[Xelat]

. . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

I don't think that is possible. But what I do think is possible is keeping a middle class family from driving 3 separate SUVs (son, mom, dad) to and from everywhere without carpooling while not creating a situation in which poor families can not get to work and school at all. This is the goal of my 60/40 rationing scheme - drive out the large group of moderate overconsumers without killing the lower class.

[Jack]

. . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

I don't think that is possible. But what I do think is possible is keeping a middle class family from driving 3 separate SUVs (son, mom, dad) to and from everywhere without carpooling while not creating a situation in which poor families can not get to work and school at all. This is the goal of my 60/40 rationing scheme - drive out the large group of moderate overconsumers without killing the lower class.

I understand your goal. So will the middle class, who vote. And they will vote against your proposal.

The truth - harsh, cruel, nasty - is that no one cares about the poor. They will ride the bus, or motor scooters, or rusty bicycles - or walk. They will leave 2 hours early so they can get to work on time, and get home after another time consuming commute. They do that today - it will simply become more prevalent.

If you don't believe it, strike up a conversation with someone who busses tables in a cheap eatery, or a mucker - who scrapes the food off dishes and hands them to the diswasher. Find out how they are coping right now, today.

Now, tell me - why will everyone suddenly start caring in the future, when their own budgets become tighter?

[jato]

Now, tell me - why will everyone suddenly start caring in the future, when their own budgets become tighter?

They will care less and concentrate on saving their own bacon.

[Xelat]

. . .
Now, tell me - why will everyone suddenly start caring in the future, when their own budgets become tighter?

and

They will care less and concentrate on saving their own bacon.

As forum members with nicknames starting in `J' I have been assigned to you as a Devil's Advocate.

Brief somewhat off topic argument why post peak community values will strengthen:

Currently society is rich enough that we are able to live a compartmentalized lifestyle in which we do not need to have anything other than superficial social contact on a daily basis. Postpostpeak this will not be the case - you can no longer afford to throw away your broken X and buy a new broken X from Target. You must ask your neighbor/friend/acquaintance to loan you a substitute or fix it for you. Imperatives of this type will force the creation of more community amongst people not less. Greater community entails caring more about the well being of members of your community.

The crucial question is whether these greater community forming imperatives will take place at a lagging pace to the developement of peak conditions or what.

I don't think the middle class wants raging mobs at their doorstep . . . in urban environments this is a more immediate concern.

Just an idea.

[Jack]

The crucial question is whether these greater community forming imperatives will take place at a lagging pace to the developement of peak conditions or what.

I don't think the middle class wants raging mobs at their doorstep . . . in urban environments this is a more immediate concern.

Community imperatives? Xelat, take a hard look at people. Eliminate the idealism and really look at people throughout history.

The weak rich will have their money and their lives taken away. The strong rich will combine wealth with power and become feudal lords. Successful revolutionaries will take over the trappings of wealth and become feudal lords as well.

None of this is new. It's history. Read about Easter Islands and the Maya. The strong affluent survived. Those who weren't harsh/brutal/sly enough to survive - died.

As to raging mobs. Those only work with pasty faced, weak kneed, tremble chinned whiners. The average suburb has lots of guns, lots of ammo, and lots of survival potential. What happens to the raging mob when concentrated fire from a dozen or so snipers (deer rifles make nice sniper weapons too) takes out the first 25 or 30? Is our raging mob prepared to absorb so many casualties and keep coming? I rather doubt it. On the raging mob's side, too many inhabitants of suburbia match my earlier description. Do not assume they all do.

Further regarding raging mobs...have you contemplated the condition of the housing projects? Make no mistake, those mobs exist presently. They co-exist with you and I today.

[Backpacker]

. . . Does anyone truly believe we can prevent a multimillionaire from keeping his family warm? And, if we do, will they not simply move down to Costa Rica - taking their money with them?

I don't think that is possible. But what I do think is possible is keeping a middle class family from driving 3 separate SUVs (son, mom, dad) to and from everywhere without carpooling while not creating a situation in which poor families can not get to work and school at all. This is the goal of my 60/40 rationing scheme - drive out the large group of moderate overconsumers without killing the lower class.

Which brings up another intersesting point of mandatory conservation...re-instating the gas guzzler tax. Make it so expensive to own and operate an SUV that people will be forced to give them up for more efficient economy cars. The point of mandatory conservation is not to deny people basic necessities but to put an end to energy gluttony and overconsumption.
Most of US govt. policy in the energy arena does not attempt to control American energy gluttony but instead kowtows to it. The reason being that any politician who supports legislation to force Americans to cut back on their excessive lifestyles and energy gluttony will most certainly lose the next election. One prime example of how government kowtowing to people's energy gluttony ended in a major boondoggle is right here in Boston with the big dig project. The govt. spent 15 billion widening I-93 and creating a tunnel under the city to accomodate increased vehicle traffic and allegedly relieve congestion. Since completion in 2004 the project has been plagued with engineering problems and despite improvements does not change the fact that one accident or breakdown in the vicinity of the tunnel can tie up traffic in a heartbeat. And the big dig does not change the fact that parking in Boston or the airport is very expensive and limited. After 9 a.m most lots are full. Already there are cries of why didn't the govt. spend the money on increased public transportation and more commuter rail lines into the city instead. Instead of kowtowing to people and widening I-93 they should have left I-93 as is and added more commuter rail and public transport improvements, effectively forcing people to consider not driving into Boston and taking public transport instead.
The govt. has got to quit kowtowing to people's energy gluttony. This is a dead end street. Quit widening roads. Start adding mass rail transit instead. When they complain about the congestion on the roads tell them to take the train.

[Jack]

Which brings up another intersesting point of mandatory conservation...re-instating the gas guzzler tax. Make it so expensive to own and operate an SUV that people will be forced to give them up for more efficient economy cars. The point of mandatory conservation is not to deny people basic necessities but to put an end to energy gluttony and overconsumption.

(Sigh) Backpacker, if you want to force the middle class family out of their SUV, you can get that done. Of course, higher oil prices are likely to get that done anyway.

The upper-middle class routinely purchase houses in the $500,000 range. They purchase $20,000 watches. They spend six figures on their daughter's wedding - and no, I'm not counting the two spaces for cents. Do you really, truly believe that they are going to blanch at paying an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars for a car? Especially when they presently purchase high-end Mercedes that may well run close to $100,000?

And the rich? Expect them to have a minimum of $5,000,000 in liquid net worth. They will speak dismissively of someone with a mere half a million. It is chump change to them.

But if you want to make life harder for the couple working three jobs between them, trying to give their children a decent start in life, and in debt up to their ears, you CAN do it! Happy?

[Backpacker]

Which brings up another intersesting point of mandatory conservation...re-instating the gas guzzler tax. Make it so expensive to own and operate an SUV that people will be forced to give them up for more efficient economy cars. The point of mandatory conservation is not to deny people basic necessities but to put an end to energy gluttony and overconsumption.

(Sigh) Backpacker, if you want to force the middle class family out of their SUV, you can get that done. Of course, higher oil prices are likely to get that done anyway.

The upper-middle class routinely purchase houses in the $500,000 range. They purchase $20,000 watches. They spend six figures on their daughter's wedding - and no, I'm not counting the two spaces for cents. Do you really, truly believe that they are going to blanch at paying an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars for a car? Especially when they presently purchase high-end Mercedes that may well run close to $100,000?

And the rich? Expect them to have a minimum of $5,000,000 in liquid net worth. They will speak dismissively of someone with a mere half a million. It is chump change to them.

But if you want to make life harder for the couple working three jobs between them, trying to give their children a decent start in life, and in debt up to their ears, you CAN do it! Happy?

That is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The lower income couple would not be affected by a gas guzzler tax because more than likely they don't own one. The refusing to widen roads to accomodate increased vehicle traffic and instead providing more mass rail transit would help the lower income as it would give them a very cheap option for getting to work. They would not have to rely on the automobile.
In my signature I speak of car-reduced living, which I practice. My need to work is significantly reduced because I do not have car payments. I am about 80% car-reduced. If the govt would quit widening roads and instead provide mass rail transit, more public transport in more towns, bike commuter paths (which we have in Massachussetts) the govt. would help the lower income because it would give them other options from getting from point A to B other than the automobile.
The US needs to implement a european style rail and trolley transit system with a little Japanese high speed train thrown in along with a network of bike paths that are in proximity to employment and shopping (check www.railstotrail.org/ and www.biketrans.com/). Make car-reduced living simple and easy.

[Jack]

That is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The lower income couple would not be affected by a gas guzzler tax because more than likely they don't own one. The refusing to widen roads to accomodate increased vehicle traffic and instead providing more mass rail transit would help the lower income as it would give them a very cheap option for getting to work. They would not have to rely on the automobile.
In my signature I speak of car-reduced living, which I practice. My need to work is significantly reduced because I do not have car payments. I am about 80% car-reduced. If the govt would quit widening roads and instead provide mass rail transit, more public transport in more towns, bike commuter paths (which we have in Massachussetts) the govt. would help the lower income because it would give them other options from getting from point A to B other than the automobile.
The US needs to implement a european style rail and trolley transit system with a little Japanese high speed train thrown in along with a network of bike paths that are in proximity to employment and shopping (check www.railstotrail.org/ and www.biketrans.com/). Make car-reduced living simple and easy.

An exaggeration? No, actually not. A gas guzzler is, after all, a car that consumes lots of fuel. They're the SUV's and Hummer-2's. If the goal is to get the middle class out of their SUV's, the taxes you mention should work. Perhaps easier would be to repeal the current favorable tax treatment provided for light truck buyers, but not car owners. As for changing the behavior of the more affluent classes, I just don't believe it's going to work.

Not unlike yourself, I'd like to see good, dependable mass transit...but I don't expect it to happen. We don't have the critical population density to make it worthwhile. Perhaps, more accurately, we don't have it in Texas. If you can make mass transit work - really work, so it's convenient, comfortable, safe, and affordable - you won't need to tax SUVs. I firmly believe many people would drop them like a bad habit.

I will note that I don't drive one of the things, but if I may digress to my last experience with public transportation....

I got on the local trolley - actually, a bus made up to look like a trolley that circles around downtown. I rode the thing for a few minutes, at which time the driver stops in the middle of the block for his 15 minute break. No one is permitted off. No one is permitted on - including a blind woman. Finally, his break ended, he proceeded. Heck, I could have walked faster - which I did on subsequent trips. So long as public transit follows that pattern, the private car is in little danger.

[Xelat]

The crucial question is whether these greater community forming imperatives will take place at a lagging pace to the developement of peak conditions or what.

I don't think the middle class wants raging mobs at their doorstep . . . in urban environments this is a more immediate concern.

Community imperatives? Xelat, take a hard look at people. Eliminate the idealism and really look at people throughout history.

The weak rich will have their money and their lives taken away. The strong rich will combine wealth with power and become feudal lords. Successful revolutionaries will take over the trappings of wealth and become feudal lords as well.

None of this is new. It's history. Read about Easter Islands and the Maya. The strong affluent survived. Those who weren't harsh/brutal/sly enough to survive - died.

As to raging mobs. Those only work with pasty faced, weak kneed, tremble chinned whiners. The average suburb has lots of guns, lots of ammo, and lots of survival potential. What happens to the raging mob when concentrated fire from a dozen or so snipers (deer rifles make nice sniper weapons too) takes out the first 25 or 30? Is our raging mob prepared to absorb so many casualties and keep coming? I rather doubt it. On the raging mob's side, too many inhabitants of suburbia match my earlier description. Do not assume they all do.

Further regarding raging mobs...have you contemplated the condition of the housing projects? Make no mistake, those mobs exist presently. They co-exist with you and I today.

christ - who is the marxist historian here?

In response to the Suburbs fighting off a lower class insurrection - I doubt it would be so clean. Take a look at Iraq sir.

Regarding the housing projects and urban ghettoes - they coexist but the tension is great. If a greater part of the lower class in this country was to find common cause with only mild support from a small segment of the middle class you would have a mess on your hands (more than now).

[Xelat]

The upper-middle class routinely purchase houses in the $500,000 range. They purchase $20,000 watches. They spend six figures on their daughter's wedding - and no, I'm not counting the two spaces for cents. Do you really, truly believe that they are going to blanch at paying an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars for a car? Especially when they presently purchase high-end Mercedes that may well run close to $100,000?

I think you just redefined class entirely. Do you really consider such a person middle class? That is upperclass no question.

Not unlike yourself, I'd like to see good, dependable mass transit...but I don't expect it to happen. We don't have the critical population density to make it worthwhile. Perhaps, more accurately, we don't have it in Texas. If you can make mass transit work - really work, so it's convenient, comfortable, safe, and affordable - you won't need to tax SUVs. I firmly believe many people would drop them like a bad habit.

From personal observation in the last 2 years I would say that Austin and Corpus Christi both have the the denisty for well run mass transit in their respective city centers. The Dallas/Ft Worth area has the density not only to justify rail/subways downtown but in the corridor connecting the two cities. There is certainly enough density in TX (or anywhere in the world more or less) to justify high speed city connecting rail. What easier place in the world is there to lay track than TX anyway.

Mass Transit is nothing but affordable, and safe - this is part of it's nature. In LA we just had terrible train accident of which you are probably aware. That makes 10 people killed and 100 injured in the last DECADE of operation. Would you like to guess how many people were killed by cars? How much do I have to pay to ride unlimited times a day in LA - 3$. That isn't affordable?

And yet people are still opposing transit in LA and sitting in traffic in LA in their cushy idling SUVs - the average (AVERAGE) highway speed at rush hour is 18 mph. These are not RATIONAL conusmers - they need cultural reeducation.

[Backpacker]

From personal observation in the last 2 years I would say that Austin and Corpus Christi both have the the denisty for well run mass transit in their respective city centers. The Dallas/Ft Worth area has the density not only to justify rail/subways downtown but in the corridor connecting the two cities. There is certainly enough density in TX (or anywhere in the world more or less) to justify high speed city connecting rail. What easier place in the world is there to lay track than TX anyway.

Mass Transit is nothing but affordable, and safe - this is part of it's nature. In LA we just had terrible train accident of which you are probably aware. That makes 10 people killed and 100 injured in the last DECADE of operation. Would you like to guess how many people were killed by cars? How much do I have to pay to ride unlimited times a day in LA - 3$. That isn't affordable?

And yet people are still opposing transit in LA and sitting in traffic in LA in their cushy idling SUVs - the average (AVERAGE) highway speed at rush hour is 18 mph. These are not RATIONAL conusmers - they need cultural reeducation.[/quote]
The reason why people won't use public transport even when it is so available and affordable is because, among the middle and upper class, public transportation is looked upon as being the transportation method of choice for the lower classes. They refuse to get off of their high horse and "mingle with the commoners" on public transport. They would rather sit in 18 mph traffic and pressure the govt. into widening roads than give up their private vehicle and associate with the plebians. It is a materialistic "keeping up with the Joneses" thing. That is why I advocate that the govt. quit widening road to accomodate increased vehicle traffic no matter how much the public complains. Spend the money on mass rail transit instead. Force them to abandon driving to work and taking rail instead.
The comment about the average rush hour speed in LA being 18 mph brings up a good point. Along that same line it has been demonstrated in studies that, for in-town driving, the average speed on a bicycle is only around 4 miles per hour slower than the average speed in an automobile. It is nice when traffic is backed up at an intersection and I zip right by them on my bike.

[Jack]

In response to the Suburbs fighting off a lower class insurrection - I doubt it would be so clean. Take a look at Iraq sir.

Regarding the housing projects and urban ghettoes - they coexist but the tension is great. If a greater part of the lower class in this country was to find common cause with only mild support from a small segment of the middle class you would have a mess on your hands (more than now).

Insurrections are always messy. In some cases, the suburbs would be overrun, with general mass death to follow. In other cases, they would succeed in holding their own. In every case, lots of people would get hurt and killed.

As for the middle class making common cause with the housing projects - perhaps. But I think not. The divide is great; so large as to be almost impossible to bridge.

[Jack]

From personal observation in the last 2 years I would say that Austin and Corpus Christi both have the the denisty for well run mass transit in their respective city centers.
(snip)

The city centers hardly suffice. One needs a broader area. Driving to a bus (or light rail) depot, to ride mass transit, followed by walking a half-dozen blocks to the destination does not appeal in anything but perfect weather.

Mass Transit is nothing but affordable, and safe - this is part of it's nature. In LA we just had terrible train accident of which you are probably aware. That makes 10 people killed and 100 injured in the last DECADE of operation. Would you like to guess how many people were killed by cars? How much do I have to pay to ride unlimited times a day in LA - 3$. That isn't affordable?

Safe does not refer, in this case, to safety from an accident involving the transit vehicles. Safe refers to the risks encountered at the stops and in the vehicles dealing with other passengers.

A trial is currently taking place here. It seems a woman was waiting at a bus stop when two males and a female drove by. They abducted her. Took her to a motel room. Gang raped her. Murdered her. Then buried her in a shallow grave. The two males are serving life sentences; the female's trial will soon go to the jury.

That's the safety issue. And you can quote all the statistics you wish about rider miles and occurrences per thousand passenger days, but it will make little difference in the perceptions.

And yet people are still opposing transit in LA and sitting in traffic in LA in their cushy idling SUVs - the average (AVERAGE) highway speed at rush hour is 18 mph. These are not RATIONAL conusmers - they need cultural reeducation.

Now, backpacker. "Cultural Reeducation" smacks of Pol Pot. Your arguments deserve better.

The reason why people won't use public transport even when it is so available and affordable is because, among the middle and upper class, public transportation is looked upon as being the transportation method of choice for the lower classes. They refuse to get off of their high horse and "mingle with the commoners" on public transport. They would rather sit in 18 mph traffic and pressure the govt. into widening roads than give up their private vehicle and associate with the plebians. It is a materialistic "keeping up with the Joneses" thing.

Umm...have you associated with any of the commoners on public transportation lately? The crying, mewling, dripping children? Their mothers, who appear to have Down's syndrome? The gang bangers who take up two seats and dare anyone to say anything? The maids who like to brag about what they've stolen from their employer, and comment about their work habits - i.e., lying in bed, watching television most of the day? The odiferous unbathed?

Your bicycle idea looks better all the time! Far better than being culturally reeducated to associate with the plebians.

[Frank]

Normally I feel that the marketplace can make the best choices, but only if price reflects cost and this is definitely not the case w.r.t. oil used for transportation.

I doubt if most people really understand or even think about where the gas for their vehicle comes from. Most people just don't know. It's treated like an entitlement these days. And the reality is that it's fun to drive those bigger vehicles: you sit higher up, see better, etc. etc.

This is why some regulation is good. To protect us from ourselves. CAFE made an impact during the '70's and '80's but hasn't done anything since then. If we went to a market-based Feebate system, it could turn things around pretty quick IMO. (This works by imposing a stiff tax on vehicles on the "wrong" side of some desired mpg rating and giving that money to purchasers of vehicles on the "right" side of the rating number.) Really rich folks will still buy what they want, but the vast majority of middle-class consumers will think twice before getting that SUV or pick-up truck.

If we don't do anything voluntarily, sooner or later reality will take over anyway so maybe this is a moot discussion.

[Backpacker]

Normally I feel that the marketplace can make the best choices, but only if price reflects cost and this is definitely not the case w.r.t. oil used for transportation.

I doubt if most people really understand or even think about where the gas for their vehicle comes from. Most people just don't know. It's treated like an entitlement these days. And the reality is that it's fun to drive those bigger vehicles: you sit higher up, see better, etc. etc.

This is why some regulation is good. To protect us from ourselves. CAFE made an impact during the '70's and '80's but hasn't done anything since then. If we went to a market-based Feebate system, it could turn things around pretty quick IMO. (This works by imposing a stiff tax on vehicles on the "wrong" side of some desired mpg rating and giving that money to purchasers of vehicles on the "right" side of the rating number.) Really rich folks will still buy what they want, but the vast majority of middle-class consumers will think twice before getting that SUV or pick-up truck.

If we don't do anything voluntarily, sooner or later reality will take over anyway so maybe this is a moot discussion.

You hit the nail square on the head by saying that we need to be saved from ourselves. Most people seem to think we have an eternal supply of oil. They grew up in the age of cheap energy. Their minds have been conditioned to believe that it will always be there.
Or you have the other group who seems to think that we have every right to invade the mid-east to procure "our" oil. Most people scoff and deny at peak oil. They think it is impossible to have a 1930's style great depression again. These are the people who drive their SUV to the store just to pick up a stick of butter or drive their kids a half a block down the street to the school bus stop and sit there idling for 15 minutes while they wait for the bus because they don't want to walk.
When peak oil occurs they will flop like fish out of water. They can either conserve now or have no alternative later. Forget voluntary conservation. It doesn't work. Enact tough new legislation and start forcing them to conserve. They can either downscale their lifestyle and conserve or face the prospect of having their children get drafted to fight in eventual energy wars. Which would they prefer?

[Jack]

Enact tough new legislation and start forcing them to conserve.

Ahh, back to that again. So, if we can't control the flow of drugs - and we can't, just look at a newspaper - how are we going to control gasoline? We are not the same people that went through rationing during WWII.

[Xelat]

Enact tough new legislation and start forcing them to conserve.

Ahh, back to that again. So, if we can't control the flow of drugs - and we can't, just look at a newspaper - how are we going to control gasoline? We are not the same people that went through rationing during WWII.

Gasoline is not easily smuggled the way drugs are. Entirely different situation.

]Now, backpacker. "Cultural Reeducation" smacks of Pol Pot. Your arguments deserve better.

That was me - Backpacker quoted me at length but there was a snafu in his formatting.

What are anti smoking ads etc but cultural reeducation. Looks like you may have been a victim of it:

Driving to a bus (or light rail) depot, to ride mass transit, followed by walking a half-dozen blocks to the destination does not appeal in anything but perfect weather.

Your legs might fall off!

I was just in TX twice in January. Are you aware of how ridiculous your comments seem to people from
a) less fortunate countries
b) the north
I personally witnessed people people wearing gloves in 50 degree weather. Toughen up and use your body a little. You guys have your occasional ice storm but it really is nothing compared to the north.

[Jack]

Gasoline is not easily smuggled the way drugs are. Entirely different situation.

Smuggled is one thing. Diverted from the primary supply stream is another.

I was just in TX twice in January. Are you aware of how ridiculous your comments seem to people from
a) less fortunate countries
b) the north
I personally witnessed people people wearing gloves in 50 degree weather. Toughen up and use your body a little. You guys have your occasional ice storm but it really is nothing compared to the north.

It appears that you haven't picked up on the fact that I could not possibly care less about the views of people from "less fortunate countries".

As for people from the north - if they wish to stroll through Houston on a pleasant summer day with the temperature at 101 and the humidity at 99%, far be it from me to dissuade them. As they have their heat stroke, perhaps they should be reminded to toughen up.

[BlisteredWhippet]

Just a thought....

Whos going to need gasoline to commute to jobs they won't have?

I think the situation is far worse and so chaotic no amount of command and control will be enough. Moreover, no amount of command and control will be good. The right hand of the law will back up such regulatory features, and this will take paramilitary form.

The question we should be asking is, "Is this what we want?"

Batting around the table our amateur macroeconomic theories is fine and good but the fact is that no amount of simple infrastructure change is going to increase the sustainability factor of the average metropolitan area in a post-peak scenario. The suburbs are likewise substantially unsustainable.

The premise that I'm smelling from this thread is that the oil crash will be gradual, even subtle, enough so that "cooler heads will prevail". That politicians and our systems will be able to cope in a more or less standard fashion. We have completely lost our imagination for such drastic scenarios. For example the stock market crash of 1929 occured in a single day. What drives the market is speculation and investors' emotion. As it is spectacularly overvalued, imagine that the economic crash will come quicker than conventional social problems. OPEC will start trading oil in Euros instead of dollars. That decision will come within a day. People will lose 90% of their net worth between breakfast and lunch.

These are sudden catastrophes leading to very quick cascading systemic effects that I feel a lot of people simply haven't come to understand. They believe a rational approach will work. It will, but it requires foresight and a willingness to embrace RADICAL change.

My fear is that necessary changes will be held back by a hysterical mob of people, addicted to the system, who cannot or won't think outside the box. They'll call first for the government to save them by regulation, then by force, until the nation is a police state.

Those who fear anarchy will lose their democracy (such as it is) by giving it in exchange for "security".

That said, the European approach works to some extent to control fuel use behaviors, but fundamentally that system is also based on access to fuel for industry and commerce and as such is just as unsustainable in the long run.