Peak oil economic impact

[Surlethe]

I'm interested in seeing several quantitative projections for how hard the US, and indeed, the world, economy will be hit by oil production peaking. I'd like actual numbers, not "the US imports 25 million bbl/day; that's 25% of world production; therefore, there will be a depression". Vague handwaving is all well and good, and it gives me an appropriate sense of doom-and-gloom, but there's enough handwaving on both sides to keep me in the middle for now: after all, as the price of oil increases, people will increasingly cut back on their use and gradually invest in substitutes, leaving little more than a hiccup in the US economy over oil peaking. See? No disaster anymore, thanks to the magic handwaving!

Facetious comments aside, there are two reasons for this request. I'm honestly unsure of how badly I expect the economy to be hit, and with a priori arguments and statements on both sides, I don't have any data on which to base my position. The closest I've seen and come is the Hirsch Report, and that glossed over the sort of details I'm looking for. Second, I want to do a similar analysis for the economic impacts of oil peaking on my hometown and, based on that, prepare an actual mitigation plan. If there's no hard data backing a mitigation plan, there's no way in hell it will go over.

So: if anyone could point me to a resource with an actual analysis of the economic effects of peak oil, or present such an analysis? I'm most interested, and my internet searching to date has been rather fruitless.

[Lord Zentei]

Keep in mind that if one group is claiming that there will be a catastrophic economic collapse, and the other claims there will not, one places the burden of proof on the former.

[Ariphaos]

It's difficult to say there will be one.

Economic means of recovering shale oil has been developed, the problem is it requires knowing half a decade in advance how much oil you're going to need, rather than just a few months as it is currently. That will certainly set some weird constraints on the economy, but "economic collapse" I'm rather skeptical about.

[aerius]

Keep in mind that if one group is claiming that there will be a catastrophic economic collapse, and the other claims there will not, one places the burden of proof on the former.

When every short-term temporary oil shortage in history has resulted in an economic downturn and panic in the markets, I'd say the burden of proof is on those who claim that the economy will come through relatively unscathed.

Going back to the OP, because of the human factor and the dumbassness of governments it's hard to predict how things will turn out. The only precedents we have are the oil embargos of the 70's, and those were short-term deals. I think the best we can do is look at what happened back then and try to extrapolate that into a long-term deal, after accounting for our much more debt-leaden and fragile economy. Best case would likely be the stagflation seen back then, except now it lasts for decades, worst case would be a total collapse complete with nukie nuckie.

[Coyote]

It is easy to envision on a personal level what will happen-- when gas hits, say, $5.00 a gallon... if paychecks keep up with that, then that means that there'll be so much money being pumped into the economy that we'll face inflation. Then there's the aggregate effect of what those high gas prices will do to the infrastructure required for farming, harvesting, and shipping food. So those prices will rise as well, and again, paychecks will or won't keep up.

If paychecks don't keep up, and as families divert more & more money to food & fuel, you'll see more immediate-reaction measures taken: carpooling, demand for busses, smaller cars being sold, people planting gardens, etc.

Eventually you'll reach a point where major, deep, long term changes will have to be mad ein our society; when people can just no longer afford to goto work because the amount of money they make at their job barely covers what they spend just to go to and from that job. Will we see gas-siphoning crime again, like in the 1970's? Will businesses spend the money on corporate vans to bus employees around-- even in place slike Los Angeles, where an employee may be 50+ miles away?

I suspect one of the reasons that there are not a lot of solid studies done is because the potential aggregate effects can be, potentially, so widespread and difficult to predict, and so many factors can be brought in that are, themselves, dependent on many other factors. Public perception of why the problem exists or what is being done about it can even be a deciding factor-- if people take it rationally, or believe that a solution of some sort is around the corner, they'll behave differently.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Keynesian economic systems rely on perpetual real growth to fuel their income. In a climate where net energy production is shrinking, demand destruction needs to become a reality, this is happening right now with the Third World who are being outbid for oil by the First and Second World. These ripples will affect industry with regards to us, as cheaper goods from such lesser powers become more expensive or fail to be delivered. When it hits the major Western economies, luxury spending will be hit. Then redundancies will happen in non-essential areas. Then major essential areas get hit. It goes downhill from there.

You cannot maintain the same economy size with dwindling energy content, ergo, the economy enters recession then contracts. Any proposed "cutting of fat" from the system is essentially cutting back on the economy and making people redundant and only when they cease to use resources do they help lessen the ratio of demand to supply.

In this atmosphere, depending on how bad the downward slope is (and it can be VERY bad given early indicators from major fields today), the capitalist free market economy collapses. One does not build anything of note when they have no economy. You do not distribute good and services, so no matter how much uranium is in the ground, reactors do not get built. Food rots in the fields and people move into anarchy as the cogs that keep society moving freeze. No one who proposes solutions ever seems to take into account that, without an economy, what you propose is pie-in-the-sky. It's happened before, it will happen again. Only this time at a global level and the US isn't going to shrug it off, if anything, it will get hit the hardest.

[Surlethe]

I pretty much understand the heuristic arguments. What I'm looking for is quantification: how inelastic is oil demand? If production falls 2% a year for the next decade, how will demand respond, and how will price levels fluctuate? How much inflation will occur? That sort of thing.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I pretty much understand the heuristic arguments. What I'm looking for is quantification: how inelastic is oil demand? If production falls 2% a year for the next decade, how will demand respond, and how will price levels fluctuate? How much inflation will occur? That sort of thing.

If I could really tell you that with any degree of certainty, I'd be a very rich man. What I can tell you, is that in the US right now, a 15% increase in gasoline price brings about only a 1% drop in demand. This is a far larger ratio than any time in the past, so you can imagine, for liquid fuel transport at least, how much higher you need to go to see any real demand destruction. The real question is when will physical shortages become the limiting factor, rather than price. That would be a problem hitting consumers long before price was really beyond anyone's reach, in the US in any case.

How the economies react depends on how traders play the market, helping fuel prices and direct supplies etc., and how much cushioning space the economy has e.g. how many sectors of industry can cutback without drastically harming the overall economy? Now, as I said, the first to be hit will be luxury items and services, so anyone in tourism is essentially out right off. Then long haul air travel will take a hit and cruises and so on. I'm assuming a couple percentage point annual drop here with the US economy still strong and winning oil off Chindia and the EU.

If the worst happens sooner rather than later, you can be looking at potentially losing 50% of your input within 5 years if the export-land model comes into play (which is very likely). Geological factors do not dictate how this game pans out, if it were so, then this would be much easier to predict. Sadly, humans have a tendency of milking their situation, and since the US isn't exactly the world's favourite superpower any more, oil may go to the Chinese rather than the US. That being the case, the US will at least see a far higher drop-off first before even China loses out to exporter nations hoarding oil to fuel their own economies.

Given the number of variables, you're looking at a steady drop off from the plateaux to a cliff within several years, if lucky. Before the cliff, the economy might contract a bit and seek to invest in alternatives. Once the cliff hits, that all means jack shit, because as we know, we should have started those plans in the '70s when economics wouldn't be biting us in the arse as well as physical shortages.

[tim31]

I know this is a numbers-discussion thread, but I couldn't help wondering, as we sit here, reading and writing about the potential collapse of our way of life... Were there Romans that sat in their forums, stating matter-of-factly that the good times were going to be over shortly but there was no way out?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Some of them, not all. The idea that the empire could collapse was seen as dubious at best, stupidly ignorant at worst. Rome cannot fall. Just as here, only different population size given this globalised world. It's not so obvious to the uninformed masses; I look around, I look around, and all I see are zombies living out a life that teeters on a knife edge financially.

It would've been far more obvious to the people of Easter Island. By the time they knew they were in trouble, all the trees had gone and even the dumbest village idiot accepted things weren't going to be made better by human ingenuity.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I know this is a numbers-discussion thread, but I couldn't help wondering, as we sit here, reading and writing about the potential collapse of our way of life... Were there Romans that sat in their forums, stating matter-of-factly that the good times were going to be over shortly but there was no way out?

Doubtful, barring those raped by the barbarians.

The Decline (If it does happen to anywhere near the degree it has the potential to) will be slow and gradual, oil won't triple in price this year even with a shit-storm in the summer, The US will not enter a no holds brawl with China this summer or the next, and people will be able to afford their Hummers for another year of 250meter commutes.

The decline will be a relatively gradual one, over decades (Though a Superpower war would mean a massive acceleration, obviously).

A pertinant example would be the men of Easter Island cutting down the last tree. The island went from full of forests to a barren rock, but the man who cut down the last tree did not see a forest destroyed, but merely the last of a dozen or so trees after decades of deforestation and reduced resources.

In other words, you won't notice it until its too late by which time you'll be relying on scrap books for you rweakening memory and "In the good ol' days" memory fudging.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Doubtful, barring those raped by the barbarians.

The Decline (If it does happen to anywhere near the degree it has the potential to) will be slow and gradual, oil won't triple in price this year even with a shit-storm in the summer, The US will not enter a no holds brawl with China this summer or the next, and people will be able to afford their Hummers for another year of 250meter commutes.

The decline will be a relatively gradual one, over decades (Though a Superpower war would mean a massive acceleration, obviously).

A pertinant example would be the men of Easter Island cutting down the last tree. The island went from full of forests to a barren rock, but the man who cut down the last tree did not see a forest destroyed, but merely the last of a dozen or so trees after decades of deforestation and reduced resources.

In other words, you won't notice it until its too late by which time you'll be relying on scrap books for you rweakening memory and "In the good ol' days" memory fudging.

And how did you figure that, when the same logic was applied to the UK and Mexican oil fields, which, in the UK at least, went from peak exports to net imports in seven years? This will not take decades even in the most optimistic scenario using only geological limits. "Above-ground" factors will ensure the plateaux ends with a steep ravine, if not a cliff. It is highly erroneous to apply the slow upwards curve we had getting to this point on to the other side of the slope. What we discuss here is how bad the US and therefore world economy falters, not how well it deals with it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It would've been far more obvious to the people of Easter Island. By the time they knew they were in trouble, all the trees had gone and even the dumbest village idiot accepted things weren't going to be made better by human ingenuity.

Odd minds think almost alike, Neh? .

The Easter Islanders deforested the trees over generations/long period, not as part of a single statue building spree, (I can get an exact source from "Guns, Germs & Steel" when I get back home in 2 weeks if necessary), they simply didn't notice the massive difference until it was both far too late and a far smaller (relatively) difference. (My father's day was a bit better, not "In my father's day men used the magic sticks for light! And had magic drops that cured men from the leg killing sickness! And had magic horses without heads").
Then again, I've seen you raise the latter as a possible worst case option, though with grandfather(s), with Great-Great Grandchildren (2090-2080) being the ones to have a modified society up and running....

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's my point. They obviously didn't get to the point where someone went "Oh, hey guys, what do we do now? I just lobbed the last tree down". They got to the point where they saw they couldn't sustain their society any longer even though they had resources still. Likewise, Rome didn't die because it ran out of water, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

And worst case? Worst case is here to 2015, total societal collapse globally, assuming we don't start a global war before then. Read up on how the '29 crash happened or Argentina a few years ago. Such things can turn ugly real fast, even with this calm before the storm. If we're smart, we ride a long bumpy slope down. I doubt it, mind. Human mindsets will make this far worse than it could be.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Doubtful, barring those raped by the barbarians.

The Decline (If it does happen to anywhere near the degree it has the potential to) will be slow and gradual, oil won't triple in price this year even with a shit-storm in the summer, The US will not enter a no holds brawl with China this summer or the next, and people will be able to afford their Hummers for another year of 250meter commutes.

The decline will be a relatively gradual one, over decades (Though a Superpower war would mean a massive acceleration, obviously).

A pertinant example would be the men of Easter Island cutting down the last tree. The island went from full of forests to a barren rock, but the man who cut down the last tree did not see a forest destroyed, but merely the last of a dozen or so trees after decades of deforestation and reduced resources.

In other words, you won't notice it until its too late by which time you'll be relying on scrap books for you rweakening memory and "In the good ol' days" memory fudging.

And how did you figure that, when the same logic was applied to the UK and Mexican oil fields, which, in the UK at least, went from peak exports to net imports in seven years?

Seven years =! 1-2 years. (The time in my examples).
Still, You're right in that my use of generation was erroneous, I was thinking more along the lines of a half generation (a man in his 20's going to his 30's - 10-15 years). Very poorly worded on my side, and indeed you're right in that its a fair bit slower than your thoughts on the situation, but by a multiple of 2-3 at worst, not an order of magnitude. (As might have seemed to be the proposed case).

Also, I wasn't aware of the timing on the UK oil fields, would you mind providing a source on the North sea fields? I thought that they'd run for rather longer than 7 years .

This will not take decades even in the most optimistic scenario using only geological limits.

A quick clarification, What will "not take decades" - The Economic decline effect? US growth going negative due to the impact? Private cars and electricity disappearing due to market forces? By law? Resource wars directly between the superpowers? etc'. (Sorry If I'm being a bit dense, its just that I tend to misread enough as is, so better safe than sorry ).

"Above-ground" factors will ensure the plateaux ends with a steep ravine, if not a cliff.

Increasing demand and non growing and eventually diminishing Supply, you mean? (by "Above-ground"), or Political factors (Resource wars?).

(By It is highly erroneous to apply the slow upwards curve we had getting to this point on to the other side of the slope.

Yeah, yeah - More people, oil economy, no increase in supply, Peak oil. Agreed in that way. I was using Easter island as an analogy that a gradual increase in oil prices will have slow effects (Up until the point when the trees are gone, and your public clamours for new war canoos).

What we discuss here is how bad the US and therefore world economy falters, not how well it deals with it.

What's the difference between dealing with the problem and being affected by its consequences?.

[SirNitram]

Economics is essentially the core of PO. The energy grid will take the hit and keep going, because oil is a pathetic amount of power generation. But the sudden cessation of goods transport by air and truck will be a sledgehammer following up on the implosion of the companies that have reaped the highest profits in recent years.

AV is right insofar that innovation and ingenuity can't get us out from the economy shitstorm building. We're going to see the USA kneecapped economically and flailing around desperately. The entire Middle East, with the slim possible exclusion of Iran, will simply implode and cease to be governed. The shockwaves will be the Great Depression Mk. 2, quite frankly.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Seven years =! 1-2 years. (The time in my examples).
Still, You're right in that my use of generation was erroneous, I was thinking more along the lines of a half generation (a man in his 20's going to his 30's - 10-15 years). Very poorly worded on my side, and indeed you're right in that its a fair bit slower than your thoughts on the situation, but by a multiple of 2-3 at worst, not an order of magnitude. (As might have seemed to be the proposed case).

I don't follow. So your idea of a long term slope is only a decade or two? Many would see that as a middle-ground to quick transition. It won't happen in a year or two by any stretch, short of Russia nuking Saudi.

Some optimists think we can carry on till near 2100 without any worry. They are the minority, that's for sure.

Also, I wasn't aware of the timing on the UK oil fields, would you mind providing a source on the North sea fields? I thought that they'd run for rather longer than 7 years .

Of course they've been around longer than that, they were opened by Maggie and are still used today. My point mentioned peak export and a return to net importing again.

A quick clarification, What will "not take decades" - The Economic decline effect? US growth going negative due to the impact? Private cars and electricity disappearing due to market forces? By law? Resource wars directly between the superpowers? etc'. (Sorry If I'm being a bit dense, its just that I tend to misread enough as is, so better safe than sorry ).

All of what you mentioned. The downward slope will not be anywhere near the upward and transition to a new way of life will neither be quick nor painless either, especially if it requires a whole new economic model and government.

Increasing demand and non growing and eventually diminishing Supply, you mean? (by "Above-ground"), or Political factors (Resource wars?).

Yes, and mainly the export-land model of hoarding, mercantilism and opportunist attacks on infrastructure. Things we see daily in Nigeria and Iraq, for example.

What's the difference between dealing with the problem and being affected by its consequences?.

Dealing with the problem assumes we can make a meaningful difference.

[Surlethe]

I pretty much understand the heuristic arguments. What I'm looking for is quantification: how inelastic is oil demand? If production falls 2% a year for the next decade, how will demand respond, and how will price levels fluctuate? How much inflation will occur? That sort of thing.

If I could really tell you that with any degree of certainty, I'd be a very rich man.

I'm not even looking for certainty; I'm just looking for a series of quantitative projections that run the gamut from optimistic to dire. I guess what I really want are arguments with numbers in them, the sort that when I'm talking to people about peak oil, I can say "... and here's how much" instead of "lots".

As I said, the handwave-arguments are compelling, but aren't as compelling as arguments structured with data. I don't want you to think that I'm rejecting the notion of a global depression, because I'm not; I just want to know how bad it'll plausibly be.

What I can tell you, is that in the US right now, a 15% increase in gasoline price brings about only a 1% drop in demand. This is a far larger ratio than any time in the past, so you can imagine, for liquid fuel transport at least, how much higher you need to go to see any real demand destruction.

Hmm. Do you have a source? The elasticity of gas demand is a very good starting place if I'm going to bumble my way through an economic analysis.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm not even looking for certainty; I'm just looking for a series of quantitative projections that run the gamut from optimistic to dire. I guess what I really want are arguments with numbers in them, the sort that when I'm talking to people about peak oil, I can say "... and here's how much" instead of "lots".

Have you tried bringing up the GAO or Hirsch reports? They tend to give an idea of how much investment would be needed just to lessen the impact, and they're rather conservative at that. I'll see if I can find some up-to-date reports on the impact, I would propose looking at the Olduvai Gorge (with figures here) work for now.

Hmm. Do you have a source? The elasticity of gas demand is a very good starting place if I'm going to bumble my way through an economic analysis.

Not without going through every weekly gasoline thread since February on another site archive, searches don't turn up anything related to this piece from what I've tried so far.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In 2000 the USA imported 25 quadrillion BTU. 5 quadrillion were from Canada; the rest from other parts of the globe--3 quadrillion were from Mexico, and they are falling fast.

Canada will continue to export to appease us, but peak oil will certainly mean the end of all other energy imports into the United States--even if the energy being imported is not oil, the countries in question will seek to preserve it to make up for the energy shortfalls in their economies from the loss of oil, rather than sell it overseas. This means we lose... 20 quadrillion BTU each year. That year we exported 4 quadrillion BTU out of 72 quadrillion BTU produced. Loss of oil production will presumably wipe out an equivalent to our export ability. That gives us 73 quadrillion BTU post-collapse based on 2000 figures (the real numbers will be higher since consumption and production have increased in the past 7 years and will continue to do so, but the ratios will remain the same). Our prior usage, however, would have been 93 quadrillion BTU.

That means that we will lose 21.5% of our energy production. Our GDP (PPP) in 2000 was 9.936 trillions USD; per capita, $36,200.00 If we assume that the loss is straightforward averaged out with energy being equivalent to economic production, per capita GDP would decline to about $29,000.00 in 2000 levels on strict economic levels alone.

This will NOT happen slowly, but rather overnight, because of the extreme inelasticity in oil demand; rather than the market gently preparing people for it through steadily rising prices and lowering demand, prices will keep going up, people will keep paying more, and the oil will keep coming in--until we run into physical shortages. Overnight the average person is going to, effectively, lose 1/5th of their worth.

Except it's worse than that, because the kind of energy being lost (oil energy) is the most relevant to the economy. About 3,000 BTU worth of oil (transportation) are used per 1 dollar of GDP, while the current average in the USA is 10,000 BTU per 1 dollar of GDP. What that means is that, even though we will only be losing 20% of energy at first, we will be losing probably somewhere on the order of 30% of our GDP because the energy we'll be losing will be that most critical to the transportation sector which underpins the whole of the economy.

One of the interesting results of this is that once the collapse has finished taking place over a period of several months, we're actually going to have surplus energy--electricity which won't be used because it was powering factories which can no longer have parts delivered to them, and so on, or Walmarts and McDonalds which are now closed down. That is going to be very, very important for recovery.

So essentially we're going to see a Great Panic scenario in which the economy virtually shuts down, and per capita GDP plunges from 36k equivalent down to 25k equivalent. The average person will effectively lose almost a third of their income and the value of their possessions.

Now we must consider economic shock. This means that the economy is, bluntly, going to collapse. The shock of all of this happening at once is simply going to destroy the economy in every way, shape, and form. Inflation will reach levels of that in the Weimar Republic, and fiat currency will be utterly worthless; the only money of any value will be krugerrands, and we'll have to revert back to the gold standard if we ever want a capitalist economy again.

Once this happens, fortunately, the government can institute command economy policies to start a major, all-out recovery. The good news here is that, in ratio to the above figures, we should have the equivalent of 9 quadrillion BTU in spare energy available--a portion of it being imports from Canada. It will, however, be less than half, as remember these are 2000 figures. The figures from 2010 will be much larger while our energy imports from Canada haven't increased that much. This energy will come from energy assets, as noted, freed up by the lack of transportation energy to keep them going.

However, if our needs for energy in building offsets exceed 9 quadrillion equivalent ratio BTU per year, or if imports from Canada decline, we'll need to take energy from somewhere else--and that means reducing the amount of energy available to the common people, and therefore the per capita GDP, even more. A temporary dip lasting about 5 years of the per capita GDP down to around half of what it was before the crash is scarcely impossible, though it will rebound rapidly as offsets come online. I'll guesstimate that it will stabilize after the initial round of offsets at 75% of pre-collapse. The downside is that the population will likely still be increasing, and that means the pace of implementing offsets will have to go even faster to deal with continued increased demand.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, note how my calculations are done--the important thing economically isn't about a loss of oil. We will still have oil for quite some time, even after the crash. The important thing is that the crash is going to be the result of energy shortages, and therefore, net energy exporters will be forced to cease to export, and economic devastation will hit net energy importers as a result.

Because of that, some countries will be really highly placed to survive the initial round with little consequence. One of them is France--net energy exporter and sixth largest agricultural products exporter in the world. The European Union, with Italy and Germany utterly dependent on French energy production and the situation there getting worse, and Britain facing mass starvation, is going to become the bitch of Paris, and Napoleon will be laughing in his tomb.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Another positive: Debt load will be wiped out by hyperinflation. Some people are going to get very, very rich by taking out massive loans on houses and equity loans for things like gold and so on right before the crash, when the signs are obvious to them and ignored by everyone else, and then letting their loans hyperinflate into nothingness, allowing them to pay them off. Since there will be no stable foreign currencies to tie the loans to instead of USD, since this will be a universal collapse, the banks will not be able to cope, and the entire loan system will simply collapse. Those people who are deeply in debt may well end up being able to pay off their debts with a ham sandwich, more or less literally, in terms of equivalent value.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I would recommend against gold standards here. There isn't enough gold in the world to back even a fraction of what the global economy now is worth, the reason such a standard was axed in the first place. Secondly, gold, as with any precious metal, is only precious if the people deem it is so. Since I imagine people won't be going to their local H. Samuels to buy 24 carat gold necklaces post-collapse when finding the next meal will be more of an issue, all that will be left is essential industry use, which isn't as large as the highly inflated value we give the metal because "It looks pretty". Property, however, will be valuable. You won't be selling it, but it will retain value even after a bubble like now disappears. They ain't making any more real estate.

With respect to economic recovery and excess power supply, the problems here would be dealing with the ageing infrastructure which in many areas of the US is critical. There are predicted blackouts in various states this year if a harsh summer/winter comes about, and when some have voiced wonder at how the lights are still on when some stretches are operating over 600% of capacity, I'd really try and keep back on trying to match what we use today so soon, especially after a period where no one will afford much to look after transmission lines and roads and so on. This is one of the major objections against massive nuclear and coal additions to the grid now, because we simply can't accommodate it without a near total overhaul of the system too.

I'm going to look for whatever studies have been done on the economic impacts, though these all rely on how bad the collapse is and how well people take it and gov'ts too. The psychological issue will be daunting alone, likely because even given historical lows in gasoline reserves this year, the markets seem to think all is well. Especially when BP, as it did today, announces we have 40 years of oil left (pick the errors out of that statement). Everything was moving swimmingly in October '29 until one afternoon when the whole house of cards came crashing down. Not many get to experience the fun of being a millionaire one minute and totally destitute the next.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gold, for whatever reason, has proved a remarkably stable valuable item, AV, throughout recorded human history, including in societies where, at best, 3% of the population would even see the stuff outside of currency at all in their entire life.

That said, a bimetallic standard may be necessary simply to cope with the sheer scale of the economy today, and a trimetallic standard including copper (which will be enormously valuable in this context) may recommend itself. Hellenistic Egypt operated a quite prosperous and stable economy on a trimetallic standard with extensive trade, and it may be possible to go back to that. It would effectively be a basket of precious and industrial metals to which the value of the paper currency that would actually be traded would be redeemable.

[Admiral Valdemar]

For the Britons, get The Independent today:



Fuckin' A! About time this happened, The Indy has had snippets on the topic in the past, now for a typical big frontpage splash of reality.

Maybe when I get it today along with the rag my parents read (The Daily Express), they'll consider what I've been trying to tell them for months to be somewhat based in real-life and more pressing than yet more coverage of Diana and her conspiracy in The Daily Excess.