[evilgenius]

Evil,

I dont think it is about opportunity but something more primitive like tribal affiliations.

Now you've gone and reminded us of how it is that most jobs come through word of mouth. Yes, they might be advertised, but they go to those who heard about them through word of mouth.

Does that make the fiat system undemocratic? I don't think so because the fiat system allows the planting of seeds. The very use of it encourages the principles that spread the suffrage. It doesn't insist upon an ideological position that has to be learned and is also so incompatible with nature that it can't be intuited, like socialism. It does come with personal responsibility. It requires that a person keep their word, insofar as borrowing goes. It hasn't changed anything else about how people relate to each other. I think a better system might. I can't say because that may be too much to expect from any system.

[theluckycountry]

Yes, but aren't we talking about a time like no other in human history. The economy ran like in no other time in history, on a broad measure toward everyone, only post WWII....
Now, the influences of the labor movement were felt in things like the weekend becoming a thing. 40 hours a week became a standard...
The idea that people had lives outside of work took root. It became fuel for a consumer driven economy. And that is just us recognizing, democratically, the importance of each other in our economic reality. There is such new opportunity. Unless some aren't telling the truth, it is all about opportunity, isn't it?

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil. Post WWII saw massive investment in the area and production skyrocketed.



Oil allowed the 40h week, it was going to go down to 36 in the 70's, that was the cry of unions then. The futurist chatter was that we would all be sitting around drinking wine and composing poetry in the decades to come while machines did all the work. Nice plans, but the cheap oil peaked out in the US and all of a sudden our energy subsidy was in question. It was the cheap oil that allowed us to leave the fields and sit in labs and invent the myriad of junk in the first place. Oil provided the opportunity so to speak.

These factors you mention, as a set, are unique to our times, but so is oil. 2000 years ago they had labor unrest in Rome, they probably had a set working week too and things muddled along until their energy (slaves) and their cheap imports of grain became problematic and they found themselves where we are today. As for being all about opportunity, well yes I agree. But opportunity has to include resources to become anything of value. We had the opportunity to go to the moon, but without all the metallurgy high-tech systems and fuel, we never would have made it. The engineers would still be sitting in Houston pushing their slide-rules back and forward.

[AdamB]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil.

Yeah, nothing else mattered. Because, you know, it is impossible to create fuels from anything other than oil. Us stupid humans.

You confuse the advantage of cost and expediency of natural occuring long chain hydrocarbons with long chain hydrocarbons in general.

Gail does stupid shit like this as well, Richard Heinberg tried it on for size a time or two. Just proof of a lack of perspective is all, but when people hold tight to their faith based beliefs, it isn't as though they want to know how a particular system CAN work, versus the corner cutting cheap path taken within free market economic systems.

[yellowcanoe]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil.

Yeah, nothing else mattered. Because, you know, it is impossible to create fuels from anything other than oil. Us stupid humans.

You confuse the advantage of cost and expediency of natural occuring long chain hydrocarbons with long chain hydrocarbons in general.

I would agree that our high standard of living isn't solely due to the availability of oil -- many other factors also contributed to the growth of our economy since WW2. However, if we think about what type of world we would be living in if we only had renewable energy sources the conclusion I would have to draw is that we would not be able to maintain our current standard of living. We would certainly continue to have a need for liquid fuels and yes these could be produced using renewable energy sources but the cost would greatly limit the quantity we could produce.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil.

I would agree that our high standard of living isn't solely due to the availability of oil -- many other factors also contributed to the growth of our economy since WW2. However, if we think about what type of world we would be living in if we only had renewable energy sources the conclusion I would have to draw is that we would not be able to maintain our current standard of living. We would certainly continue to have a need for liquid fuels and yes these could be produced using renewable energy sources but the cost would greatly limit the quantity we could produce.

Absolutely right, yellow. But what you're accurately (IMO) pointing out is a COMPLETELY different thing than people who claim "it was all due to oil" re economic growth and progress.

Hopefully within 3 decades we need to burn FAR, FAR less hydrocarbons for energy. It seems FAR smarter and better to use those for things like petrochemicals and plastics humans need for a modern middle class lifestyle (unless and until plentiful cheap substitutes are found or invented), and NOT burn it, to make our finite supply last as long as we can.

Plus of course, the less AGW the better.

[Pops]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil. Post WWII saw massive investment in the area and production skyrocketed.
...Oil provided the opportunity so to speak.

Lest we forget there was a huge migration from farms to cities as the tractor first displaced the horse then the farmer. Part and parcel of urbanization was FF transportation that allowed sprawl. Prior to 1900 75% of Americans lived on or near farms, and we were much more urban than most.

[jedrider]

Without FF, our population would be far less. No need for suburbia then.

[vtsnowedin]

Without FF, our population would be far less. No need for suburbia then.

The use of coal and steam power certainly allowed the start of population growth with oil products accelerating it. But what if no fossil fuels existed would we still be stuck in the middle ages with similar populations? I think not. Water power and wind power would have been developed way beyond what was available then and advances in science and medicine including public utility sanitation would have cut death rates even without fossil fuels. We would probably not have the current seven billion population but perhaps two billion would be possible without any fossil fuel.

[mousepad]

But what if no fossil fuels existed would we still be stuck in the middle ages with similar populations? I think not.

Hard to say. Keep in mind that a major fuel of those times was wood. Used for cooking, heating, making charcoal (iron/steel), steam engines, later wood gasification. And wood was used way beyond sustainable limits already. Take a look at your very own VT (with old pictures of the town of Tunbridge as a good example). Many areas were cut clean to make room for fields. So I have my doubts that 2 billions could have been sustained for long, at least not at a 1850 standard of living.

[vtsnowedin]

But what if no fossil fuels existed would we still be stuck in the middle ages with similar populations? I think not.

Hard to say. Keep in mind that a major fuel of those times was wood. Used for cooking, heating, making charcoal (iron/steel), steam engines, later wood gasification. And wood was used way beyond sustainable limits already. Take a look at your very own VT (with old pictures of the town of Tunbridge as a good example). Many areas were cut clean to make room for fields. So I have my doubts that 2 billions could have been sustained for long, at least not at a 1850 standard of living.

Yes the wood supply was and would have continued to be the pinch point but also the necessity that would have been the mother of invention. There is no way to model it and see what exactly would have come about if no fossil fuels existed especially if you consider peat as a fossil fuel. So my guess of two billion is based on nothing more then it being a lot less then the seven billion presently. From 1400 to 1700 the world population doubled from 0.35 billion to 0.68 billion estimated in spite of plagues like small pox and very little use of any fossil fuels. The population growth rate was 0.15% per year while now it is 0.75% per year. If they only maintained that = 0.15%rate we would be at about 1.3 billion.

[careinke]

As I transition more and more to a carnivore diet for health reasons, I'm wondering if a 1/4 acre suburban lot could produce a carnivore diet for a family of four. Actually I wonder how small of a parcel you could get by with to produce the diet.

Here is my thought process(in a not too organized way);

This would include producing all the animal food on site in a regenerative manner. Basically, you would never have to go into a grocery store for any food items or to the feed store for feed.

A carnivore diet includes eggs, so chickens, ducks, quail, pheasant, turkeys and other fowl are all options to consider.

It will take time to bring the system up, so some outside inputs will initially be needed.

Aquaponics, will be critical for the system providing human, animal, and plant food sources.

Mammals for meat on a smaller property include rabbits and maybe a couple of goats or sheep or perhaps pigs. I'm thinking you would need at least five acres to do beef without grains, (I love beef, so in real life, we buy a half a grass fed cow from a local farmer, and butcher it ourselves).

I would use automation wherever possible, use solar and/or wind power where feasible, use as much rain water as possible, and of course follow Permaculture principles.

OK, for a smaller parcel I would have four to five large aquaponic tanks (12' x 12' X 3' or so) sunk into the ground so the top of the tank is at bench height with bench. You need more than one so you can have a nursery, a place to grow duck weed, feeder fish etc.

Then, I would incorporate rabbits and chickens. Rabbit poop can be directly applied to the fodder gardens and spice gardens. Besides meat and eggs, chickens have lots of other uses including insect barriers to the garden, garden prep, and waste disposal. Besides they are omnivores making it easier to feed them.

No need to plant carrots, potatoes, corn etc. Those things are high in carbs, take a lot of space, time, and effort, will kill you, and are not particularly good for your animals either. Instead you will have forage trees, comfrey, plantain, white mulberry trees, etc. etc.

Obviously every site is unique, so your choices would also have to be different for each site to obtain a truly regenerative system. But the more I think about it, the more I believe it is possible. Actually, it could be easier than growing a self sustaining vegetarian system especially one high in carbs.

The added values are: your residence can become a producer, rather than solely a taker, you will eat much healthier, you will avoid or eliminate type two diabetes, and decrease medical expenses.

If your doctor is over 40 and overweight, why are you listening to their diet advise?

Peace

[vtsnowedin]

The minimum acreage depends greatly on the location of the land and it's climate. Old New England rule was an acre and a half for a cow and her calf. West of the Pecos in Texas a cow needs forty acres between droughts.
Meat or vegetables you need about 1,000,000 calories per year per person to allow for some waste in your food storage etc.
Now I see you are anti carbs but consider that a pound of organic potatoes contains 354 calories so 1M would be 2850 lbs and at an average yield of organic spuds of 21,200/Acre you would need just 0.13 A per person. Explains Ireland before the famine.
You could of course feed those spuds to the pigs and chickens to convert carbs to protein. Now if your acre was 209 feet square you would need just 27 feet down one side for the spuds. Plenty of room left for other gardens and chicken coops.

[evilgenius]

Yes, but aren't we talking about a time like no other in human history. The economy ran like in no other time in history, on a broad measure toward everyone, only post WWII....
Now, the influences of the labor movement were felt in things like the weekend becoming a thing. 40 hours a week became a standard...
The idea that people had lives outside of work took root. It became fuel for a consumer driven economy. And that is just us recognizing, democratically, the importance of each other in our economic reality. There is such new opportunity. Unless some aren't telling the truth, it is all about opportunity, isn't it?

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil. Post WWII saw massive investment in the area and production skyrocketed.



Oil allowed the 40h week, it was going to go down to 36 in the 70's, that was the cry of unions then. The futurist chatter was that we would all be sitting around drinking wine and composing poetry in the decades to come while machines did all the work. Nice plans, but the cheap oil peaked out in the US and all of a sudden our energy subsidy was in question. It was the cheap oil that allowed us to leave the fields and sit in labs and invent the myriad of junk in the first place. Oil provided the opportunity so to speak.

These factors you mention, as a set, are unique to our times, but so is oil. 2000 years ago they had labor unrest in Rome, they probably had a set working week too and things muddled along until their energy (slaves) and their cheap imports of grain became problematic and they found themselves where we are today. As for being all about opportunity, well yes I agree. But opportunity has to include resources to become anything of value. We had the opportunity to go to the moon, but without all the metallurgy high-tech systems and fuel, we never would have made it. The engineers would still be sitting in Houston pushing their slide-rules back and forward.

What you are describing are the constraints that all of life has to deal with. With life, and I think with this, it will all be about organization.

Economically, many people are in the dumps, and look to remain so. The world is leaving them behind.
It has always treated those whose positions become obsolete that way.

There is this new electric order that seems to be developing. It could fail. It doesn't, however, have to fail miserably, which is what would probably be required to fall off of the cliff. Otherwise, I think it can provide enough sustainability for people to make decisions, borrowing money and taking risk, that things can continue. Because, ultimately, money has the value we place upon it, unless the whole thing falls apart in a way where no matter how you try to handle it it crumbles in your grasp.

Speaking of these new constraints, wouldn't people who can only get access to a charger every third day, think big apartment complexes and houses broken up into units, be reluctant to go too far to get to the store and back, like they currently enjoy doing with ICE vehicles? How will we get around that? Will supermarkets offer charging while you shop, you have one of those shopper's cards, right? Will meters pop up everywhere? Will we see people installing aftermarket solutions for charging the cars of all of the people who live in those high population density places? What impact will range have upon suburbia? Will it even get into what we think of as our societal DNA, changing us into a more considerate sort of people? Will we get worse?

[vtsnowedin]

Speaking of these new constraints, wouldn't people who can only get access to a charger every third day, think big apartment complexes and houses broken up into units, be reluctant to go too far to get to the store and back, like they currently enjoy doing with ICE vehicles? How will we get around that? Will supermarkets offer charging while you shop, you have one of those shopper's cards, right? Will meters pop up everywhere? Will we see people installing aftermarket solutions for charging the cars of all of the people who live in those high population density places? What impact will range have upon suburbia? Will it even get into what we think of as our societal DNA, changing us into a more considerate sort of people? Will we get worse?

I think we will build out sufficient charging points as fast as they build the EVs. Apartments with dedicated parking spaces will provide a charge point for a fee added to the rent. I doubt shopping malls etc. will build many as the customer is not in the store long enough to get a major charge and the average trip to and from those stores is only about forty miles. Exception being service areas on the highways where an hour long lunch will give the car time to be charged up for another four hours of driving.(275 miles) By far most of the charging will be done at home at off peak night rates while owners sleep or at the parking lot where the operator works during their work shift. I have already seen factory parking lots covered with solar panels with the cars parked below them.
The big question is can they build enough green electricity generation and storage to meet this new demand. A much more worrisome question then will people become more or less considerate.

[evilgenius]

Speaking of these new constraints, wouldn't people who can only get access to a charger every third day, think big apartment complexes and houses broken up into units, be reluctant to go too far to get to the store and back, like they currently enjoy doing with ICE vehicles? How will we get around that? Will supermarkets offer charging while you shop, you have one of those shopper's cards, right? Will meters pop up everywhere? Will we see people installing aftermarket solutions for charging the cars of all of the people who live in those high population density places? What impact will range have upon suburbia? Will it even get into what we think of as our societal DNA, changing us into a more considerate sort of people? Will we get worse?

I think we will build out sufficient charging points as fast as they build the EVs. Apartments with dedicated parking spaces will provide a charge point for a fee added to the rent. I doubt shopping malls etc. will build many as the customer is not in the store long enough to get a major charge and the average trip to and from those stores is only about forty miles. Exception being service areas on the highways where an hour long lunch will give the car time to be charged up for another four hours of driving.(275 miles) By far most of the charging will be done at home at off peak night rates while owners sleep or at the parking lot where the operator works during their work shift. I have already seen factory parking lots covered with solar panels with the cars parked below them.
The big question is can they build enough green electricity generation and storage to meet this new demand. A much more worrisome question then will people become more or less considerate.

That's one of the reasons why my EV centered portfolio contains solar. Solar looks like it will see huge growth. It also looks like it comes with lots of value traps. It's going, eventually, to become really tricky when evaluating solar. At some point the average solar stock will quit acting according to the old cycles, unless I picked the wrong one. I need to diversify, even though I am a small timer.

I also wonder about the role that huge solar farms will play in all of this? This is the information age. Why can't people buy a number of square feet in a solar farm, and use that to balance whatever they are doing with their car, in terms of payments for electricity and such? Even the way we do things, regarding payments, could change. The way to extract the value in that back to a portfolio may not lie along the initial path. I could only be partly right.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm going at it three ways while trying to avoid Chinese controlled stocks. First solar for the panels. ALB Albemarle corp. for lithium mining. And Freeport-McMoran for copper mining. I could have done better to date if I picked LAC Lithium Americas which is up 50% from when I put it in a watch list. When cash becomes available I may pick up some Ford stock as the electric F150 looks to be a long term winner.

[theluckycountry]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil.

Lest we forget there was a huge migration from farms to cities as the tractor first displaced the horse then the farmer. Part and parcel of urbanization was FF transportation that allowed sprawl.

Tracking the individual triggers for population movement and the means by which they moved is an interesting study, I suppose manufacturing needs played a big role as well. The US became the world's supplier of machinery etc after WWII didn't it, Huge factory complexes springing up to produce everything from Sulfuric acid to John Deere tractors and TV sets. An expansion from the military industrial base that won the war and saw millions move to factory towns.

Is that why Detroit was abandoned, because too much industry closed down? What about Akron, Pittsburgh and all those other former industrial towns, how are they faring now the revolution has moved to China? Some say certain cities re-invented themselves and are as good as ever but who can say, with all the manipulation of statistics, government aid and debt is it just so much lipstick on a pig?

What matters is your standard of living, with the embellishments of personal debt taken out. And from what I see there, and even here in OZ, the equation is not good. Millions of people crammed into cities, loaded down with personal debt. It's a recipe for disaster without cheap energy.

[vtsnowedin]

Yes, like no other in human history, but it was all due to oil.

Lest we forget there was a huge migration from farms to cities as the tractor first displaced the horse then the farmer. Part and parcel of urbanization was FF transportation that allowed sprawl.

Tracking the individual triggers for population movement and the means by which they moved is an interesting study, I suppose manufacturing needs played a big role as well. The US became the world's supplier of machinery etc after WWII didn't it, Huge factory complexes springing up to produce everything from Sulfuric acid to John Deere tractors and TV sets. An expansion from the military industrial base that won the war and saw millions move to factory towns.

Is that why Detroit was abandoned, because too much industry closed down? What about Akron, Pittsburgh and all those other former industrial towns, how are they faring now the revolution has moved to China? Some say certain cities re-invented themselves and are as good as ever but who can say, with all the manipulation of statistics, government aid and debt is it just so much lipstick on a pig?

What matters is your standard of living, with the embellishments of personal debt taken out. And from what I see there, and even here in OZ, the equation is not good. Millions of people crammed into cities, loaded down with personal debt. It's a recipe for disaster without cheap energy.

I think you have a skewed view of conditions in America and it's cities. The median net worth for all Americans (assets minus debts) is over $93,000 and even of people under 35 years old the median is $14,000 so that means many more Americans have assets well in excess of the debts that stand against it. Of course in every age group there are those whose spending exceeds income so have a negative net worth but those are the exception not the rule.
As to old industrial cities that have declined the problem in most cases has been union and Democrat control mismanaging public funds and the unions driving out industries to non union areas and over seas to places like China and Vietnam.
One odd thing in America are rules requiring a spend down of assets before public assistance eligibility. This forces the poor to remain poor or have the checks stop coming. So you do have a small class of people that choose to remain poor rather then go to work as it is easier then getting up every morning.

[jedrider]

One odd thing in America are rules requiring a spend down of assets before public assistance eligibility. This forces the poor to remain poor or have the checks stop coming. So you do have a small class of people that choose to remain poor rather then go to work as it is easier then getting up every morning.

Yes, that's stupid. Should have some sliding scale for that, but I guess that's too difficult for lawmakers who are continually up for re-election.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I think you have a skewed view of conditions in America and it's cities. The median net worth for all Americans (assets minus debts) is over $93,000 and even of people under 35 years old the median is $14,000 so that means many more Americans have assets well in excess of the debts that stand against it. Of course in every age group there are those whose spending exceeds income so have a negative net worth but those are the exception not the rule.

Yes. I remember being a wee bit annoyed in the mid 2000's. Housing was booming, and there were a lot of people in my city buying new $800,000 and up sort of houses. Many people were running around in very late model cars, buying or leasing new ones every few years for BOTH husband and wife. And of course, exotic vacations, clothes, furniture, dining, etc. And that seemed to reflect what was going on in much of the US.

Very very different from my lifestyle, yet I had a supposedly good job in tech, and worked a LOT of hours and virtually every holiday weekend to keep that good job safe. Started to wonder if I was stupid or doing something wrong.

But of course, I went ahead and retired at age 48 in mid 2007 because though I wasn't "rich" the way most people think of rich, re huge incomes, I knew I could live reasonably comfortably at my chosen lifestyle, and I was getting out before the stress ruined my health.

And then came the great recession and all the wailing about being able to pay bills, and suddenly fundamentals and being frugal mattered again (for a few years, anyway). So at that point, at least financial fundamentals seemed to make more sense, again.

But yes, even with excessive spending and lots of personal debt in aggregate, the median household income in the US was over $67,500 in 2020, even in the midst of the Covid-19 economy.

And from 2019 to 2020, the poverty rate only went up 1%, and the median income only dropped 2.9%, so clearly the social safety net does a rather reasonable job overall, despite all the claims to the contrary.

https://www.census.gov/library/publicat ... le%20A%2D1).

For 2021, the HUD survey estimate for US median US household incomes is nearly $80,000, which seems to reflect a rather strong economy. (See chart on the last page, with the US being the last line).

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets ... ns2021.pdf

With the average person having meaningful net assets, and the average new car now having a transaction price (including loans, taxes, fees, etc) of over $42,250, the claims that US poverty is just rampant don't stand up.

At least NOT in terms of absolute poverty. Now, for relative poverty, yes, there's a big difference between the top and bottom quintile. But of course, the far left and much of the left generally, will never be happy until everyone has equal wealth, even if the lack of incentive makes everyone poor.