxtaposition of massive so-called labor shortages yet abysmal real unemployment rates all at the same time.
It’s not a stretch to imagine that concentration camps are right around the corner
The problem with solar and wind is that it needs energy storage, and there are not enough lithium, copper, nor rare-earth in the world to be able to build enough batteries
Currently all of the renewables that are so-called 'break even' are actually dual-subsidized, the first subsidy is the financial one by the governments of the world
the next stage is the clamping down on freedom of movement and the artificial suppression of consumption demand by way of covert destabilization of global supply chains
One way or another, in the name of endless booster shots and vaccine passports, or mandatory individual carbon caps, before long whatever money that you have left saved up that hasn't already been diluted and inflated and taxed away by then will still be worthless as it’s no longer able to buy the things or services that you want nor take you to the places that you wish to go...
As that one 'New World Order' person said, by the end of this decade you will own nothing, have no privacy
AdamB wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:SO much babbling. No citations. But lots of preaching.
I agree. You didn't even reference the most basic calculation of EROEI, or how it has decreased and folks who used to it to predict something (Charles Hall in 1981 perhaps?) failed. You certainly didn't mention how the value of BTUs matters in this calculation, as economic activity is based on $$, not BTUs, otherwise you would make the following trade, which I would make with you, and it would prove your entire point. Should you accept.
I will trade you, BTU for BTU, a BTU of sunlight from my backyard, for a BTU of gasoline. Or crude oil if you'd prefer. I will deposit a steel 100bbl oil field quality tank at the base of your driveway into which you can put these BTUs of gasoline or crude, and I will allow you to collect the BTUs raining down on my backyard any way you'd like. You will keep the photons, and I the crude or gasoline.
If you can't make that trade, thank you for proving why our economic isn't dictated by EROEI. And you don't have the cajones to even make the most basic bet on the concept because you know how and why you would lose. It is that obvious. Are you trapped in this false equivalency for some reason? Or are just generally ignorant? And why does this stuff continue? Because claiming peak oils didn't work for doomers, so they decided to make up crap and see if others unfamiliar with...physics, science, etc etc, could be hoodwinked by something far more opaque. Additionally, this verbal diarrhea wasn't meant to be serious, but fits right in with your previous posting topics and misunderstandings of...well.,,the real world, but I imagine it sounds like great pontificating gibberish to Qanon supporters, conspiracy fans, those already inclined to belief systems requiring the denial of science, logic and analytical thinking, etc etc.
Polybius wrote:AdamB wrote:I will trade you, BTU for BTU, a BTU of sunlight from my backyard, for a BTU of gasoline. Or crude oil if you'd prefer. I will deposit a steel 100bbl oil field quality tank at the base of your driveway into which you can put these BTUs of gasoline or crude, and I will allow you to collect the BTUs raining down on my backyard any way you'd like. You will keep the photons, and I the crude or gasoline.
Money is actually a measure of EROEI, its just that traditionally its been too difficult to calculate so since dawn of civilation the concept of money was invented and used instead.
Polybius wrote:1BTU of sweet crude does not equal 1BTU of tar sands.
Doly wrote:OK, I see that you are attempting to express the belief system of the Church of Peak Oil, or something along those lines. I don't have issues with the general gist of it, but there are several points that I do take issue with:Money, in all its forms,(be it Dollars, Yuan, gold, bitcoin, NFTs, stocks, real estate, bs artwork, commodities, etc) are merely nothing more than human social construct of abstract proxy tokens meant to symbolize and account for and help make sense of these energy flows and resource deposits/allocations.
This leaves out one of the main uses of money, which is to pay wages. Traditional economists said that the value of money comes from two places: labor and land (including agriculture and mining). You are claiming that money is merely used to distribute resources and energy, and ignoring the money transactions around paying for somebody's work. And the value put on a particular piece of work isn't very well correlated with the amount of energy needed to produce it.Increasing the money supply while actual resources are all being depleted and whilst EROEI keeps diminishing means modern money is now almost entirely decoupled from what it was meant to represent.
I think you are correct in thinking that increasing money supply in an environment of diminishing availability of energy and other resources can be problematic, though I'd rather leave the finer financial points to people who are more knowledgeable about financial issues than myself. The reason, however, is not the vague reason you have stated. The reason is that energy, being essential, cannot be allowed to be below a certain fraction of the economy, or somebody could corner the market for energy, and nobody wants an essential item to be in the hands of a very small number of people. If the total amount of energy available is flat or declining, and under the assumption that central banks do their job of keeping prices roughly stable, that means that the overall economy must stop growing soon after reaching the energy peak.it was only after the invention of agriculture that there was an net energy surplus (there was more than enough food so some members of society could spend their days working on other things) so that the surplus energy could be used for things like building Great Wall of China or the Pyramids in Egypt etc...
Nitpick: Gobekli Tepe was a pretty impressive temple built before agriculture. But in general terms, correct.In these modern times, on average for every calorie of food that we consume, roughly nine other additional calories of net energy went into the production and transportation of that food. In a very real sense, we are basically converting fossil fuels (fertilizers and pesticides are all byproducts of petroleum) into food in order to feed the vast majority of the global human population.
I did check that claim a long time ago, and most of those nine additional calories went into transportation. So, if people started eating a lot more local food, a huge part of the problem disappears. Also, in many areas of the world, like Africa, people are already eating mostly local food.It is also the reason why that as energy becomes more scarce and EROEI continues to diminish that lower paid workers of society can no longer afford to even drive across town for their jobs and at the same time businesses cannot afford to increase real wages because their own "work and productivity multiplier" has drastically decline as well, hence the seemingly contradictory juxtaposition of massive so-called labor shortages yet abysmal real unemployment rates all at the same time.
That's very lazy reasoning. The cost of commuting to work doesn't appear to be a major reason for the employment situation. The main issue seems to be that the economy has had a major shake-up and, as it often happens in such cases, the skills that companies want to recruit for are different from the skills that unemployed workers have.It’s not a stretch to imagine that concentration camps are right around the corner
Yes, it is a big stretch. If you want to put concentration camps in the picture, try not to do such a serious non-sequitur.The problem with solar and wind is that it needs energy storage, and there are not enough lithium, copper, nor rare-earth in the world to be able to build enough batteries
Batteries are not the only form of energy storage. Hydro and molten salts can be used for energy storage.Currently all of the renewables that are so-called 'break even' are actually dual-subsidized, the first subsidy is the financial one by the governments of the world
Solar and wind are no longer financially subsidized in many places, because they break even without subsidies.the next stage is the clamping down on freedom of movement and the artificial suppression of consumption demand by way of covert destabilization of global supply chains
There is nothing covert about global supply chains being destabilized.One way or another, in the name of endless booster shots and vaccine passports, or mandatory individual carbon caps, before long whatever money that you have left saved up that hasn't already been diluted and inflated and taxed away by then will still be worthless as it’s no longer able to buy the things or services that you want nor take you to the places that you wish to go...
The only reason you needed to mention booster shots, vaccine passports and carbon caps was for religious... I mean, political... I mean, is there a difference?... reasons. Because otherwise, there is no connection between those ideas and everything you said before.As that one 'New World Order' person said, by the end of this decade you will own nothing, have no privacy
Of course, privacy has to be in there for religious reasons, but actually, there is nothing in the concept of peak oil that connects to privacy in any way that makes sense to me.
So I gather that belief in peak oil, at least in the form that you can express it, doesn't have true believers that I would find reasonable, and not many true believers overall anyway, in a world where anti-vaxers have lots of true believers.
If that isn't proof that we live in Hell, I don't know what is.
Not sure how religion got into this, I am not a religious person.
The privacy issue is about social credit score. It, along with a plethora of other things like vax cards, carbon caps, are meant to create artificial demand destruction so the iSheeple of the world don't all woke up and realize the jig is up, so to speak... so they park their money and "invest" in NFT and Crypto this and stock options that.... all to mask, the real symptom that everyone is going to be a paper millionaire with nothing to buy and nowhere to go (only slightly exaggerated )
Its not like they can come out and tell people the real truth, so all the parlor tricks are being pulled out the bag now
Polybius wrote:The same unit of money will be able to fetch less energy, produce less work, contribute to less producitivity, and thus enable less real economic activity etc
Polybius wrote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915303815
We use a price-based methodology to assess the global energy-return-on-investment (EROI) of coal, oil, and gas, from the beginning of their reported production (respectively 1800, 1860, and 1890) to 2012.
evilgenius wrote:Sorry, I don't think energy and money are equivalents. I like how you explore the definitions of these things, to try and discover what connections they might have. It helps to allow the use of metaphor, in certain situations. They can be stand ins for each other, in that way.
It's a hard one because there is a Nobel prize waiting for the person who can say what energy really is. We have some boxes that we define it with. We find we are able to put it inside of them, and it won't get out, but that doesn't mean we know what it is.
evilgenius wrote:Sorry, I don't think energy and money are equivalents.
evilgenius wrote: I like how you explore the definitions of these things, to try and discover what connections they might have. It helps to allow the use of metaphor, in certain situations. They can be stand ins for each other, in that way.
evilgenius wrote:It's a hard one because there is a Nobel prize waiting for the person who can say what energy really is. We have some boxes that we define it with. We find we are able to put it inside of them, and it won't get out, but that doesn't mean we know what it is.
Polybius wrote:evilgenius wrote:Sorry, I don't think energy and money are equivalents. I like how you explore the definitions of these things, to try and discover what connections they might have. It helps to allow the use of metaphor, in certain situations. They can be stand ins for each other, in that way.
It's a hard one because there is a Nobel prize waiting for the person who can say what energy really is. We have some boxes that we define it with. We find we are able to put it inside of them, and it won't get out, but that doesn't mean we know what it is.
Modern "money" is a claim on existing energy deposit's future ability to do "work".
Polybius wrote:Put another way, money is a claim on energy.
Polybius wrote:There are virtually no economic activity that doesn't require an energy input from the external environment in the form of a primary energy resource (coal, oil, natural gas, etc etc).
Polybius wrote: The math doesn't lie.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests