[Quinny]

So Incorrect - do you even read the links you post - first page of your first link clearly states that there has been a lack of consideration of resource constraint in 20th century economic thinking.

Sometimes you really do seem short on sense.

Ignoring resource constraints is a problem of all economic schools of thought. Having said that Marx did actually attempt to analyse resource constraints to it to a certain extent, something that I missed initially.

Your initial statement is incorrect, and not just because of Marx. People write and teach from entire books on this topic, let alone the peer reviewed science journals. More schooling, less peaker dogma.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... ts&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1914132

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... ts&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2296369

[Xenophobe]

So what significant schools of economics were started in the last quarter of the 20th century?

For starters, obviously, the recognition of resource depletion as something taught in every economics textbook so new and starry eyed economists don't ignore the obvious!

[Quinny]

For starters - never heard of that?

[Xenophobe]

For starters - never heard of that?

See...I provide the quotes where the economists themselves figured it out, and within a page of posting, you have forgotten already!

More critical thinking! And better memory skills! Less peak oil dogma!

[Quinny]

I asked a simple question. Can't you give a simple answer?

For starters - never heard of that?

See...I provide the quotes where the economists themselves figured it out, and within a page of posting, you have forgotten already!

More critical thinking! And better memory skills! Less peak oil dogma!

[Xenophobe]

I asked a simple question. Can't you give a simple answer?

I thought I had? Have you forgotten it already? Here is the original Quinny statement.

"Ignoring resource constraints is a problem of all economic schools of thought. Having said that Marx did actually attempt to analyse resource constraints to it to a certain extent, something that I missed initially."

Here was the quote from the reference.

"The wheel has now turned full circle, in the last quarter of the 20th century no general text on economics will be complete without a reference to resource depletion."

The only people ignoring anything are peakers ignoring the fact that economists recognize resource constraints, demand that they be incorporated in textbooks for some years now, write peer reviewed research on the topic, and when it is pointed out to them they pretend they don't see it!

What is so difficult about your question? Obviously others than Marx have recognized, and incorporated, resource depletion into economics.

More critical thinking! Less peak oil dogma!

[Quinny]

There's a hell of a difference between "referencing resource depletion" or "recognising resource constraints" and it being an integrated part of an economic school/doctrine whatever you call it. Anyone can "recognise them" how they should be treated from an economic POV is a much more difficult question to answer.

I asked a simple question. Can't you give a simple answer?

I thought I had? Have you forgotten it already? Here is the original Quinny statement.

"Ignoring resource constraints is a problem of all economic schools of thought. Having said that Marx did actually attempt to analyse resource constraints to it to a certain extent, something that I missed initially."

Here was the quote from the reference.

"The wheel has now turned full circle, in the last quarter of the 20th century no general text on economics will be complete without a reference to resource depletion."

The only people ignoring anything are peakers ignoring the fact that economists recognize resource constraints, demand that they be incorporated in textbooks for some years now, write peer reviewed research on the topic, and when it is pointed out to them they pretend they don't see it!

What is so difficult about your question? Obviously others than Marx have recognized, and incorporated, resource depletion into economics.

More critical thinking! Less peak oil dogma!

[Keith_McClary]

I asked a simple question. Can't you give a simple answer?

Try asking a deliberately obtuse, pedantic question. Maybe you will get a simple answer.

EDIT: X reminds me of Monty Python's "Argument" skit with "abuse" replaced by "deliberately obtuse pedantry".

[Xenophobe]

There's a hell of a difference between "referencing resource depletion" or "recognising resource constraints" and it being an integrated part of an economic school/doctrine whatever you call it.

Oh. So...it isn't enough to teach budding economists about resource depletion? So...now the criteria is..there has to be an entire subscience of economics named something? Like maybe "resource depletion" IS an subset of standard economic theory dealing with these issues? Wiki certainly seems to think so.

"Resource depletion is an economic term referring to the exhaustion of raw materials within a region. Resources are commonly divided between renewable resources and non-renewable resources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_depletion

So now that it has a name, and is within the appropriate science, does it count?

[sparky]

@ lore
"they believe that open markets have always produced solutions to problems."

Yes indeed , but they never said that the solutions were good , they are a simple reactive adjustments

the market provided solution to the post WW2 devastation in Germany ,
the price of a woman affection was a pack of cigarettes
It was an improvement on concentration camp values ,
there the price of survival was robbing some worst off of his bowl of soup

Economics can be a pretty bleak science , a nobel prize economist studied the mechanics of famine
he concluded that famine was not caused by a lack of food but by a lack of purchasing power
since he was an Hindu who had lived through the great Bengal famine , one can give him credit for realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen

Mao tse tung said ( little red book page 25 )
" those who read the links will get wise , those who don't just like to heard themselves speak "

[Keith_McClary]

Economics can be a pretty bleak science

The "dismal science", but I would put the quotes on "science" - I don't think economics satisfies the definition of "science"
.

[sparky]

.
an economist joke
Economist are the guys who like Jessica Alba for her money

It's as much a science as psychology or meteorology

[Pops]

Yes indeed , but they never said that the solutions were good...

Yes that is a very good point - the point, actually.

Peakers put down economics, or at least the economists usually quoted here, because they imply the solutions will always be better: equal or better utility at equal or lesser cost. Conservation (or starvation) is sometimes mentioned, but much more often the economic argument relies on some new type of energy on the supply side to balance the equation.

Peakers, pro and con, are hung up on supply side economics because supply is a macro problem whereas altering demand requires a personal effort.

[dissident]

I am personally hung up by the fact that a lot of economists (that have a media presence) are essentially resource constraint denialists. People talk about solutions, but the existence of the problem is being attacked by what amounts to a propaganda campaign where economists and other sorts of pundits are the foot soldiers. It is hard to get the masses to change their behaviour when there is an overwhelming media-created consensus to maintain the status quo.

It is clear that "peak oilers" are not the zealots defending a faith. The zealots are many economists who produce truly inane drivel to smear any that would question the BAU dogma. For example Prof. Mark J. Perry's pearl of wisdom

[sparky]

.
It's a common problem with any group
I was hunting once with others , there was a large pack of dogs baying like mad
an old guy told me they were useless , following each others tails and making a loud racket
on the side there was this lone one which was following his nose , he got the right track

There is always a large majority who upheld a convenient mainstream ,
they get juicy scraps throw at them for their conformity to "consensus "
then there is free spirits who keep their brains still working post graduation
they often enough are mad or right .

[shortonoil]

Keith McClary quotes:

A lot of peak oil analysis leaves economists cold. After all, production levels are in part a result of production choices, and in markets production is driven in part by costs and prices. The popular Hubbert’s Curve approach to modeling peak oil ignores all of this. Here is a quote from a recent analysis by James L. Smith:

[Hubbert's model] is problematic for economists since the volume (and timing) of ultimate recovery presumably depends upon price — which in turn depends upon demand, interest rates, and the cost of production — none of which are incorporated here. There is no assurance in Hubbert’s model that the projected rates of future production will actually clear the market. Although the prediction is simple, it is not credible due to neglect of these fundamental economic factors.

Smith also notes that “Empirical tests of [Hubbert-style analysis] … failed badly in predicting the peak, which reinforces economists’ theoretical objections to the underlying method.”

If Economics was a science, Mr.Smith's statement would be tanamount to an acknowledgment of a paradigm in crisis. He states that since the Hubbert's Curve approach breaks the rules of economics by ignoring price and cost (the theological blood of its discipline) that its production projections can therefore not be viewed as credible. This is an accusation that he makes in spite of the fact that his Economics has not presented a varifiable substitute for the Hubbert projections. He expects us to believe that the rules regarding "his" paradigm are the only ones that can possibly be valid.

He compounds his caustic accusations by saying that Hubbert's predictions "failed badly in predicting the peak". Within the scope of Hubbert's prediction (the Continental US fields) it was astoundingly accurate. We must conclude that Mr. Smith's attack on the "Peak Oilers" has more characteristics of a thirteen century witch hunt than it does an intellectual criticism. More probably it is just the last gasp of a dying paradigm - his.

As depletion brings us ever closer to the end of the oil age and the integrated global economic system continues to break down, Economics will be faced with the ongoing anomalous behavior of its most cherished, but invalidated paradigms. Without an acceptable substitute to adequately explain the proliferation of unintended consequences resulting from their applied economic policies, inquisitors like Mr. Smith will be forced to resort to a last ditched effort to restore their credibility. It is not surprising to see them apply a time honored tradition after receiving bad news - that is; "shoot the messenger"!