The inexorable march of Oil prices: $145/bbl +.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

A long time ago, Shep tried to get me titled. One of the reasons he used was that I'd claimed that a military takeover of America could take place.

Well, take a look at these poll figures.
It’s hard to inspire confidence these days. A recent poll shows many Americans don’t put much faith in most of our public institutions.

For the past 35 years, Gallup has asked Americans: “How much confidence do you, yourself, have in each of the following American institutions: a great deal or quite a lot?”

At the top of this year’s list is the military, with a combined thumbs-up rating from 71 percent of poll respondents. Small business and the police are next, with 60 and 58 percent, respectively.

That’s it for institutions more than half of Americans believe are worthy of trust.

Newspapers are in the bottom half of the list, something we’re not happy to see, since we believe we do a pretty good job of providing accurate information.

In fact, the institution of the presidency — currently held by a very unpopular chief executive — gets a better rating than newspapers. So do the Supreme Court, banks and public schools.

But below our profession is a somber list including organized labor, the criminal justice system and, at the bottom, Congress.

Congress, in fact, gets the trust of just 12 percent of the American people, the lowest number Gallup has ever recorded. More people trust HMOs and big business more than Congress.

What’s wrong here?

Congress has a long history of unpopularity as a group — “What’s the opposite of progress?” is a joke almost as old as our republic — but something is seriously wrong when the federal representatives we have the most power to elect or send home are less popular than the current president.

From failure to enact anything resembling an energy policy to failure to reform the nation’s health care system to failure to address the coming Social Security train wreck in any substantive way, Congress — whether it’s controlled by Democrats or Republicans — has spent most of a generation paying far more attention to its own power and privilege than to matters that really matter.

It’s a tribute to this country’s private sector that the country is as strong as it is, even in an economic downturn, but our political class needs work.

There could be a lot of turnover in Congress this year — as many as 100 seats by some estimates. We hope voters have the wisdom to pick new representatives with the backbone required to tackle the giant job of restoring at least some public trust in our government’s most public branch.

12% of Americans (and, by the full poll figures, which I don't have a link to right now, they were in a nearby town's newspaper) trust Congress, 26% trust the Presidency, 30% trust the Supreme Court--

--And 71% trust the military. 58% trust the police.

If things do get very serious in the United States, is it that wrong to consider that it will be seen as a systemic failure of the existing political institutions, and the only body viewed to have power and capability--the military--that is still largely trusted, will be asked to set things right?

This may be rather hypothetical in the extreme, but it's rather fascinating to consider. Perceived large-scale constitutional violations on the part of a government trying to avert a crisis may well simply precipitate the fall of the government and constitution into military rule.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Broomstick wrote:Why do I open these threads? Gloom... doom... doom... gloom...

Every time I read this shit I wish I had expanded the garden to fill the entire backyard and could somehow better insulate my current living quarters. I don't the the US will starve but things could get VERY unpleasant. I can't save the world, but I would like to save my family.

Um, yeah, the Third World could erupt pretty badly. Let's get real -we could get ugly riots and violence in the First World, too, if things get bad enough. Large groups of people tend to get pissy about freezing to death in the winter.

On the morbidly up side - a massive die-off of humanity will go a long way to solving many of our current problems. It's just that trying to live through a die-off is absolute hell.
There have already been violent protests over food and energy in Europe, Asia, South and Central America over the last seven months. I don't see this kind of behaviour going away so long as the people feel the pinch.

Marina's point bears some thinking about too. The military have been quite vocal in not hitting Iran in the US to the point of quashing Cheney's little rebellion to try and get Tehran reprimanded by force. If anything, the military is showing more rational restraint than the politicos who are trying to either further their own agendas or are too stupidly short sighted as to see something like a strike against Iran being the catalyst for a global meltdown.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

That's because the military know that in an attack on Iran or a "global meltdown" THEY will be the ones to actually bleed (as well as the civilians) whereas the politicians like to imagine themselves safely insulated from such personal harm.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Post by Kanastrous »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Perceived large-scale constitutional violations on the part of a government trying to avert a crisis may well simply precipitate the fall of the government and constitution into military rule.
I wonder if the military would be willing to assume that role.

Something I keep hearing come up in conversations with military personnel (usually officers more than enlisted people) is an almost aggressive insistence on maintaining apoliticality (apoliticalness?) Not just face-to-face, but even in documentaries like Carrier and the usual History Channel stuff, distancing themselves from politics appears to be an institutional policy.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Enforcer Talen
Warlock
Posts: 10285
Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by Enforcer Talen »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
12% of Americans (and, by the full poll figures, which I don't have a link to right now, they were in a nearby town's newspaper) trust Congress, 26% trust the Presidency, 30% trust the Supreme Court--

--And 71% trust the military. 58% trust the police.

If things do get very serious in the United States, is it that wrong to consider that it will be seen as a systemic failure of the existing political institutions, and the only body viewed to have power and capability--the military--that is still largely trusted, will be asked to set things right?

This may be rather hypothetical in the extreme, but it's rather fascinating to consider. Perceived large-scale constitutional violations on the part of a government trying to avert a crisis may well simply precipitate the fall of the government and constitution into military rule.
Tossing my two cents in - the Pentagon has been doing a lot of activities abroad formerly part of the State Department. Whether it be disasters, or foriegn aid, or whatever, the Pentagon is becoming the primary actor for our face abroad. This trend is visible domestically as well, with the National Guard units doing a better showing then FEMA.

Of additional interest is the increased police powers (Patriot Act, extraordinary rendition, NSA wiretapping, John Warner Defense Act, Military Comissions Act) and the acclimitization of paramilitary police. Its hard to tell a SWAT team that fights narcotics and a Marine Squad doing a knock in Fallujah apart. You can even get really fun with it, and say the checkpoint system has begun, ala Washington DC.

I will quite cheerfully bet my last dime this trend is going to continue. Even if we dont get a military junta (which is long odds in my mind; we are too used to the managed democracy of a President and submissive congress), I can picture a presidency with military policy being the primary method. One could look to the proposed regime of Smedly Butler in the 1930s for an example of this.
Image
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6
DOOMer WoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Post by Broomstick »

Kanastrous wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Perceived large-scale constitutional violations on the part of a government trying to avert a crisis may well simply precipitate the fall of the government and constitution into military rule.
I wonder if the military would be willing to assume that role.

Something I keep hearing come up in conversations with military personnel (usually officers more than enlisted people) is an almost aggressive insistence on maintaining apoliticality (apoliticalness?) Not just face-to-face, but even in documentaries like Carrier and the usual History Channel stuff, distancing themselves from politics appears to be an institutional policy.
In the US the military does not swear allegiance to the President or Congress, the soldiers and sailors swear allegiance to the Constitution. I wonder how much of an impact that distinction could make? I could, perhaps, envision extreme circumstances where one of the highest government officials might be forcibly removed from office but I find it hard to imagine the military entirely overturning the present system of government as outlined in the constitution. I find it far more likely that someone might be removed from office and replaced following established lines of succession.

Of course, many things are possible while being highly improbable. The US has faced crisis before without discarding the foundational document of the government.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Raptor
Youngling
Posts: 60
Joined: 2008-06-10 12:15am

Post by Raptor »

What I'm just trying to say, is that estimated reserves are just that. Estimated. The big major oil fields have all gone under differnet estimations of oil reserves over time, due to more research, more mining etc. While is very doubtful that any of the smaller untapped/under mined fields are anywhere near as big, the estimations could be very differnent. Its just not known. The bell curve is enveitable over time in any case, all we can try to work out is time scale/ I think perhaps the main problem is that over previous decades increase in oil production has been done pretty much in tandem with industrial progress. But in the last few years with, China and India expanding so quick its not supply in general that is short just the production capacity for it. A massive increasing in mining and refining might be needed. But along with any effective alternatives all this takes time either way, and money lots of it. The price will stay high, and probably get higher.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Raptor wrote:What I'm just trying to say, is that estimated reserves are just that. Estimated. The big major oil fields have all gone under differnet estimations of oil reserves over time, due to more research, more mining etc. While is very doubtful that any of the smaller untapped/under mined fields are anywhere near as big, the estimations could be very differnent. Its just not known.
You seem to be making a black-and-white fallacy: that being unable to determine with complete precision the reserves means we don't know how much oil is in the ground. In fact, the reserve estimate for a given field is actually a probability distribution which attaches to each possible amount of oil a measure of the confidence that it actually is there. It's simply false to say that we just don't know.
The bell curve is enveitable over time in any case, all we can try to work out is time scale/
Hubbert's key insight in the 1950s was that the production curve is just the discovery curve moved to the right by a constant. This gives us all sorts of neat tricks to predict the time scale, all of which point to a peak between 2005 and 2015.
I think perhaps the main problem is that over previous decades increase in oil production has been done pretty much in tandem with industrial progress. But in the last few years with, China and India expanding so quick its not supply in general that is short just the production capacity for it. A massive increasing in mining and refining might be needed. But along with any effective alternatives all this takes time either way, and money lots of it. The price will stay high, and probably get higher.
I agree, in part. There is a refinery shortage -- US refineries are aging, and running at near 90% capacity all the time. But at the same time, oil pumping itself is stagnant; the product supply issues are not chiefly caused by a bottleneck in the refining system. If they were, we would expect to see petroleum stockpiles shooting up; they're not, at least in the US. Also, ask yourself why the oil companies haven't invested in new refineries over the past fifteen years. The answer should be obvious: peaking production makes new refineries a poor investment when they can maintain the ones they have.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
Raptor
Youngling
Posts: 60
Joined: 2008-06-10 12:15am

Post by Raptor »

The thing is oil isn't running out (anytime soon short to medium term anyway) and the pumps aren't running dry. I haven't heard of any petrol stations or any refineries running out of oil. There doesn't seem to me anyway of an oil shortage. Factories anywhere, cars or powerstations aren't stopping due to no fuel. It seems the price has nothing to do with supply of oil, as how much there is or left as the massive rises have been only what 2 years or less. The main factor is fear and worry controlling the price rather than how much oil/now much is left/can we refine enough for demand/how much demand. The fear seems to be there isn't enough oil, demand doesn't match supply right or wrong so price goes up.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Raptor wrote:The thing is oil isn't running out (anytime soon short to medium term anyway) and the pumps aren't running dry. I haven't heard of any petrol stations or any refineries running out of oil.
What are you smoking and where can I get it? Have you not watched the news in, oh, the last six months? There are documented riots over fuel prices and consistent issues with refinement of crude to the point that China's thirst has caused a global shortage of diesel. Refineries cannot refine what oil they get because it is heavy sour and so pretty much useless to them. There are also plenty of US based stations suffering spot shortages consistently, usually in the mid-west and Australia and Asia have seen similar problems.
There doesn't seem to me anyway of an oil shortage. Factories anywhere, cars or powerstations aren't stopping due to no fuel.
You better go and tell the Chinese, Pakistanis and most of Africa and South East Asia that then. I'm sure they're making things up about rationing supplies and having to cut subsidies in order to remain competitive for what crude is on the market.
It seems the price has nothing to do with supply of oil, as how much there is or left as the massive rises have been only what 2 years or less. The main factor is fear and worry controlling the price rather than how much oil/now much is left/can we refine enough for demand/how much demand. The fear seems to be there isn't enough oil, demand doesn't match supply right or wrong so price goes up.
Please tell me what has changed since last year then. It's not Iran, it's not Iraq, it's not Israel and we already know speculators aren't to blame. So please tell me where a 50% premium appeared from in six months. I'd love to know. I just kind of figure it fits more with the sudden drop in global world exports (to be more accurate, light sweet peaking in 2005) which has been happening since the end of last year, frankly, and rising demand.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Raptor wrote:The thing is oil isn't running out (anytime soon short to medium term anyway) and the pumps aren't running dry.
No, they aren't. The problem is that there is a gap between demand and supply, which is drivin gup prices.
I haven't heard of any petrol stations or any refineries running out of oil. There doesn't seem to me anyway of an oil shortage. Factories anywhere, cars or powerstations aren't stopping due to no fuel.
You haven't seen any because the shortage is currently in the third world, who have been bid out of the market by first-world nations. That's the whole point of a free market: prices rise until the market is exactly cleared by triaging based on ability to pay.
It seems the price has nothing to do with supply of oil, as how much there is or left as the massive rises have been only what 2 years or less.
You're missing the point. The price has everything to do with the production of oil, not how much is in the ground.
The main factor is fear and worry controlling the price rather than how much oil/now much is left/can we refine enough for demand/how much demand. The fear seems to be there isn't enough oil, demand doesn't match supply right or wrong so price goes up.
That's part of it, but the chief problem is, as we're pointing out, the growing gap between the number of barrels people want and the number of barrels available to sell.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
Raptor
Youngling
Posts: 60
Joined: 2008-06-10 12:15am

Post by Raptor »

Is this just a refining problem then? Or are we really in/or entering the shit. I ain't trying to be stupid (I maybe, but not trying). I just I ain't sure whats going on.
I read in the Times the weekend, that Gazprom said the price could rise to $250 per barrel next year, and $500 in 3-5 years. Isn't that not only cause global collapse, but finish off the oil industry, as if now as mentioned here, of third world countries being priced out now, won't this price out, everyone. I don't think anyone will be able to buy oil at this price. Would this cause the oil price itself to collapse, as none will be able to buy it.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Raptor wrote:Is this just a refining problem then? Or are we really in/or entering the shit. I ain't trying to be stupid (I maybe, but not trying). I just I ain't sure whats going on.
I read in the Times the weekend, that Gazprom said the price could rise to $250 per barrel next year, and $500 in 3-5 years. Isn't that not only cause global collapse, but finish off the oil industry, as if now as mentioned here, of third world countries being priced out now, won't this price out, everyone. I don't think anyone will be able to buy oil at this price. Would this cause the oil price itself to collapse, as none will be able to buy it.
It is a mixture of several problems, and don't worry, you're not alone in trying to figure out this clusterfuck. Refineries are usually geared to use light sweet crude as a feedstock, that is, the low-sulphur and less viscous oil we get out of the ground. With the light sweet types peaking back in the summer of 2005, the new oil coming on-stream since then has all been heavy gunk that no one wants, because no one can use it (least, not without spending billions upgrading refineries, which they'd never repay the loans on given peak).

As if that wasn't enough to start a bidding war, we also have demand going up in Chindia and the exporters themselves are using more of their own product because of the windfall profits they make from the increasing prices down to the lack of decent crude available. Couple this with a falling dollar, some speculation and the "fear" premiums attached to sabre rattling regarding Iran or issues with Nigerian production, and you have one major pain for the globalised economy.

The basic salient points are:
  • - We're out of easy oil

    - The majority of oil coming on to the market now is lower in energy content and costs more, both financially and energetically, to extract

    - Demand is still rising unabated globally, even if the US and other OECD nations show some destruction in driving patterns

    - Exports are falling thanks to increased demand in exporting nations

    - The global geological decline rate is currently -5.2% and accelerating
Last edited by Admiral Valdemar on 2008-07-07 04:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Raptor wrote:Is this just a refining problem then? Or are we really in/or entering the shit. I ain't trying to be stupid (I maybe, but not trying). I just I ain't sure whats going on.
Any refining problems that exist are simply compounding the supply crunch. Because US crude inventories are average-to-low, though, I'm inclined to think that there is no refining problem at all, at least in the US.
I read in the Times the weekend, that Gazprom said the price could rise to $250 per barrel next year, and $500 in 3-5 years. Isn't that not only cause global collapse, but finish off the oil industry, as if now as mentioned here, of third world countries being priced out now, won't this price out, everyone. I don't think anyone will be able to buy oil at this price. Would this cause the oil price itself to collapse, as none will be able to buy it.
No. The whole point of a free market here is that market forces adjust the price of oil so that all of the available oil sells (if the price too high, there will be a surplus). Thus, all the available oil will be sold. However, it will be sold to the highest bidders. Right now, that means first world nations. Soon, that will mean rich people and governments of first world nations.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

As demand for oil increases, supply has to go with it. Supply means more oil fields and pumping it out at a greater rate. The bad thing is we've already hit peak oil, which is the point at which supply cannot increase any further because we've already tapped into all accessible reserves. Doesn't mean we've run out of oil; there's still much of it left. We just can't pump it out any faster.

Meanwhile demand from countries like China and India keeps increasing, so you can see how getting oil will be more expensive.
What's her bust size!?

It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

EDIT: To restate my last point, and kind of tack this on to what Shinova said: At this point, the price is increasing fast because considerably more people want oil than can have it. So, somehow, the people who are going to get it have to be chosen. Because it's a free market, the people who offer the most money will get the oil; everyone else loses.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Which is why anyone who thinks the free markets will solve this is a raging idiot. It will solve nothing, and the G-8 currently fiddling while Rome burns is a woefully depressing sight. These people know of the problem, yet they do nothing.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Which is why anyone who thinks the free markets will solve this is a raging idiot. It will solve nothing, and the G-8 currently fiddling while Rome burns is a woefully depressing sight. These people know of the problem, yet they do nothing.
I beg to differ. Free markets will almost certainly eventually solve this. However, they will solve it by making society pay the costs of changing infrastructure as quickly as possible while removing (to put it cloyly) demand from the bottom up.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Surlethe wrote: I beg to differ. Free markets will almost certainly eventually solve this. However, they will solve it by making society pay the costs of changing infrastructure as quickly as possible while removing (to put it cloyly) demand from the bottom up.
Killing millions and putting more in total poverty. That's not really my definition of a solution. I mean something that will not fuck the people over so badly, but the time for that kind of leadership is passed, I should think.

Not that any leader in the last thirty years has shown any such integrity or initiative.
User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12270
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm

Post by Surlethe »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Surlethe wrote: I beg to differ. Free markets will almost certainly eventually solve this. However, they will solve it by making society pay the costs of changing infrastructure as quickly as possible while removing (to put it cloyly) demand from the bottom up.
Killing millions and putting more in total poverty. That's not really my definition of a solution. I mean something that will not fuck the people over so badly, but the time for that kind of leadership is passed, I should think.
I agree. It's a solution in the sense that it preserves the human race and civilization and makes the problem go away, but it's not a humane solution. Right now, any decent leader recognizes that we are almost past the prevention stage and entering the mitigation stage: how can we use government resources to preserve minimum living standards and work toward a workable solution? If we put off leadership

The kicker is that if we'd been proactive about it, triage and mitigation wouldn't be problems and we'd be living happily. But now that we are entering the oil contraction, keeping the solution humane will probably prolong the depression: money spent on keeping the vast impoverished masses alive and useful to society is money not invested into the infrastructure reconstruction.
Not that any leader in the last thirty years has shown any such integrity or initiative.
Damn shame, isn't it? That's the problem with having an effective plutocracy.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Surlethe wrote: I agree. It's a solution in the sense that it preserves the human race and civilization and makes the problem go away, but it's not a humane solution. Right now, any decent leader recognizes that we are almost past the prevention stage and entering the mitigation stage: how can we use government resources to preserve minimum living standards and work toward a workable solution? If we put off leadership
Survival of the fittest, I do believe. We used to think that only happened to Third World shitholes.
The kicker is that if we'd been proactive about it, triage and mitigation wouldn't be problems and we'd be living happily. But now that we are entering the oil contraction, keeping the solution humane will probably prolong the depression: money spent on keeping the vast impoverished masses alive and useful to society is money not invested into the infrastructure reconstruction.
These questions and more were looked at with rigour in the '70s. If we hadn't found Prudhoe Bay or the North Sea, we'd likely have addressed all these issues long ago and led more frugal lives, rather than spend our inheritance on toys and the stock market or property, which breathed some life into the doomed economic model we have now.

This problem has always been totally avoidable. It's actually a piece of piss to solve, the problem was it would mean less riches and materialism in the world and more focus on sustainability and steady state economies, which the current growth model abhors. Sorry guys, but we need to fuck the people and planet over to make our Xmas bonuses.
Damn shame, isn't it? That's the problem with having an effective plutocracy.
That said, there have been some instances of genius. Chirac started a plan to electrify ALL the SNCF by 2026 and make intercity and intracity connections via rail too. This system is well on its way and is definitely helped by the French love for nuclear, something the rest of the chickenshit OECD nations have avoided since '86, if not before.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Well, even if 500 USD/bbl oil is here in 5 years, that shouldn't push gas higher than $15.00/gal at the most in the Untied States, and more likely around $10.00/gal, as I think the oil companies can continue soaking the price of oil increases (as they're currently doing) without passing it on to consumers (the price of gas should be HIGHER right now, to keep in ratio with the price increases in oil!) for a while longer before they reach the point where their profits are so small they have to start raising the price of gasoline at equal pace with the increases in the price of oil.

So, if gasoline in the USA costs $10.00/gal in 5 - 6 years, don't be surprised at all. By the way, that price is never coming down.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Well, Charles Hall's papers say that a 20% of GDP energy cost is pretty much where the economy falls apart and down comes the government and all. I don't think you're going to see $500 oil with the damage we're only just seeing now with $100 oil finally getting into the system, to say nothing of $140.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Well, Charles Hall's papers say that a 20% of GDP energy cost is pretty much where the economy falls apart and down comes the government and all. I don't think you're going to see $500 oil with the damage we're only just seeing now with $100 oil finally getting into the system, to say nothing of $140.
Well, it'll probably cause a permanent depression, but hardly social collapse. If anything, the reverse--social controls will become stronger (but based progressively more on force rather than on laws). That's one development that seems clear in civilizations--the massive amounts of fiscal resources expended on social control through a bureaucracy may be fragile to economic collapse, but the level of an economy required for political power that's exercised through the barrel of the gun is much cheaper. This is why third world countries have governments, of course--they're governments because they can kill anyone who opposes them. So it's more proper to say that modern, bureaucratic government would collapse at greater than 20% of the GDP in energy costs, and the governments that coalesce in the aftermath will be ones that rule by the gun.

Notice this doesn't necessarily imply totalitarianism. Just that the modern bureaucratic structure will be untenable and the continued existence of the government will instead be based on their ability to shoot people. In a first world society, it will probably remain unnecessary to do so for quite some time--everyone will find the government worth having, and will not complain about it when it risks the actual use of that force.

We're going to see most of the developing world slip into warlordism before we have military dictatorships in Western Europe and America, however.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

For reference, by the way, the GDP cost of energy in the US circa 1973 was around 4%. It is now around 14%.
Post Reply