Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[fifthcolumn]

Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and
designed failure (think fridge door shelves). Hook you in on upgrading, and sting you for replacement parts if you don't. You can do degrees in this stuff. Building a product that you will never upgrade and will never fail is a sure fire way to go out of business these days.

Have you stopped to think why that might be though Jim?
I'll answer for you:
It's the same reason that the system is screwed up in the first place: paper money backed by nothing but false promises.
With the ability the central banks have to print money up out of thin air, they lend it on creating massive inflation. People use that new money to buy stuff they don't need. Business flourishes due to extra demand and competition means that they are forced to try to lock in customers.
Without the artificial boost to the economy by the bogus printed money there would be far fewer companies and there would be more room for quality products.

I don't mean in the manufacturing process, I mean when the product is dumped after only a couple of years of use. I can't find a figure for the percentage of natural commodites that find their way from source (nature) to landfill within a year, but it's scary man.

OK well I'll agree with this, but again that's not the fault of the manufacturers. That's the fault of the consumers themselves.
I read on this site someone posted a piece of press released showing we throw out 5 million uneaten apples every single day. That's disgusting.

Not what I'm saying at all. Just pointing out that it's not perfect. I'm not proposing anything else. Don't stick someone elses agenda onto me man!!!! Chill! Where did I say we should 'get rid of the market'? Man alive. It's an evolved system, its not perfect. It's not the shiney perfect god like thing that people like to make out. It has faults.

Damn. So you're not saying what it sounds like you're saying?
OK then, I will put my knives back into my trench coat.
In any event, I agree with you. There are some things wrong with the system we have and it has evolved into an unpleasant state.
I guess my biggest difference is that I think most of our problems are caused by collusion between government and the banks coupled with too much government interference in people's lives and it sounds to me like what people are arguing for as a "solution" is MORE government interference and blanket taxation of everybody else who is perceived to be better off than they are.

In actual fact I am willing to wager significant sums that that's exactly what the people of britain want and what they will get.

And those who are truly responsible will get even richer because our stupid populace don't even know how it is they are being ripped off and are finger pointing at the wrong people.

[Susukino]

Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and designed failure (think fridge door shelves). Hook you in on upgrading, and sting you for replacement parts if you don't.

This is all personal choice. Either you reduce, reuse and recycle or you don't. I see the problem essentially as one caused by consumers, not suppliers. I am pretty sure that my mother's little Toyota diesel car will last for a couple of hundred thousand miles. The strength of the engine and the anti-corrosion treatment suggests that it will just go and go. Compared to the cars we drove in the Sixties and Seventies a modern vehicle is incredibly tough and durable.

My mum kept her previous car for 11 years and is going to drive this one until its wheels fall off. But look how many people change their car every three or four years! In economic terms it makes absolutely no sense at all to sell your car until the cost of servicing becomes more onerous than the cost of buying a new one. The point where servicing costs exceed the financial impact of depreciation in the first 3 years after purchase is probably going to be 8 or 10 or even 12 years out but instead owners are part-exchanging their motors in 3 or 4 years, taking the biggest hit on depreciation in so doing. I don't know why this happens. Maybe they do it to keep up with the Joneses. Maybe they do it because they put a low priority on saving.

And to be honest, when I consider this issue I don't see a problem with the auto manufacturer, which as far as I can see has created an inexpensive, sturdy and economical vehicle. I see a problem with car owners who are superficial, greedy and wasteful. And this is the consumer item that for most people is the most expensive one they will ever buy!

I don't see built-in obsolescence as a problem. People can make up their own minds but time and time again we see the average consumer pissing away money without thought or reflection, even going into debt to do so. They have a choice. They are not coerced into buying new cars or indeed any other products. The problem lies with them or - because none of us are saints and all of us here make poor consumption choices sometimes - perhaps I should say "us". And for this we blame the suppliers?

Of course, it's easier to lay everything at the door of Big Business or the government than criticise the man in the street for runaway consumption, especially when the man in the street is a category that includes your wife, your brother in law, the guys at work and so on. But they're the problem. For as long as they continue to buy, suppliers will fall over each other to sell.

Suss

[SunnyJim]

Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and designed failure (think fridge door shelves). Hook you in on upgrading, and sting you for replacement parts if you don't.

This is all personal choice. Either you reduce, reuse and recycle or you don't. I see the problem essentially as one caused by consumers, not suppliers. I am pretty sure that my mother's little Toyota diesel car will last for a couple of hundred thousand miles. The strength of the engine and the anti-corrosion treatment suggests that it will just go and go. Compared to the cars we drove in the Sixties and Seventies a modern vehicle is incredibly tough and durable.

My mum kept her previous car for 11 years and is going to drive this one until its wheels fall off. But look how many people change their car every three or four years! In economic terms it makes absolutely no sense at all to sell your car until the cost of servicing becomes more onerous than the cost of buying a new one. The point where servicing costs exceed the financial impact of depreciation in the first 3 years after purchase is probably going to be 8 or 10 or even 12 years out but instead owners are part-exchanging their motors in 3 or 4 years, taking the biggest hit on depreciation in so doing. I don't know why this happens. Maybe they do it to keep up with the Joneses. Maybe they do it because they put a low priority on saving.

And to be honest, when I consider this issue I don't see a problem with the auto manufacturer, which as far as I can see has created an inexpensive, sturdy and economical vehicle. I see a problem with car owners who are superficial, greedy and wasteful. And this is the consumer item that for most people is the most expensive one they will ever buy!

I don't see built-in obsolescence as a problem. People can make up their own minds but time and time again we see the average consumer pissing away money without thought or reflection, even going into debt to do so. They have a choice. They are not coerced into buying new cars or indeed any other products. The problem lies with them or - because none of us are saints and all of us here make poor consumption choices sometimes - perhaps I should say "us". And for this we blame the suppliers?

Of course, it's easier to lay everything at the door of Big Business or the government than criticise the man in the street for runaway consumption, especially when the man in the street is a category that includes your wife, your brother in law, the guys at work and so on. But they're the problem. For as long as they continue to buy, suppliers will fall over each other to sell.

Suss

Again, where did I say this was the suppliers fault??? Jeezus. You don't think you're being a bit evangelical here??? What exactly is the agenda you think I have???

[fifthcolumn]

Again, where did I say this was the suppliers fault??? Jeezus. You don't think you're being a bit evangelical here??? What exactly is the agenda you think I have???

Jim. Chill, mate.
Nobody is attacking you personally. This is a board and some of us like to rant a bit.
My interpretation of some of the things you have posted is that I would disagree. But disagreement just means asking for more information.

If I have misunderstood what you are saying, point it out.

I'm also happy if you decide you can't be bothered explaining, I'm personally having a rant anyway, you just unfortunately I think got in the cross hairs.

My apologies if I got you all riled up.

[SunnyJim]

Have you stopped to think why that might be though Jim?

Of course I have. No need to insult me man!!!

I'll answer for you:
It's the same reason that the system is screwed up in the first place: paper money backed by nothing but false promises.
With the ability the central banks have to print money up out of thin air, they lend it on creating massive inflation. People use that new money to buy stuff they don't need. Business flourishes due to extra demand and competition means that they are forced to try to lock in customers.
Without the artificial boost to the economy by the bogus printed money there would be far fewer companies and there would be more room for quality products.

I agree with you. Do a search back for my financial based posts and you will find that is the very same conclusion that I have come to. The need for growth of the money system necessitates waste. Advertising, marketing, media, everything is urging us to strive for more and more. I'm there man. I'm on message. I get the picture.

OK well I'll agree with this, but again that's not the fault of the manufacturers. That's the fault of the consumers themselves.
I read on this site someone posted a piece of press released showing we throw out 5 million uneaten apples every single day. That's disgusting.

I never said it was the fault of the manufactures. Just an observation of what we have. No value comment made! You pinned that view on me. I never stated it.

Damn. So you're not saying what it sounds like you're saying?
OK then, I will put my knives back into my trench coat.
In any event, I agree with you. There are some things wrong with the system we have and it has evolved into an unpleasant state.
I guess my biggest difference is that I think most of our problems are caused by collusion between government and the banks coupled with too much government interference in people's lives and it sounds to me like what people are arguing for as a "solution" is MORE government interference and blanket taxation of everybody else who is perceived to be better off than they are.

In actual fact I am willing to wager significant sums that that's exactly what the people of britain want and what they will get.

And those who are truly responsible will get even richer because our stupid populace don't even know how it is they are being ripped off and are finger pointing at the wrong people.

You give the goverment far more credit for the way things are than I do then. The real puppeteers are super-rich bankers and business tycoons in my book. Goverment are just dancing to their tune same as us. They are given a certain amount of leeway, but really just act as a tax collection facility. The banking system is simply a numbers game with odds stacked against the common man. The system privitises gain and socialises losses. e.g. the current banking crisis. Engineered to make maximum profit for bankers (not bank's shareholders), and to pass on the losses to the unwary holding pension funds, share funds, bank shares etc etc.

[Susukino]

Again, where did I say an alternative would be better?
I don't understand this defence of the markets I really don't! Point out a couple of criticisms of the 'market' and you're likely to find yourself tarred as communist and flailed in public!!!!

Come on Jim don't be disingenuous. If you make strong implied criticisms of the market then people are going to assume you're anti-market. Fight your corner like a man!

Incidentally I explicitly said that the markets are not perfect. However, they are the best thing we have - so far. I don't have any problems with people criticising markets because I see their shortcomings myself. But neither do I have any problems savaging incendiary assertions (markets are there to keep the rich people rich, you said?) without supplying reasoned supporting arguments. That's secondary school stuff. We don't need it.

Suss

[SunnyJim]

Again, where did I say an alternative would be better?
I don't understand this defence of the markets I really don't! Point out a couple of criticisms of the 'market' and you're likely to find yourself tarred as communist and flailed in public!!!!

Come on Jim don't be disingenuous. If you make strong implied criticisms of the market then people are going to assume you're anti-market. Fight your corner like a man!

Incidentally I explicitly said that the markets are not perfect. However, they are the best thing we have - so far. I don't have any problems with people criticising markets because I see their shortcomings myself. But neither do I have any problems savaging incendiary assertions (markets are there to keep the rich people rich, you said?) without supplying reasoned supporting arguments. That's secondary school stuff. We don't need it.

Suss

No, I said "the market ensures that all things find their way to the rich". That's true. You have to have money to buy stuff. The whole idea behind demand destruction is that prices rise and rise until on the richest can afford a thing in high demand. You know, that's what the market is? Why is saying that seen to be an attack on the market? It just is! We're here and it's now. We have what we have. How is saying that secondary school stuff?

[emordnilap]

This is all personal choice. Either you reduce, reuse and recycle or you don't. I see the problem essentially as one caused by consumers, not suppliers. I am pretty sure that my mother's little Toyota diesel car will last for a couple of hundred thousand miles. The strength of the engine and the anti-corrosion treatment suggests that it will just go and go. Compared to the cars we drove in the Sixties and Seventies a modern vehicle is incredibly tough and durable.

My mum kept her previous car for 11 years and is going to drive this one until its wheels fall off. But look how many people change their car every three or four years! In economic terms it makes absolutely no sense at all to sell your car until the cost of servicing becomes more onerous than the cost of buying a new one. The point where servicing costs exceed the financial impact of depreciation in the first 3 years after purchase is probably going to be 8 or 10 or even 12 years out but instead owners are part-exchanging their motors in 3 or 4 years, taking the biggest hit on depreciation in so doing. I don't know why this happens. Maybe they do it to keep up with the Joneses. Maybe they do it because they put a low priority on saving.

And to be honest, when I consider this issue I don't see a problem with the auto manufacturer, which as far as I can see has created an inexpensive, sturdy and economical vehicle. I see a problem with car owners who are superficial, greedy and wasteful. And this is the consumer item that for most people is the most expensive one they will ever buy!

I don't see built-in obsolescence as a problem. People can make up their own minds but time and time again we see the average consumer pissing away money without thought or reflection, even going into debt to do so. They have a choice. They are not coerced into buying new cars or indeed any other products. The problem lies with them or - because none of us are saints and all of us here make poor consumption choices sometimes - perhaps I should say "us". And for this we blame the suppliers?

Of course, it's easier to lay everything at the door of Big Business or the government than criticise the man in the street for runaway consumption, especially when the man in the street is a category that includes your wife, your brother in law, the guys at work and so on. But they're the problem. For as long as they continue to buy, suppliers will fall over each other to sell.

Suss

Yeah. But, but, but: spin, lies and advertising.

The fact that consumers are gullible enough to fall for it every time does not excuse the manufacturers, even though their mendacity is to a degree understandable.

My neighbour is perfectly intelligent and clear thinking but she buys (as an example) cheap washing machines and has had three in the last ten years. I've suggested better makes but she doesn't think she should fork out more than she does.

We bought one extremely good one which I expect will last twenty-five years, if the last good one (second hand and gave us nineteen years of service) is anything to go by.

Indeed that family's landfill of cheap gadgets is eye-widening. And to suggest pushing such wasteful frippery out of the market by regulation is actually seen as 'anti competition' and is one of the more criminal aspects of the current economic system.

But I repeat: spin, lies and advertising.

[fifthcolumn]

Have you stopped to think why that might be though Jim?

Of course I have. No need to insult me man!!!

If that came across as an insult it isn't intended Jim.
I'm not that subtle though, I would come out and insult someone directly but this is not the case here, it's just my brash way of arguing.

I agree with you. Do a search back for my financial based posts and you will find that is the very same conclusion that I have come to. The need for growth of the money system necessitates waste. Advertising, marketing, media, everything is urging us to strive for more and more. I'm there man. I'm on message. I get the picture.

OK then, but could you please explain then what you mean when you criticise the "market". Do you mean the stockmarket or do you mean the big banks or just the idea of buying and selling and gettting rich in general. I'm honestly unclear from your posts.

I never said it was the fault of the manufactures. Just an observation of what we have. No value comment made! You pinned that view on me. I never stated it.

OK I'll accept this criticism as being too hasty and jumping to conclusions.
Can you spell out your what your position is?

You give the goverment far more credit for the way things are than I do then. The real puppeteers are super-rich bankers and business tycoons in my book. Goverment are just dancing to their tune same as us. They are given a certain amount of leeway, but really just act as a tax collection facility. The banking system is simply a numbers game with odds stacked against the common man. The system privitises gain and socialises losses. e.g. the current banking crisis. Engineered to make maximum profit for bankers (not bank's shareholders), and to pass on the losses to the unwary holding pension funds, share funds, bank shares etc etc.

OK I agree with all of that except for the "super rich bankers and business tycoons".

My position is that business and markets are a good thing. The stockmarket et cetera also have functions to perform in that they can provide capital to business.

What we have, however, is a corruption of capitalism. It's crony capitalism which has been taken over by banks to such a great extent that they now control the very creation of wealth and money itself.
That is an abomination and that is the root of all evil.

[fifthcolumn]

No, I said "the market ensures that all things find their way to the rich". That's true. You have to have money to buy stuff. The whole idea behind demand destruction is that prices rise and rise until on the richest can afford a thing in high demand. You know, that's what the market is? Why is saying that seen to be an attack on the market? It just is! We're here and it's now. We have what we have. How is saying that secondary school stuff?

Well the obvious question then Jim is to ask if you think we should have something else in exchange?

In any event, I'd like to point out that I have no issue with people becoming rich by providing value to customers. I have a massive, massive issue with all things flowing to banks and the banks getting ever more greedy even to the point of being able to create money out of thin air which we owe back to them and have to pay them interest on at the same time as increased taxes because the borrower is the government.

[Susukino]

Again, where did I say this was the suppliers fault??? Jeezus. You don't think you're being a bit evangelical here??? What exactly is the agenda you think I have???

Hehehe... bit evasive today aren't we. OK, allow me to to quote you verbatim:

"Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and designed failure"

So tell me:

(1) Did you or did you not write that?
(2) Who is responsible for planned obsolescence and designed failure if not the suppliers? The Illuminati, perhaps? Little green men from Mars? My aunt Mabel?

I, on the other hand, simply suggested that the people (us) who buy the products and elect the governments are the problem. I'm at a loss to see how this can be seen as evangelical.

Suss

[SunnyJim]

No, I said "the market ensures that all things find their way to the rich". That's true. You have to have money to buy stuff. The whole idea behind demand destruction is that prices rise and rise until on the richest can afford a thing in high demand. You know, that's what the market is? Why is saying that seen to be an attack on the market? It just is! We're here and it's now. We have what we have. How is saying that secondary school stuff?

Well the obvious question then Jim is to ask if you think we should have something else in exchange?

In any event, I'd like to point out that I have no issue with people becoming rich by providing value to customers. I have a massive, massive issue with all things flowing to banks and the banks getting ever more greedy even to the point of being able to create money out of thin air which we owe back to them and have to pay them interest on at the same time as increased taxes because the borrower is the government.

I depends what you mean by the definition of a market really. I love the purity of concept of farmers market for example. Person with goods exchanges goods for cash. I dislike markets that you can only get access to by paying fees and percentages to banks who sell you risk but take none of the risk themselves. Really that is not a market in it's true sense. It's a scam.

I don't see 'the markets' as a thing really, more a concept we've been talking about. I mean we've evolved to this haven't we? How would you 'have something else'? Like you say it's unlikely we could replace that basic human need. I think we have to look at it's failures though. We need to keep the basic concept of a market (in it's purest sense) going, but address all the problems surrounding that concepts. True cost of items (upstream and downstream social costs) etc.

The single thing that scares me most about PO is what the markets will do when everyone finally works out we're on a long descent. As we have already discussed the banking system can't handle it. Banks will fail and people will default on loans and loose goods and assets. Banks will stop lending (sounding familiar yet)? I don't see how a bank would ever lend money or make money. What happens to 'the markets' when the banks collapse? I don't have all the answers yet. I don't know how a financial system based on long term financial contraction would or could work.

[SunnyJim]

Again, where did I say this was the suppliers fault??? Jeezus. You don't think you're being a bit evangelical here??? What exactly is the agenda you think I have???

Hehehe... bit evasive today aren't we. OK, allow me to to quote you verbatim:

"Two biggest money spinners in manufacturing Planned obsolescence and designed failure"

So tell me:

(1) Did you or did you not write that?
(2) Who is responsible for planned obsolescence and designed failure if not the suppliers? The Illuminati, perhaps? Little green men from Mars? My aunt Mabel?

I, on the other hand, simply suggested that the people (us) who buy the products and elect the governments are the problem. I'm at a loss to see how this can be seen as evangelical.

Suss

1/ I did write that.
2/ I don't know. Share holders must bear some blame, banks who need returns on investments. When you have businesses based on debt then you must grow. In order to grow you must continue to sell ever increasing volumes.... it's just the way it is! It's not the suppliers fault really is it? Did they do it conciously? I don't think so. They system evolved.

By evangelical I mean the speed and aggressiveness with which 'the market' is defended. I don't even really have a good idea of what everyone means but the market. I bet we all have different ideas of what 'it' is!!!

Sorry for being a bit ranty today. I think it must be something in the stars

[fifthcolumn]

Well in any case Jim, to show I don't mean to take the piss (other than very gently and with a smile) if ever I am down your way I will offer to buy you a pint and continue the various conversations/arguments in the pub. Cheers.

[SunnyJim]

Well in any case Jim, to show I don't mean to take the piss (other than very gently and with a smile) if ever I am down your way I will offer to buy you a pint and continue the various conversations/arguments in the pub. Cheers.

I'd like that. I don't mind a bit of piss taking either.