[onlooker]

And given the damage done to the oil patch as a result of those enabling high oil prices that have now disappeared how many years, maybe even a decade+, before the next 0.9% is added to future new reserves? IMHO sounds like some rather slim hope for even such very small gains.

Rockman, we are on the same page on this. My thinking exactly. Seems the anti-doomers here can't get their heads around it. I've sure got a lot of guff trying to explain why this is so.

Yes it seems now we are producing in fits and starts but the costs of production to the entire economy are far outweighing the benefits derived from a given amount of present/future oil particularly given the nature of a now weak economy. Wasn't the author Tanner who said that once societies become complex to a certain degree the costs of maintaining that complexity begin to outweigh the benefits.

[ennui2]

Peak Oil is a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis that purports to predict how oil resources are depleted. It was proposed by a Phd earth scientist and published in scientific journals.

The social and economic knock on effects of peak oil are not peak oil. Rock man has proposed the term peak oil dynamic POD for these related consequences

For once I stand by Planty. The warping of the term into an "economic crisis" is purely a marketing effort to make peak-oil feel relevant to joe-sixpack.

[MonteQuest]

Peak Oil is a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis that purports to predict how oil resources are depleted. It was proposed by a Phd earth scientist and published in scientific journals.

And therefore, it is an energy crisis and not an economic crisis?

[MonteQuest]

For once I stand by Planty. The warping of the term into an "economic crisis" is purely a marketing effort to make peak-oil feel relevant to joe-sixpack.

The peaking of oil production will result in the end of economic growth. To say it isn't going to result in an economic crisis is to ignore it already has, well before the actual peak.

If it's not an economic crisis, then what kind of crisis is it?

Global warming is a well defined hypothesis too, but it is still a economic crisis.

BTW, I have been calling it that for 11 years on this site. Not a new "warp", as you call it.

[onlooker]

Peak Oil is a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis that purports to predict how oil resources are depleted. It was proposed by a Phd earth scientist and published in scientific journals.

The social and economic knock on effects of peak oil are not peak oil. Rock man has proposed the term peak oil dynamic POD for these related consequences

For once I stand by Planty. The warping of the term into an "economic crisis" is purely a marketing effort to make peak-oil feel relevant to joe-sixpack.

Here is a standard definition of peak oil: Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of crude oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of extraction is expected to begin to decline… forever. As for relevant to Joe-sixpack, how can it not be given that fact of the primacy of Oil as an energy source in the US economy. Both you guys are trying to use semantics to raise a bogus issue. If a hurricane were coming and people were told so, would people argue exactly what or what is not a hurricane. NO. That is because it is understood that they are dangerous weather systems. Same with peak oil it is inseparable from POD, or else why would anyone even care about it.

[davep]

It's not an economic crisis as such. Peak oil has economic knock-on effects because the current debt-based money system requires growth to stand still. That isn't fixed in stone though; it has just become the current global paradigm and will have to change when FFs become more expensive as we bump down off the plateau.

The problem is that there are powerful interests behind the economic status quo.

[MonteQuest]

It's not an economic crisis as such. Peak oil has economic knock-on effects because the current debt-based money system requires growth to stand still.

Then it is better labeled a "monetary crisis." Although that is what I meant.

[davep]

Just clarifying the relationship. I've been banging on about the details of the current money creation system on other threads if you fancy it.

[MonteQuest]

Just clarifying the relationship. I've been banging on about the details of the current money creation system on other threads if you fancy it.

So have I. Pops doesn't believe economic growth is required in a debt-based monetary system that involves interest. By definition, such a system requires it.

[davep]

Just clarifying the relationship. I've been banging on about the details of the current money creation system on other threads if you fancy it.

So have I. Pops doesn't believe economic growth is required in a debt-based monetary system that involves interest. By definition, such a system requires it.

I've tried and failed to convince him on that front too. An equity/sovereign-based currency is essential IMO. It also creates a huge buffer of circulating equity relative to money creation meaning the actual money-creation process is more or less insignificant (unlike the current system where money is destroyed when a loan is paid back, and banks massively restrict loans and hence the money supply whenever they get nervous).

[MonteQuest]

I've tried and failed to convince him on that front too. An equity/sovereign-based currency is essential IMO. It also creates a huge buffer of circulating equity relative to money creation meaning the actual money-creation process is more or less insignificant (unlike the current system where money is destroyed when a loan is paid back, and banks massively restrict loans and hence the money supply whenever they get nervous).

I think the issue is rather straight forward. When growth becomes difficult, then impossible, debt defaults will occur, shrinking the money supply. The FED can't lower interest rates to spur loan creation as they are at zero. They are left with monetizing the debt. But the debt has no value, as it can't be repaid. How will money get into the system to replace the defaults and principle pay backs? Spend it into existence? What will back it up? Bonds that are worthless? Money, in the form of FRN's becomes worthless to anyone who has them, in a bank or under a mattress. Debt-based money ends almost overnight.

[Cog]

I hope you aren't a gold bug. They took a bath. Much to the consternation of the doomer crowd.

[MonteQuest]

I hope you aren't a gold bug. They took a bath. Much to the consternation of the doomer crowd.

Small bottles of airplane liquor, cigarettes, and Bic lighters! Invest now!

[onlooker]

Yes the debt based monetary system is becoming more untenable day by day. If you have time Monte you should check out the ideas that Dave as put forth from what already has been studied by some in regards to the asset/sovereign based system that is fundamentally different than this debt based system. Both Dave, I and I am sure a few others would be interested in hearing your opinion about this seminal monetary system that would certainly be much better than what we have now.

[ralfy]

From what I know, peak oil is not a scientific hypothesis but a fact, based on physical limitations of oil and gravity.

[onlooker]

From what I know, peak oil is not a scientific hypothesis but a fact, based on physical limitations of oil and gravity.

Very true

[MonteQuest]

If you have time Monte you should check out the ideas that Dave as put forth from what already has been studied by some in regards to the asset/sovereign based system that is fundamentally different than this debt based system. Both Dave, I and I am sure a few others would be interested in hearing your opinion about this seminal monetary system that would certainly be much better than what we have now.

What thread is that?

[onlooker]

post1269233.html?hilit=%20equity#p1269233
Also, see this from the Chicago based plan:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p12202.pdf
I will summarize here four basic points about the equity/sovereign based plan:
First, preventing banks from creating their own funds during credit booms, and then destroying these funds during subsequent contractions, would allow for a much better control of credit cycles, which were perceived to be the major source of business cycle fluctuations.

Second, 100% reserve backing would completely eliminate bank runs.

Third, allowing the government to issue money directly at zero interest, rather than borrowing that same money from banks at interest, would lead to a reduction in the interest burden on government finances and to a dramatic reduction of (net) government debt, given that irredeemable government-issued money represents equity in the commonwealth rather than debt.

Fourth, given that money creation would no longer require the simultaneous creation of mostly private debts on bank balance sheets, the economy could see a dramatic reduction not only of government debt but also of private debt levels

[Tanada]

Clearly my initial estimate was too pessimistic, however I now think it is likely we will fall off by 2020. What say yea?

[vtsnowedin]

Clearly my initial estimate was too pessimistic, however I now think it is likely we will fall off by 2020. What say yea?

The amount of oil that will be produced in Iraq, Iran, and Russia is a question that non of us have decent answers to. If all three step up production they may push the edge of the cliff back a few years.