MonteQuest wrote:ennui2 wrote: Monte just spent a lot of energy trying to tell us that boomers retiring plays little role, but I think more attention should be spent on it, considering how big the bulge is.
In relation to what cause the demand destruction in the run up to the 08 crash, it did play little role.
I brought up the retiring boomers in my very first post on this site 12 years ago, and listed it as one of the key ingredients to a PO perfect storm. Why it will impede mitigation.
Not their drop in consumption, but their impact on the debt. There is $100 trillion in unfunded entitlements.
You're speaking out of two sides of your mouth.
Boomers retiring IS MITIGATION insofar as it should drop oil consumption. It's serendipity rather than a deliberate measure, but it's mitigation nonetheless.
So you respond "Oh, no. That's bad, because it craters the ecomomy."
The doomer schtick you're playing, therefore, is to present a no-win scenario.
Behind one door is economic doom by letting our foot off the gas of economic growth.
The other is Mad Max doom caused by flooring the growth paradigm all the way to an oil panic and empty store shelves.
Well, I think these are two different things.
You have people who naively push for steady-state or de-growth. They do not, in the same breath, doom-monger about how there will be blood on the streets due to the end of the growth-paradigm and a debt bomb. No. They seem to think we can deliberately choose a de-growth pathway. You don't, though. You present a "hell bent on leather" BAU-or-bust scenario.
I just think you have too narrow a frame of reference.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)