First boomer applies for Social Security

[Illuminatus Primus]

Anywho, I agree with all that. The challenge of the next century is establishing a metastable sustainable civilization, and begin squeezing enough surplus to guarantee us a future.

[SirNitram]

You virtually declared the OP obsolescent with your last comment? What gives? Maybe others would like to discuss the bigger picture.

Is this to me?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, you just said that thanks to the big picture, anything that will be done or even talked about WRT SS will be pointless.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So in short life like that enjoyed by the lower middle class, of, say, the 1980s, will remain viable for the majority of people

Majority of which people, I'm sorry? A tiny fraction of the world's population can afford that lifestyle, often at the expense of some coin-cheap labour by the billions of those who cannot afford it. :? I suspect many will be losing things far more precious than "lower-middle class life" in the coming decline of the industrial civilization.

This is about American Social Security, so guess which country I'm talking about, just possibly?

[SirNitram]

Yeah, you just said that thanks to the big picture, anything that will be done or even talked about WRT SS will be pointless.

Your lack of quoting makes it difficult to establish two things:

1) Who you're addressing.
2) Which parts you're taking issue with.

If it's the '100 year limit', you can do math, Primus. 2041 is not a hundred years away. I'm merely pointing out that it is neither News nor Politics to discuss potentials for 120-500 years in the future.

If it's the 'Big economic shitstorm coming', that's a strawman. I simply said we should move in a sensible progression. Because any of the long-term fixs(Adjusting retirement age, removing the cap) will meet enough resistance that it's tilting at windmills when we have things just as hard or harder that will hit harder, sooner. I never said it was 'pointless'. I just said it should be dealt with, say, after the present crises are dealt with.

Crises. I'm not even sure that's a valid plural.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is.

Unfortunately for them, I think both Duchess and I foresee an unfortunate depopulation and deindustrialization across the Global South. Africa is going to be a dead hole, one way or another. I'm sure there'll still be a Russia, Stas. There'll always be a Russia.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's so utterly retarded and ignorant it defies description. Central governments have existed since this guy called Sargon the Great started knocking off Sumerian city-states in the 24th century BCE. There were enough surpluses to run Empires then, there will be enough surpluses to run Empires now. Just not enough for you to retire at 62 and spend your "golden years" playing golf and shuffleboard.

You do realise that, the empires you are talking about are far smaller than America?

And where did I say that Central Governments cannot exist? There will always be cities banding together to form some federation of sorts, which is pretty much what is happening now for the most part. The only difference is that when resources are scarce and trade more limited, each city will be forced to be more self-sufficient than before. Extravagances like Los Angeles might even cease to exist.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's so utterly retarded and ignorant it defies description. Central governments have existed since this guy called Sargon the Great started knocking off Sumerian city-states in the 24th century BCE. There were enough surpluses to run Empires then, there will be enough surpluses to run Empires now. Just not enough for you to retire at 62 and spend your "golden years" playing golf and shuffleboard.

You do realise that, the empires you are talking about are far smaller than America?

And where did I say that Central Governments cannot exist? There will always be cities banding together to form some federation of sorts, which is pretty much what is happening now for the most part. The only difference is that when resources are scarce and trade more limited, each city will be forced to be more self-sufficient than before. Extravagances like Los Angeles might even cease to exist.

You are simply wrong. In less industrialized countries, cities are deathtraps which only exist due to the inflow of people and goods from the rural areas, which will become vastly more important following peak oil, not less important. Cities will be even less self-sufficient than they are now, and rural/agrarian politics will again become a major force, as it was in the 19th century.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm sure there'll still be a Russia, Stas. There'll always be a Russia.

Russia is the Second World, we're more or less industrialized. I hope we'll cope.

[Mayabird]

I'm quite sure that one of these days, the term "Baby Boomer" will be said only as a term of disgust, followed by the speaker spitting in contempt.

That being said, I have little doubt the entire pyramid scheme will collapse. Afterwards...well, how much did the boomers save for their retirement, anyway? I'm guessing on average it's somewhere between jack and shit.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's actually probably a negative net amount of savings, considering the amount of non-governmental (i.e. consumer and other) debt that the United States picked up since the 1950s.

[Nephtys]

My brain utterly hurts at the amount of doomsdayism in this thread. Since when the hell is 'social security will fail in X years, unless you either increase revenue or decrease payouts' at all relevant to 'Cities will become deathtraps' and 'It is the end of a 150 year era of western progression'?

[DarkSilver]

My brain utterly hurts at the amount of doomsdayism in this thread. Since when the hell is 'social security will fail in X years, unless you either increase revenue or decrease payouts' at all relevant to 'Cities will become deathtraps' and 'It is the end of a 150 year era of western progression'?

About the same time Peak Oil and Global Warming entered the thread.

Seems you can't talk about much with future impact now a days on the board without those two topics being thrown into the hate and everything going all semi-apocolyptic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No one ever said cities will become death traps, just that they weren't self-sufficient and in the past they sucked. Anyway, oil production will have long since peaked by 2040, and World Bank economists have estimated that CC could cost 20% of global GDP growth in the next 50 years.

Therefore, even the 2040 insolvency of the SS system is based on projections of economic growth based on the past which is not sustainable and imprudent. Simply put, one way or another, we do everything right, everything goes wrong, irregardless world - thus U.S. - economies will slow or stop growing and therefore these projections are way off.

Economics is not set in a vacuum. One must account for fundamentals. Shit, if you map the last year over the next 18 months, we'll be at $200/barrel by early-mid 2009. Some analysts are predicting $100/barrel by New Years Day, 2008. What do you think that'll do to the economy just right now?

I'm not Valdemar. I'm not saying FUCK SS, THE WORLD IS DYING TOMORROW. But the growth projections that SS figures are based on are unrealistic by extension according to economists for the World Bank because of CC, and the effects of peaking and declining oil and natural gas production are already becoming manifest. Its unavoidable when talking about social services and economic features of 2040. How could one discuss them while discounting these facts of civilization and be intellectually honest, praytell?

[Illuminatus Primus]

But please, be my guest, snip from the rooftops and don't refute or say anything of importance but dime-a-dozen opinion bullshit. Don't like the heat: get out of the kitchen.

[Admiral Valdemar]

$100 oil by New Year's? I'd put money on it next week from what we're seeing.

All of these factors are bad on their own, but when combined they produce a not-too-insignificant problem to deal with.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm trying to be rational and patient. Though this recent brand of "heehee I'll just style-criticize from the rooftops because I don't like what they're saying!" bullshit from this little crowd (probably wishful thinking closet cornucopians), definitely gets you to want to take out the flamethrower. They NEVER offer factual support for an argument, hell they never offer an actual argument. Just whine like bitches.

[Kanastrous]

Russia is the Second World, we're more or less industrialized. I hope we'll cope.

You'll cope, somehow.

Russia is Rasputin, on a vast scale. No amount of poisoning, beatings, shootings, stabbings, or vicious kicks-in-the-head seem to do much more than slow you down. And there isn't a river big enough to throw you in, to drown.

In the long run, I bet Russia will do just fine.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm trying to be rational and patient. Though this recent brand of "heehee I'll just style-criticize from the rooftops because I don't like what they're saying!" bullshit from this little crowd (probably wishful thinking closet cornucopians), definitely gets you to want to take out the flamethrower. They NEVER offer factual support for an argument, hell they never offer an actual argument. Just whine like bitches.

If you have cable or satellite, make sure to block CNBC or Bloomberg. You can't help but wonder how otherwise intelligent people spew such bullshit without thinking they must be jumping through mental hoops trying to square their bad feelings with their job to tell us all to carry on.

[Illuminatus Primus]

My economist friend and I had a good laugh about oil price analysis on CNBC the other day, and the traders who said it just must be speculation, not market fundamentals (like insurmountable peaking and declining in supply). Three words for them: Outside. Context. Problem. They just can't square it away with their worldview, its just totally beyond their control.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

My economist friend and I had a good laugh about oil price analysis on CNBC the other day, and the traders who said it just must be speculation, not market fundamentals (like insurmountable peaking and declining in supply). Three words for them: Outside. Context. Problem. They just can't square it away with their worldview, its just totally beyond their control.

Do these people ever look at the big picture, or just focus on the price and indulge in frantic handwaving?

[K. A. Pital]

Do these people ever look at the big picture, or just focus on the price and indulge in frantic handwaving?

No. I had a discussion with a funds analytic for a bank here in Russia just recently. When being told that foods are being made scarce by biofuel processing, he replied "that is good". I asked what is good about it. He said "it lowers the fuels price for consumers. Thus that is in our interest". I asked what about the food crisis. He said "increased demand for food will lead to increased production". Then I asked how it will increase in the light of agricultural lands being finite, and oil is running out so that biofuels will chop off more and more foods lands. He re-iterated the same, but for oil - "increased demand will lead to increased oil production, give stimuli for oil businesses to raise production".

I guess he does not understand scarcity at all. If I want to pay more money, that will create energy out of thin air!

[Kanastrous]

Possibly he's thinking of the short-term measures, like increased exploitation of oil sands, and more high-pressure recovery methods from existing oil strata.

You know, flogging the horse along for a couple more meters before it finally drops in its tracks.

[Natorgator]

My economist friend and I had a good laugh about oil price analysis on CNBC the other day, and the traders who said it just must be speculation, not market fundamentals (like insurmountable peaking and declining in supply). Three words for them: Outside. Context. Problem. They just can't square it away with their worldview, its just totally beyond their control.

All doomsday theories aside, there is actually political situations going on that are raising the price in the short term.

CNN Money

Oil spikes, just shy of $90
Turkey's decision to OK military action in Iraq sends U.S. crude as high as $89.00 a barrel, despite surprise growth in inventories.
October 17 2007: 12:26 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices hit a fresh intraday high Wednesday - despite the government's report showing surprising inventory growth - after Turkey authorized military action in Iraq.

Light, sweet crude for November delivery rose 89 cents to $88.50 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, eclipsing Tuesday's record trading high of $88.20; the price rose as high as $89.00 before retreating. On Tuesday, oil prices closed at an all time high of $87.61.

Just after the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration inventory report earlier in the session, oil prices fell as low as $87.09 before rebounding.

Despite the surprise increase in inventories, tensions between Turkey and Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq continued to support higher crude prices.

The Turkish parliament voted 507 to 19 Wednesday to authorize its military to stage an incursion into Iraq to take on Kurdish rebels.

Conflict along the Turkey-Iraq border could disrupt oil supplies coming out of the region and drive crude prices even higher, according to Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Alaron Trading in Chicago.

Meanwhile, an explosion at a small Exxon Mobil Corp. (Charts, Fortune 500) refinery in Montana exacerbated the already growing concerns about the adequacy of fuel supplies.

There were no immediate details about damage from the early morning explosion at Exxon Mobil's Billings refinery, or its effect on production. The plant can process 60,000 barrels of oil per day. That's a small amount, but news of the explosion lifted oil prices.

Despite the recent gains in crude prices, when adjusted for inflation, oil is still slightly cheaper than the $95 a barrel or so it would have been in the early 1980s.

The debate behind $80 oil

In its weekly inventory report, the EIA said crude supplies rose by 1.8 million barrels during the week ended Oct. 12. Analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had predicted that inventories increased last week by 1 million barrels.

Refinery activity fell last week by 0.5 percentage point to 87.3 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected refinery utilization to grow by 0.4 percentage point.

Gasoline inventories increased by 2.8 million barrels last week, while supplies of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose by 1 million barrels. Analysts had expected gasoline inventories to grow by 1 million barrels, and distillate supplies to fall by 400,000 barrels.

"Even though the inventories were bearish, if you look at the big picture inventories are still not where we would want to see them," Flynn said. "In every major category the supplies are below where they were a year ago, which has raised some concerns."

Why $80 oil won't mean $3 gas

At the pump, gas prices rose about 2 cents overnight to a national average of $2.78 a gallon for regular-grade gasoline, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Despite rising crude prices, retail gas prices are still down significantly from a May 24 peak of $3.23 per gallon. But eventually, higher crude prices will result in higher prices at the pump, Flynn said.

"Consumers have to be prepared for the worst," he added.

Personally, I'd rather gas go up to $3 or more and stay that way so maybe people will start getting the picture.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Who cares about the last week? What was it in January? Between 60 and 50? The Kurdistan thing became big news only in the last week or so, irregardless the trend seems to be a price doubling in a year, and production still hasn't caught back up to 2005-2006 heights.