snow hope wrote:to invade Iraq. For one reason, security of oil supply
On that point there was an interesting bit on Start the Week this morning about
The White House originally estimated the Iraq war would cost 50 billion dollars. However, in his new book, the Nobel Prize-winning economist JOSEPH STIGLITZ puts this figure at three trillion dollars and counting. He asks how the government could have underestimated the cost of the war so spectacularly and what price the US and the world is paying for this miscalculation. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, co-written with Linda Bilmes, is published by Allen Lane.
I think Stiglitz believes the reasons were a bit more complicated.
That $3tn has almost all been spent internally on US "high tech", stimulating one of the countries main industries and funding hundreds of thousands or even low millions of jobs. It's not as simple as saying the war cost $3tn. Much of that $3tn is still cycling around the US economy. What we need to look at is the opportunity cost of the war.
I'm thinking the US needed a war for domestic economic and industrial reasons as much as oil or foreign policy objective reasons.
I cannot give a critique of the analysis as it isn't published yet (and I am
probably not qualified )
But it does imply that Canada will cease to be a source of natural gas for energy production in 2014 - 6 years from now. That will also mean an end of most tar sands production until an alternative energy source is implemented.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Totally_Baffled wrote:RGR
I am interested on your view of something that gets me a bit worried from time to time. This is the "export land model" that they discuss on TOD.
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 02:48, edited 1 time in total.
Now you know why I was pleased to see you here. I had a feeling you'd get a better reception here than on LATOC (the only other PO forum I've frequented).
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 02:48, edited 1 time in total.
Please just look at this graph and tell me how it will have no impact on humanity, tell me the reasons price has increased almost continously over the past few years at a very high rate.
Peak oil is real. Zoombie hordes may not be here, but its real.
Last edited by RGR on 30 Jul 2011, 02:49, edited 1 time in total.
Totally_Baffled wrote:RGR
I am interested on your view of something that gets me a bit worried from time to time. This is the "export land model" that they discuss on TOD.
The export land model, much like most of the work done over there, is very interesting trendology.
Trendology involves substantial assumptions....change an assumption, and you change the result of the model.
The big assumption which is generally ignored by the export land model is the reaction to falling export revenue as a "one act pony" country loses the ability to do its "one act". As its ability to subsidize its own citizens decreases, the country is forced to react. Trendologists don't build that reaction into their models. They try and avoid the entry of economics into any model they build...which is why trendology doesn't tend to work in systems dictated, ruled and affected by economics. Ask yourself, if trendology works, why don't we just all predict the stock market tomorrow, become day traders, and become millionaires?
So you don't have any critique of the actual theory then? Other than to lable it as a prediction?
I also see that you are an economist. Interesting.
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
a) That peak oil will never be reached.
b) That it will reach us, but our lives will not change at all.
c) That our lives will change but we will simply see a gradual change to our way of life not a total collapse into anarchy.
d) That peak oil will reach us and our society will collapse.
Because I think most of us would regard c) as the most likely outcome. There are also a good many of us that believe (I for one) that the common man, and the media will never catch onto peak oil as a concept. The effects of society will be discussed in purely economic terms, and goverments will be blamed rather than geology.
I think we have some agreement here, but I find it hard to get over the language and mostly argumentative nature of your posts. I don't find that they hang together with any particular picture of what you think the future might hold. Mostly they just seem reactionary, and rather than enlightening us with your knowledge, it seems you are happier to criticise and damn others for their thinking rather than proposing alternative more logical and appealing arguments. I hope that this is simply a phase on joining the PS forum, and that you get it together to find a more positive contribution, because it would seem that you have alot of knowledge and probably have alot to contribute!
Jim
For every complex problem, there is a simple answer, and it's wrong.
"Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i).
Totally_Baffled wrote:RGR
I am interested on your view of something that gets me a bit worried from time to time. This is the "export land model" that they discuss on TOD.
The big assumption which is generally ignored by the export land model is the reaction to falling export revenue as a "one act pony" country loses the ability to do its "one act". As its ability to subsidize its own citizens decreases, the country is forced to react.
Hi RGR.
Regarding the ELM, taking Saudi as an example, the subsidies ordinary folk get there are already declining. Unemployment and radicalism are on the increase in a very unequal society. The 'reaction' to that could be anything but increased production. Other countries might feel they have more leverage and disrupt commercial arrangements, eg Venezuela, Russia, which could reduce production levels while new arrangements are made. There could be a general trend to hold back production to ramp up the price still further, and make the finite reserves last longer. None of those political factors bode well for rising exports, nver mind the geological constraints? Whatever, even if we're all agreed that we're past C&C peak, (not so sure yet, maybe give it ten years in the rear-viiew mirror) surely oil import dependency is a huge issue for the OECD countries?
1855 Advertisement for Kier's Rock Oil -
"Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory."
The Future's so Bright, I gotta wear Night Vision Goggles...
SunnyJim wrote:...but I find it hard to get over the language and mostly argumentative nature of your posts.
It sounds like RGR is arguing against a strawman "doomer" position that doesn't really exist here. Peak oil doesn't begin and end at LATOC or Peakoil.com.
RGR, have you been to any of the ASPO conferences?
)
