[kublikhan]

I don't think that argument makes very much sense at all. Here is why. The GPP graph also shows that a similar decline occurred during the great recession in 2009. Was that decline also due to dollar appreciation? Was there no great recession?

There was a large appreciation of the dollar in 2009. But no, that was not the cause of the great recession. That year there was indeed a global recession in real terms as well. Real global GDP fell during 2009. But look at the other dates in the original article for shrinking GPP in nominal dollars: 1982, 1997, 1998, 2001. These are all years of dollar appreciation and yet real world GDP growth. Just like in 2015: strong dollar and real growing global GDP.

It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. There is nothing that says you can't have a fall in global GDP at the same time as a strengthening dollar. It just means other areas of the world were even worse off than the US was in 2009. Europe was a total mess in 2009. It's not surprising that investors were looking for the safest port in the storm.

2009 - The bad news for the U.S. never seems to end. But despite all the doom and gloom, the dollar has emerged as the currency of choice once again. Here's why.

Stocks are at their lowest levels in about 12 years. The economy shrunk by more than 6% in the fourth quarter. Companies are laying off people left and right. And oh yeah, the government has essentially nationalized Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and AIG (AIG, Fortune 500). There's no denying that the U.S. economy is in tatters. But how about that dollar? Yup, despite the unrelenting stream of bad news about the economy and markets, the greenback has stood out as one of the top performing currencies this year. The dollar is up about 9% against the euro and 7% versus the Japanese yen so far in 2009. It's also edged slightly higher against the British pound. What gives?

Well, as strange as it may sound, investors may be betting that the U.S., which arguably led the rest of the world into the global recession, will also be the first to emerge from the downturn. "The U.S. was one of the first nations to respond to the weakness with aggressive monetary policy measures. So it could be one of the first countries out while Japan and Europe might be the last ones out."

Mind you, this does not mean a recovery is around the corner. Lien thinks the U.S. economy is likely to deteriorate further before things finally improve. Still, as bad as the U.S. economy is faring, it's much worse in other parts of the world. So the dollar is being viewed as a relative pocket of stability. Busch agreed that the dollar now seems to be the only safe haven among currencies. He pointed out that with interest rates at practically zero, investors are flocking to U.S. Treasurys.

Weak economy ... strong dollar

In 2015 things were different. The global economy was growing. The fed started tightening for the first time in seven years. Yet most other central banks were still pursing loose policy options. This is a recipe for a strong dollar.

But even if we disregard all of this and only look at GDP in nominal dollars, that is already growing again. You can see this by looking at the same IMF data the author used. IE, if that graph was updated to reflect current data it would already be showing growth again. Not a continued decline.

And besides, even World GDP shows a significant slowdown of growth happening now. Is that due to dollar appreciation as well?

No one made such an argument. In fact that argument would make no sense since the dollar has been weakening all year.

There is no logic to the dollar appreciation argument.

Did you even read the article I linked to? If we used the original author's exact same logic but in Euros instead of dollars then instead of a 5% drop in nominal GDP we would have a 14% increase. If the dollar had a large swing in value then obviously that is going to throw off calculations using the dollar as the numeraire.

As the economic decline worsens, it will soon become undeniable that the world economy is in recession.

And yet for now the world economy continues to growth.

[ennui2]

Why Billions in Proven Shale Oil Reserves Suddenly Became Unproven

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -vanishing

Ans: The Ponzi powered by unsecured debt blew up. ...Like housing....like student loans...like auto loans...like "renewables"...like every XXXXing thing about this fake economy.

Adam thinks there is 28 trillion in proven shale oil along with thousands of years of gas hydrates.

Another article from a day earlier on Bloomberg paints a rosier picture.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -gas-chart

[Whatever]

Are you saying there IS a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

You've worded this as a trick question. If I reject the conclusions of ETP, it shouldn't matter whether there's a thermodynamic limit or not. I'm not going to proceed from that binary question over to economic doomsday in 4 years.

It is not worded as a trick question. Do you know a better way to word the question? If so, write it down and then answer it please. However you word the question, the answer cannot be NO. That answer denies the second law of thermodynamics and must, therefore, be impossible. That only leaves YES as the correct answer. The reason you refuse to answer the question is that you are afraid it will undermine and weaken your argument. You are right. But not answering is very disingenuous. It shows that you don't really care about finding out the truth. And it shows that you are willing to cheat to win.

Again, you keep oversimplifying a complex system in order to break Occam's Razor with an extraordinary claim.

Wow. That is very poetic.

We certainly can't do it during a depression.

And we're not IN a depression.

We will be soon.

The Etp model shows...The Etp model shows that it will....We will just have to wait and see

And if the model is wrong? You've placed all your bets on one and only one source of truth: one model, one algorithm, and you're exerting an extraordinary amount of effort to ignore any and all skepticism about the validity of that model.

No. I am putting an extraordinary amount of effort into directly answering skepticism about the validity of the Etp model. That is not ignoring.

Besides, I think that civilization is already in collapse. I thought so before I ever heard of the Etp model. The Etp model helps provide strong support for the idea and it provides a more definitive forecast for more exact timing.

That is why people (rightfully so) are classifying you as clutching at this as a pseudo-religion.

That is not a serious argument. The Etp model is a thermodynamic model of the rising entropy in the world oil production system. It is not a pseudo-religion. If the Etp model is valid on technical grounds, then it is valid. The same goes for the Maximum Power Principle.

A little humility, a little qualification in your statements, would go a long way.

No, it wouldn't. If a position is true, it is not arrogant to say so.

But to pound the table and proclaim that this is how it's gonna go down, period, well, you're sticking your neck out bigtime in a real chicken-little way.

You are very afraid to be seen as a chicken little. Or you are trying very hard to convince others to be afraid of being seen as chicken littles. Good propaganda strategy.

Par for the course with doomers, but it never pans out how they think it will.

I am not "doomers". I am Futilitist. We have yet to see if it pans out the way I think it will. So far, so good.

So you are saying that I should create a fake bio like you?

Hey, if you want to put a link to your IMDB page in your sig, knock yourself out.

You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands. Are you currently employed? If not, I wonder whether this obsession with ETP you have is an outgrowth of your own career doldrums.

You are projecting, ennui. I don't have career doldrums like you do. I have always been pretty successful. I have been retired since 2005, except for a brief stint doing mechanical design for robotics. These days I mostly focus on music. This forum stuff is just a hobby.

I have noticed that you also have a lot of time on your hands. I only have 210 posts here. But you have been here since the place opened in 2004. You have made thousands of posts under at least two different pseudonyms. I don't really believe you are having career doldrums, ennui. I think this IS your career.

I think you work here.



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

I don't think that argument makes very much sense at all. Here is why. The GPP graph also shows that a similar decline occurred during the great recession in 2009. Was that decline also due to dollar appreciation? Was there no great recession?

There was a large appreciation of the dollar in 2009. But no, that was not the cause of the great recession.

Dude, I did not ask if the dollar's appreciation caused the great recession. I asked if the 2009 dip shown on the GPP graph was also a result of the dollar's appreciation or did it have something to do with the great recession.

Figure 1. Gross Planet Product at current prices (trillions of dollars, 1980 – 2015)


You are saying that the most recent dip in the Gross Planet Product graph above was caused by an appreciation of the dollar, not a world recession. Yet the graph correctly shows a world recession in 2009. It turns out that the 2009 great recession was also accompanied by an appreciation of the dollar. So both dips correctly show dollar appreciation, but somehow only one dip correctly shows a real recession? That is silly. It makes *WAY* more sense to think that both dips show actual world recessions, and that the dollar tends to appreciate during world recessions.

It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. There is nothing that says you can't have a fall in global GDP at the same time as a strengthening dollar. It just means other areas of the world were even worse off than the US was in 2009. Europe was a total mess in 2009. It's not surprising that investors were looking for the safest port in the storm.

I agree. Those reasons are completely logical. We had a great recession that caused a strengthening dollar. GPP correctly indicated the great recession. Now GPP indicates another recession is underway. You say it isn't real, yet, by the strangest coincidence, it happened to cause an appreciation of the dollar!

Dollar appreciation wasn't surprising in 2009, and by your own logic it isn't surprising now (now meaning what would be evident in the GPP graph).

As the economic decline worsens, it will soon become undeniable that the world economy is in recession.

And yet for now the world economy continues to growth.

Gross Planet Product shows that the world is already in recession. The less accurate World GDP shows that economic growth is slowing significantly. I believe Russia is now in recession and so is Brazil, etc. Others will soon follow. The US is not immune either. This is just getting started.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

It is not worded as a trick question.

Sure it is. I know the subtext. It's got layers.

Do you know a better way to word the question?

Yeah, the better way to word it is to not ask it, and engage in a discussion, not a binary yes/no inquisition. It's a tiresome distraction from actually discussing the issues in detail.

The reason you refuse to answer the question is that you are afraid it will undermine and weaken your argument.

Hence my accusation that it's a trick question. It's a baiting tactic.

We will be soon.

A doomy prediction? How novel for a wordsend like this.

I am putting an extraordinary amount of effort into directly answering skepticism about the validity of the Etp model.

No you're not. You're appealing to dogma of the infallibility of everything ETP again and again and batting away any data that conflicts with your narrative.

Besides, I think that civilization is already in collapse.

But there's a difference between LTG doom and ETP doom. LTG doom is something I pay attention to. That's holistic. ETP is tunnel-vision.

The Etp model is a thermodynamic model of the rising entropy in the world oil production system. It is not a pseudo-religion. If the Etp model is valid on technical grounds, then it is valid. The same goes for the Maximum Power Principle.

But it co-opts these concepts to create conclusions that are shaky at best.

You are very afraid to be seen as a chicken little.

Yes, because a chicken little is a fool.

I am not "doomers". I am Futilitist.

What's that term supposed to mean?

I think you work here.

You've got it all figured out, do you? I'm on somebody's payroll? Tell me more. You flatter me, señor.

[StarvingLion]

To make up for the loss of energy from oil, you would have to grow the capacity of alternatives at the same rate you are losing energy from oil. If it were possible to grow the capacity of alternatives so easily, why are we still using oil?

Futilitist,

According to thermodynamics "renewable energy" does not exist.

Its no coincidence that the establishment is deliberately turning physics into investment bank backed pseudoscience (multiverse, string theory, cold fusion, quantum mumbo jumbo, climate science, etc) because otherwise the fraud of "transitioning away from fossil fuels" would be transparent and the looting might be stopped. Certainly the profession of 'physicist' is disappearing and as many engineers as possible are being purged.

Its obvious these so-called peak oil sites are filled with a few establishment shills steering fools towards useless charts, economic theories, and green brainwashing. Anyone possessing deep knowledge in physics and chemistry with the ability to connect that to the ponzi schemes being cooked up is regarded as the enemy.

[kublikhan]

It turns out that the 2009 great recession was also accompanied by an appreciation of the dollar. So both dips correctly show dollar appreciation, but somehow only one dip correctly shows a real recession? That is silly. It makes *WAY* more sense to think that both dips show actual world recessions, and that the dollar tends to appreciate during world recessions.

For someone who was just talking about logic you managed to cram several logical fallacies into this one paragraph.

First off you are making a correlation proves causation argument.

Second you are dismissing data that does not conform you your beliefs. This is an example of Confirmation Bias. The global recession in 2009 supports your argument. However 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 do not. You disregard 4/5ths of the data because then do not conform to your bias and concentrate solely on the 1/5th of the data that agrees with your position.

Third you are mocking my argument in an Appeal to ridicule

Now GPP indicates another recession is underway. You say it isn't real, yet, by the strangest coincidence, it happened to cause an appreciation of the dollar!

Actually, no it doesn't. As I mentioned in my previous post, GPP is now growing. Check the IMF Data yourself if you don't believe me. It's the same data the original author used. I guess since GPP is now growing than by your own logic the world economy must be growing as well, correct?

Dollar appreciation wasn't surprising in 2009, and by your own logic it isn't surprising now (now meaning what would be evident in the GPP graph).

Correct.

Gross Planet Product shows that the world is already in recession.

For the third time, No it does not. Since I don't seem to be getting through to you let me take a page out of your own book to drive this point home:


GROSS PLANET PRODUCTION DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE WORLD IS IN RECESSION.

The less accurate World GDP shows that economic growth is slowing significantly.

Why is it more accurate to measure world GDP in nominal dollars instead of real terms? If Europe was in a recession (real terms) but in nominal dollars they were growing would that mean you would argue Europe was growing?

[Whatever]

The reason you refuse to answer the question is that you are afraid it will undermine and weaken your argument.

Hence my accusation that it's a trick question. It's a baiting tactic.

You would think that since you are such a master baitor. If the truth undermines your argument, you need a new argument.

Besides, I think that civilization is already in collapse.

But there's a difference between LTG doom and ETP doom. LTG doom is something I pay attention to. That's holistic. ETP is tunnel-vision.

LTG doom and Etp doom have become the same doom. The Limits to Growth author, Dennis Meadows, thinks we are already in collapse, 2014-2020.

The Etp model is a thermodynamic model of the rising entropy in the world oil production system. It is not a pseudo-religion. If the Etp model is valid on technical grounds, then it is valid. The same goes for the Maximum Power Principle.

But it co-opts these concepts to create conclusions that are shaky at best.

No it doesn't. The Etp model fits beautifully within the framework of the Maximum Power Principle.



---Futilitist

[Whatever]

It turns out that the 2009 great recession was also accompanied by an appreciation of the dollar. So both dips correctly show dollar appreciation, but somehow only one dip correctly shows a real recession? That is silly. It makes *WAY* more sense to think that both dips show actual world recessions, and that the dollar tends to appreciate during world recessions.

For someone who was just talking about logic you managed to cram several logical fallacies into this one paragraph.

Wrong again.

First off you are making a correlation proves causation argument.

No, I am not. There is no causation being argued. The Gross Planet Product indicator was specifically designed to indicate world recessions. According to you, it doesn't work. That is quite an extraordinary claim. You have not supplied extraordinary proof. Extraordinary does not mean exhaustive.

Second you are dismissing data that does not conform you your beliefs. This is an example of Confirmation Bias. The global recession in 2009 supports your argument. However 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 do not. You disregard 4/5ths of the data because then do not conform to your bias and concentrate solely on the 1/5th of the data that agrees with your position.

None of that has anything to do with my position. My position is that both large dips on the GPP graph show the same thing. Recession. The years 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 do not have anything to do with those two large dips shown in the graph. So no confirmation bias. Your argument is disingenuous.

Third you are mocking my argument in an Appeal to ridicule

Don't be silly. I am simply using the valid approach of constructing a reductio ad absurdum from your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

You will know when I am mocking you. (just a friendly joke, BTW, no threat implied, okay?)

Now GPP indicates another recession is underway. You say it isn't real, yet, by the strangest coincidence, it happened to cause an appreciation of the dollar!

Actually, no it doesn't. As I mentioned in my previous post, GPP is now growing. Check the IMF Data yourself if you don't believe me. It's the same data the original author used. I guess since GPP is now growing than by your own logic the world economy must be growing as well, correct?

I can't find the data you are talking about. As far as I know, Gross Planet Product is updated on a yearly basis. So I don't see how you can say it is growing. The IMF is still forecasting growth. But that is the very problem that the original author was talking about. Economists often use GPP as a gauge to see if GDP estimates are correct. The World GDP and Gross Planet Product indicators are diverging.

The less accurate World GDP shows that economic growth is slowing significantly.

Why is it more accurate to measure world GDP in nominal dollars instead of real terms?

I don't think that is the issue. GPP is considered more accurate. If you don't like GPP because it tells you something you don't want to believe is true, isn't that an example of a confirmation bias?



---Futilitist

[kublikhan]

The Gross Planet Product indicator was specifically designed to indicate world recessions.

Source please.

None of that has anything to do with my position. My position is that both large dips on the GPP graph show the same thing. Recession. The years 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 do not have anything to do with those two large dips shown in the graph. So no confirmation bias. Your argument is disingenuous.

Oh really? So now it's only "large dips" that equal a recession? So if GPP has a small dip like in 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 that means no recession?

I can't find the data you are talking about.

World Economic Outlook database April 2016
Row 4 Columns AQ(2014), AR(2015), and AS(2016). The original author was using this data. Note the decline from 2014 to 2015. That's where the author got his $3.8 trillion decline from. Note also that from 2015 to 2016 this row increases. Hence, no decline for this year. This is updated data from what the original author used.

As far as I know, Gross Planet Product is updated on a yearly basis.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The IMF is still forecasting growth. But that is the very problem that the original author was talking about.

The original author was using the exact same IMF data that I am.

Economists often use GPP as a gauge to see if GDP estimates are correct. The World GDP and Gross Planet Product indicators are diverging.

Source please.

I don't think that is the issue. GPP is considered more accurate.

Source please.

[Whatever]

The Gross Planet Product indicator was specifically designed to indicate world recessions.

Source please.

None of that has anything to do with my position. My position is that both large dips on the GPP graph show the same thing. Recession. The years 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 do not have anything to do with those two large dips shown in the graph. So no confirmation bias. Your argument is disingenuous.

Oh really? So now it's only "large dips" that equal a recession? So if GPP has a small dip like in 1982, 1997, 1998, and 2001 that means no recession?

I can't find the data you are talking about.

World Economic Outlook database April 2016
Row 4 Columns AQ(2014), AR(2015), and AS(2016). The original author was using this data. Note the decline from 2014 to 2015. That's where the author got his $3.8 trillion decline from. Note also that from 2015 to 2016 this row increases. Hence, no decline for this year. This is updated data from what the original author used.

As far as I know, Gross Planet Product is updated on a yearly basis.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The IMF is still forecasting growth. But that is the very problem that the original author was talking about.

The original author was using the exact same IMF data that I am.

Economists often use GPP as a gauge to see if GDP estimates are correct. The World GDP and Gross Planet Product indicators are diverging.

Source please.

I don't think that is the issue. GPP is considered more accurate.

Source please.

Wow. Enough already.

I think the world might be in recession. GPP indicates that it is. You don't believe that GPP is accurate. Oh well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this, then.

Do you at least agree that there must be a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?



---Futilitist

[StarvingLion]

The S&P 500 "economy" was always this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_s ... in_Albania

Its pointless trying to make sense of a screwed up economy in relation to the price of oil because its now dysfunctional (eg. no such thing as a jobless consumer) even for a pyramid and collapsing because the fuel (quality oil and ores) for the ponzis is disappearing.

Even mathematicians are finally discovering the obvious:

http://gregpytel.blogspot.ca/

This blog demonstrates that:

it would have showed without any doubt whatsoever that the financial industry engineered and ran a giant global pyramid scheme that led to the systemic collapse in 2008. Basically the industry had been degenerated by those who had run it into a criminal enterprise operating according to exactly the same mechanisms as pyramid schemes in Albania in 1996 - 199

[ennui2]

Do you at least agree that there must be a thermodynamic limit to the price of oil?

[ennui2]

LTG doom and Etp doom have become the same doom. The Limits to Growth author, Dennis Meadows, thinks we are already in collapse, 2014-2020.

Then it's a semantical argument. You could say we started collapsing 10,000 years ago with the neolithic revolution if you want. Everyone has their own definition of when collapse (or TEOTWAWKI) has begun. My feeling is we're tracking the LTG BAU scenario but it's still the calm before the storm still, otherwise known as the "drawdown" stage of Overshoot, draining our ecological battery down. Visit the AGW threads here to get my take on some of this. I'm far more concerned with the current environmental health of the planet than I am about the likely state of energy supply or the economy over, let's say, the next 5 years.

No it doesn't. The Etp model fits beautifully within the framework of the Maximum Power Principle.

You haven't made a convincing argument that it does.

[vtsnowedin]

Everyone has their own definition of when collapse (or TEOTWAWKI) has begun. .

Some indicators that should be considered.
1. World population begins decline.
2. Multiple governments fail at an accelerating rate (Brexite for example)
3. Consumer supply chains break down (Venezuela)
4. The number of wars and of people effected by them increases.(Syria,Yemen)
5. The standard of living of the average world citizen declines year on year.

[ennui2]

Everyone has their own definition of when collapse (or TEOTWAWKI) has begun. .

Some indicators that should be considered.
1. World population begins decline.
2. Multiple governments fail at an accelerating rate (Brexite for example)
3. Consumer supply chains break down (Venezuela)
4. The number of wars and of people effected by them increases.(Syria,Yemen)
5. The standard of living of the average world citizen declines year on year.

It's not enough to cite an example of a doomy event. You have to create strong causative links.

For instance, Venezuela is a case of a failed experiment in neo-marxism that is breaking down due to an oil glut. I don't think the UK leaving the euro has any relationship to limits to growth either.

What doomers often fail to realize is that doomy shit has happened many times throughout history. Think of how bloody the 20th century was, for instance, a time when we were swimming in the most fossil fuels and ecological collapse wasn't even on the radar. And yet here we are, still standing. An event should not be used to "prove" doom simply because it's a doomy event. That is correlation = causation at its worst.

The "world population begins to decline" item would be incontrovertible, though, because in order for that to happen, the death rate would have to skyrocket to biblical proportions (since the birth rate isn't going to go down).

[StarvingLion]

Americas Dying Shopping Malls have Billions in Debt coming due

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -with-debt

I love how in the opening line they attribute the failure of Malls to the "rise" in online shopping. Nothing to do with the fact the customers are BROKE!

Amazon.com = China Direct = Enormous Loss of Purchasing Power

The entire consumerist model was built upon access to HIGH EROEI OIL which is gone...now thats gone means Jobless Consumer.

The price of oil will never go back up to $100.

[StarvingLion]

Everyone has their own definition of when collapse (or TEOTWAWKI) has begun. .

Some indicators that should be considered.
1. World population begins decline.
2. Multiple governments fail at an accelerating rate (Brexite for example)
3. Consumer supply chains break down (Venezuela)
4. The number of wars and of people effected by them increases.(Syria,Yemen)
5. The standard of living of the average world citizen declines year on year.

According to the establishment SHILLS, there is no collapse unless the...

THE PHONY STOCK "MARKET" COLLAPSES

Never going to happen. The entire stock market is fueled by money printing because FINANCIALISATION is the economy, .... MONEY PRINTING and sticking it in the stock "market" (themselves).

The place could turn into Zimbabwe for all they care and the stock market would still be going up.

[AdamB]

Why Billions in Proven Shale Oil Reserves Suddenly Became Unproven

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -vanishing

Ans: The Ponzi powered by unsecured debt blew up. ...Like housing....like student loans...like auto loans...like "renewables"...like every XXXXing thing about this fake economy.

Adam thinks there is 28 trillion in proven shale oil along with thousands of years of gas hydrates.

Adam thinks that the folks studying these issues at Carnegie Mellon know far more about it than you do. I believe their number is 24 trillion barrels of oily resources.

http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/03/11 ... mate-index

[AdamB]

The Etp model fits beautifully within the framework of the Maximum Power Principle.
---Futilitist

As long as you exclude all the data that doesn't allow the preconceived random regression to fit. This thing can't even predict what happened in the past from these alleged first order principles. And can't be bothered with the real representation of price. There is a reason why professionals require model validation, because they know that if they cherry pick the data they wish to use to match their preconceived notion, it isn't modeling. There is a professional organization I think for those who have been laughed out of the modeling world, would you like their phone number to call and join, or perhaps you are already one of their board members, trying to work your way back into the real world by warming up on a smaller, hopefully more gullible audience?