Close your accoutns at banks that took TARP

[Arraya]

[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.

Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.

I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.

It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.

Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.

I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.

It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.

Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.

I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.

It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.

Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.

I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.

It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]

Well, thanks Dave. For a second I thought the banks were trying to sustain the unsustainable at the cost of the whole society and manipulating their books to milk investors before their day of reckoning, which will come sooner or later. Next time I’ll check my corporate accounting text book before posting such drivel. Karl is a hysterical kook with ADHD, no doubt. Though he does occasionally bring up some very interesting points.

See, I always preferred physics over finance, evolutionary biology over business and reality over illusion.

So have fun with your “virtual-theoretical”, smoke and mirror filled maze and bedazzling us with your intimate knowledge of the intricate inner workings of the banking industry. It won’t last long and sooner or later reality is going to come calling and all the manipulations will fall short in a monumental way.

[/quote]

Karl does bring up some interesting points, actually. He’s no idiot. I bet he even understands the difference between and income statement and a balance sheet. But, yes, I would classify him as somewhat hysterical.

Since you prefer physics to finance, then you won’t have much problem picking up the basics of Accounting 101 and 102. After which time your finance-related posts might make more sense.

I find it interesting that you can bring up “reality” without even understanding how accounting in the real world of finance works. And, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying accounting is reality by any stretch. Just merely pointing out that without some grounding in accounting, you really don’t even know where to begin in trying to figure out what APPROXIMATE reality MIGHT be. As your prior post shows clearly.

Basically, your prior post proves that you don’t even understand the foundations of what you’re trying to discuss. And this last post is just another attempt to hide that fact; a triumph of sophistry over understanding – long on rhetoric, short on facts.

[/quote]

Actually, I think your posts proves that you get caught in the irrelevant minutia of the labyrinth and you can’t or don’t want to see big pictures. No dave, my first post indicates my haste more than anything and that karl is usually pretty trustworthy. And you are correct about karls last post it is not technically accurate. Still, WF profit is BS. But, hey, good job pointing that out. Pat yourself on the back.

You calling my last post sophistry over understanding is a monumental distraction. I understand quite well, I think it you who don’t. However, making a case takes more than a few posts. To dispute it, you kinda have to show a time when oil production went down and GDP growth went up . I’ll help you out. It has not happened in history. If fact, studies on energy and economic growth have dated back to the 70s all pointing to the same conclusion. You can’t have economic growth without energy growth. Which really is just COMMON SENSE. So, I am sure it’s not a huge stretch of logic to conclude that forever shrinking supplies may cause a problem economically.

Energy is the capacity to do work. No energy=No work. Therefor the economy is 100% dependent on energy. This is the law

First law of Thermodynamics tells us that neither capital, labor or technology can “create” energy. Instead available energy must be spent transforming existing matter or divert existing energy flow into more available energy. There are no exceptions!.

Energy resources must produce more energy than the take otherwise they become “sinks”. The is known as EROEI (energy returned on energy invested)

Given that net energy has been in decline for about 4 years. Ironically, the bubble years and will never reach the levels of 2005-2008 again and will only go down, dramatically soon. We have a problem, which is an inability for growth except negative for the foreseeable future.

Following that logic. I’d say all that newly created debt that is expecting HUGE growth is going to cause problems, currency and probably systemic. Especially since the whole fiat system is teetering on the brink as it is. Kind of the worst possible situation to be in considering the energy conundrum we are AVOIDING by lack of economic activity. One, could actually say that the credit market collapse, in a way, is mitigation to a bigger problem.

So tell me what don’t I understand? Please enlighten me. Show me the growth which basically means, show me the energy.

Here, even more simple for you:

-economic growth requires increased net energy
-debt service requires economic growth
-less energy=economic contraction thus debts can be serviced
-Increased net energy is impossible from this point forward
-shrinking net energy equals a shrinking economy
-shrinking economy equals debt defaults
-Massive debt defaults and shrinking economy means psychology change towards debt
-Debt averse psychology and shrinking economy equals the end of debt based money.

MASSIVE amounts of new debt right at the time of shrinking net energy=DISASTER by criminal neglegiance

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Arraya: I’m presuming you’re working off of Hubbert’s Curve here, correct? While I’m not adopting the side of Big Oil, I would point out that there are flaws in Hubbert’s theory, as well as emerging data on discoveries that would significantly alter the Peak Oil scenario.

Following your post, I’m also detecting the Malthusian/Olduvai connections to Peak Oil, which hold that once we hit the depletion/declination inflection point (held to be in 2008), the shit is really gonna hit the fan, to the point where worldwide population will dwindle to 2 billion souls by 2030.

I think, Arraya, even you would have to admit that there are quite a few “wildcard” factors in there and to treat these scenarios as absolute would be a mistake and for that very reason.

It’s a very interesting debate, though, and both sides of it have merit.

[Arraya]

Allen-I agree Hubbert linerization has it’s detractors, no doubt that will happen when you make a call like that. Still the guy nailed the US peak to the year and called a 2006 peak for the world, which looks pretty freakin accurate, back in 56′. Peak oil is nothing more than observation. They modeling is something different all together. There are 3 independent, highly respected, groups. ASPO, Energy Watch Group out of Germany and a Canadian one all pointing to the 2005-2010 peak. Including and handful of other independent giants in the industry all using different modeling technics pointing as far out as 2012.

Given recent data and observations most conclude that between 2005-2008 was a bumpy plateau that could have possibly been pushed out another 2-4 years if demand would have remained high. Still we can observe that from between 2004-2008, even with increased prices that increased production did not follow. We can observe that lower energy density oil took the place of higher to maintain the plateau. This matters in the real world but not the spread sheet one. We can clearly observe that the majority of oil producing regions are in decline, some incredibly steep. We can observe all new mega-projects, which usually turn out to be 3 or 4 times less than originally anticipated, and roughly calculated anticipated out put, which is usually lower than anticipated. We can observe the discovery has been going down since 1962. We can observe that we consume 5 barrels for ever 1 we find. We can observe that extraction technology peak out in the 90s. Technology usually follows a shark fin curve where it tops out. My point being observations and recent data make things very clear regardless what the detractors say. Think official sources regarding economic matters back in 2006. They are saying what are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. And really quibbling over precise date when even the most optimistic official sources put it out 10-15 years is a little silly. All official sources revised their predictions downward the end of last year due to looking really stupid. Most studies done by independent groups and the EIA have stated that you need at least 20 years to mitigate without disaster.

CERA, Big oil and the EIA have all continuously been wrong over the past 5 years, and probably have vested interest in being wrong, kind of like the Fed. ASPO and others have not and don’t. You have to admit “Official” sources are not good at saying anything other than the status quo these days.

Olduval theory is interesting. That was more of a life span of industrial civilization. Duncan predicted industrial civilization going off a cliff in 2012 and ending in 2030 this was all predicated on energy per capita. The 2 billion is a carrying capacity of the earth without oil. Their is some merit to that due to the dependance of industrial agriculture on petro-chemicals. Google “the oil we eat”, it’s a good article on the subject.

In typical human fashion we won’t change anything we have to. Still as in finance, it looks, to me, like we are putting everything on black 17 and spinning the wheel.

Maybe, it’s just me but I don’t think taking the most extreme optimistic predictions given by people with vested interest in be optimistic is wise. The oil story follows the same line as the bubble story. Deny until you can’t anymore.

Still my main premise is given that we have not been able to pull more production out of the ground over the past 5 years regardless of price. Don’t you think it would wise for the entire economic world to take notice. Because it sure as hell matters. And given that observation, shouldn’t it be included any economic recovery strategy.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43046

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C. Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that, thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr. Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet unalterable physical constraints

[Arraya]

Allen-I agree Hubbert linerization has it’s detractors, no doubt that will happen when you make a call like that. Still the guy nailed the US peak to the year and called a 2006 peak for the world, which looks pretty freakin accurate, back in 56′. Peak oil is nothing more than observation. They modeling is something different all together. There are 3 independent, highly respected, groups. ASPO, Energy Watch Group out of Germany and a Canadian one all pointing to the 2005-2010 peak. Including and handful of other independent giants in the industry all using different modeling technics pointing as far out as 2012.

Given recent data and observations most conclude that between 2005-2008 was a bumpy plateau that could have possibly been pushed out another 2-4 years if demand would have remained high. Still we can observe that from between 2004-2008, even with increased prices that increased production did not follow. We can observe that lower energy density oil took the place of higher to maintain the plateau. This matters in the real world but not the spread sheet one. We can clearly observe that the majority of oil producing regions are in decline, some incredibly steep. We can observe all new mega-projects, which usually turn out to be 3 or 4 times less than originally anticipated, and roughly calculated anticipated out put, which is usually lower than anticipated. We can observe the discovery has been going down since 1962. We can observe that we consume 5 barrels for ever 1 we find. We can observe that extraction technology peak out in the 90s. Technology usually follows a shark fin curve where it tops out. My point being observations and recent data make things very clear regardless what the detractors say. Think official sources regarding economic matters back in 2006. They are saying what are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. And really quibbling over precise date when even the most optimistic official sources put it out 10-15 years is a little silly. All official sources revised their predictions downward the end of last year due to looking really stupid. Most studies done by independent groups and the EIA have stated that you need at least 20 years to mitigate without disaster.

CERA, Big oil and the EIA have all continuously been wrong over the past 5 years, and probably have vested interest in being wrong, kind of like the Fed. ASPO and others have not and don’t. You have to admit “Official” sources are not good at saying anything other than the status quo these days.

Olduval theory is interesting. That was more of a life span of industrial civilization. Duncan predicted industrial civilization going off a cliff in 2012 and ending in 2030 this was all predicated on energy per capita. The 2 billion is a carrying capacity of the earth without oil. Their is some merit to that due to the dependance of industrial agriculture on petro-chemicals. Google “the oil we eat”, it’s a good article on the subject.

In typical human fashion we won’t change anything we have to. Still as in finance, it looks, to me, like we are putting everything on black 17 and spinning the wheel.

Maybe, it’s just me but I don’t think taking the most extreme optimistic predictions given by people with vested interest in be optimistic is wise. The oil story follows the same line as the bubble story. Deny until you can’t anymore.

Still my main premise is given that we have not been able to pull more production out of the ground over the past 5 years regardless of price. Don’t you think it would wise for the entire economic world to take notice. Because it sure as hell matters. And given that observation, shouldn’t it be included any economic recovery strategy.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43046

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C. Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that, thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr. Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet unalterable physical constraints

[Arraya]

Allen-I agree Hubbert linerization has it’s detractors, no doubt that will happen when you make a call like that. Still the guy nailed the US peak to the year and called a 2006 peak for the world, which looks pretty freakin accurate, back in 56′. Peak oil is nothing more than observation. They modeling is something different all together. There are 3 independent, highly respected, groups. ASPO, Energy Watch Group out of Germany and a Canadian one all pointing to the 2005-2010 peak. Including and handful of other independent giants in the industry all using different modeling technics pointing as far out as 2012.

Given recent data and observations most conclude that between 2005-2008 was a bumpy plateau that could have possibly been pushed out another 2-4 years if demand would have remained high. Still we can observe that from between 2004-2008, even with increased prices that increased production did not follow. We can observe that lower energy density oil took the place of higher to maintain the plateau. This matters in the real world but not the spread sheet one. We can clearly observe that the majority of oil producing regions are in decline, some incredibly steep. We can observe all new mega-projects, which usually turn out to be 3 or 4 times less than originally anticipated, and roughly calculated anticipated out put, which is usually lower than anticipated. We can observe the discovery has been going down since 1962. We can observe that we consume 5 barrels for ever 1 we find. We can observe that extraction technology peak out in the 90s. Technology usually follows a shark fin curve where it tops out. My point being observations and recent data make things very clear regardless what the detractors say. Think official sources regarding economic matters back in 2006. They are saying what are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. And really quibbling over precise date when even the most optimistic official sources put it out 10-15 years is a little silly. All official sources revised their predictions downward the end of last year due to looking really stupid. Most studies done by independent groups and the EIA have stated that you need at least 20 years to mitigate without disaster.

CERA, Big oil and the EIA have all continuously been wrong over the past 5 years, and probably have vested interest in being wrong, kind of like the Fed. ASPO and others have not and don’t. You have to admit “Official” sources are not good at saying anything other than the status quo these days.

Olduval theory is interesting. That was more of a life span of industrial civilization. Duncan predicted industrial civilization going off a cliff in 2012 and ending in 2030 this was all predicated on energy per capita. The 2 billion is a carrying capacity of the earth without oil. Their is some merit to that due to the dependance of industrial agriculture on petro-chemicals. Google “the oil we eat”, it’s a good article on the subject.

In typical human fashion we won’t change anything we have to. Still as in finance, it looks, to me, like we are putting everything on black 17 and spinning the wheel.

Maybe, it’s just me but I don’t think taking the most extreme optimistic predictions given by people with vested interest in be optimistic is wise. The oil story follows the same line as the bubble story. Deny until you can’t anymore.

Still my main premise is given that we have not been able to pull more production out of the ground over the past 5 years regardless of price. Don’t you think it would wise for the entire economic world to take notice. Because it sure as hell matters. And given that observation, shouldn’t it be included any economic recovery strategy.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43046

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C. Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that, thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr. Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet unalterable physical constraints

[Arraya]

Allen-I agree Hubbert linerization has it’s detractors, no doubt that will happen when you make a call like that. Still the guy nailed the US peak to the year and called a 2006 peak for the world, which looks pretty freakin accurate, back in 56′. Peak oil is nothing more than observation. They modeling is something different all together. There are 3 independent, highly respected, groups. ASPO, Energy Watch Group out of Germany and a Canadian one all pointing to the 2005-2010 peak. Including and handful of other independent giants in the industry all using different modeling technics pointing as far out as 2012.

Given recent data and observations most conclude that between 2005-2008 was a bumpy plateau that could have possibly been pushed out another 2-4 years if demand would have remained high. Still we can observe that from between 2004-2008, even with increased prices that increased production did not follow. We can observe that lower energy density oil took the place of higher to maintain the plateau. This matters in the real world but not the spread sheet one. We can clearly observe that the majority of oil producing regions are in decline, some incredibly steep. We can observe all new mega-projects, which usually turn out to be 3 or 4 times less than originally anticipated, and roughly calculated anticipated out put, which is usually lower than anticipated. We can observe the discovery has been going down since 1962. We can observe that we consume 5 barrels for ever 1 we find. We can observe that extraction technology peak out in the 90s. Technology usually follows a shark fin curve where it tops out. My point being observations and recent data make things very clear regardless what the detractors say. Think official sources regarding economic matters back in 2006. They are saying what are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. And really quibbling over precise date when even the most optimistic official sources put it out 10-15 years is a little silly. All official sources revised their predictions downward the end of last year due to looking really stupid. Most studies done by independent groups and the EIA have stated that you need at least 20 years to mitigate without disaster.

CERA, Big oil and the EIA have all continuously been wrong over the past 5 years, and probably have vested interest in being wrong, kind of like the Fed. ASPO and others have not and don’t. You have to admit “Official” sources are not good at saying anything other than the status quo these days.

Olduval theory is interesting. That was more of a life span of industrial civilization. Duncan predicted industrial civilization going off a cliff in 2012 and ending in 2030 this was all predicated on energy per capita. The 2 billion is a carrying capacity of the earth without oil. Their is some merit to that due to the dependance of industrial agriculture on petro-chemicals. Google “the oil we eat”, it’s a good article on the subject.

In typical human fashion we won’t change anything we have to. Still as in finance, it looks, to me, like we are putting everything on black 17 and spinning the wheel.

Maybe, it’s just me but I don’t think taking the most extreme optimistic predictions given by people with vested interest in be optimistic is wise. The oil story follows the same line as the bubble story. Deny until you can’t anymore.

Still my main premise is given that we have not been able to pull more production out of the ground over the past 5 years regardless of price. Don’t you think it would wise for the entire economic world to take notice. Because it sure as hell matters. And given that observation, shouldn’t it be included any economic recovery strategy.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43046

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C. Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that, thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr. Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet unalterable physical constraints

[Arraya]

Allen-I agree Hubbert linerization has it’s detractors, no doubt that will happen when you make a call like that. Still the guy nailed the US peak to the year and called a 2006 peak for the world, which looks pretty freakin accurate, back in 56′. Peak oil is nothing more than observation. They modeling is something different all together. There are 3 independent, highly respected, groups. ASPO, Energy Watch Group out of Germany and a Canadian one all pointing to the 2005-2010 peak. Including and handful of other independent giants in the industry all using different modeling technics pointing as far out as 2012.

Given recent data and observations most conclude that between 2005-2008 was a bumpy plateau that could have possibly been pushed out another 2-4 years if demand would have remained high. Still we can observe that from between 2004-2008, even with increased prices that increased production did not follow. We can observe that lower energy density oil took the place of higher to maintain the plateau. This matters in the real world but not the spread sheet one. We can clearly observe that the majority of oil producing regions are in decline, some incredibly steep. We can observe all new mega-projects, which usually turn out to be 3 or 4 times less than originally anticipated, and roughly calculated anticipated out put, which is usually lower than anticipated. We can observe the discovery has been going down since 1962. We can observe that we consume 5 barrels for ever 1 we find. We can observe that extraction technology peak out in the 90s. Technology usually follows a shark fin curve where it tops out. My point being observations and recent data make things very clear regardless what the detractors say. Think official sources regarding economic matters back in 2006. They are saying what are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. And really quibbling over precise date when even the most optimistic official sources put it out 10-15 years is a little silly. All official sources revised their predictions downward the end of last year due to looking really stupid. Most studies done by independent groups and the EIA have stated that you need at least 20 years to mitigate without disaster.

CERA, Big oil and the EIA have all continuously been wrong over the past 5 years, and probably have vested interest in being wrong, kind of like the Fed. ASPO and others have not and don’t. You have to admit “Official” sources are not good at saying anything other than the status quo these days.

Olduval theory is interesting. That was more of a life span of industrial civilization. Duncan predicted industrial civilization going off a cliff in 2012 and ending in 2030 this was all predicated on energy per capita. The 2 billion is a carrying capacity of the earth without oil. Their is some merit to that due to the dependance of industrial agriculture on petro-chemicals. Google “the oil we eat”, it’s a good article on the subject.

In typical human fashion we won’t change anything we have to. Still as in finance, it looks, to me, like we are putting everything on black 17 and spinning the wheel.

Maybe, it’s just me but I don’t think taking the most extreme optimistic predictions given by people with vested interest in be optimistic is wise. The oil story follows the same line as the bubble story. Deny until you can’t anymore.

Still my main premise is given that we have not been able to pull more production out of the ground over the past 5 years regardless of price. Don’t you think it would wise for the entire economic world to take notice. Because it sure as hell matters. And given that observation, shouldn’t it be included any economic recovery strategy.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/43046

If you entertained such expectations you would be speechless upon looking at the Table of Contents of top journals in economics.

As robustly demonstrated by the latest editions of the American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Economic Theory, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Journal of Econometrics, Econometric Theory, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Journal of Monetary Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Review of Economics and Statistics, European Economic Review, and International Economic Review, the looming oil emergency did not unfetter the wings of creativity in the highest echelons of the profession. (Ranking of journals was borrowed from Professor W.C. Horrace, University if Syracuse.)

Does the bulk of academe still believe in the simplistic myth that, thanks to the never-ceasing interaction between always-ready Mr. Backstop Technology and irresistible Ms. Unregulated Market, the world is already pregnant with a solution to its oil predicament, that the everlasting neediness of material goods will never ever meet unalterable physical constraints

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Let me preface my comments by saying that I generally take a very jaundiced view of government or “official” sources, especially where power and money are concerned.

I also don’t disagree that we’re rapidly approaching (using existing modeling techniques that rely on existing technology for extraction) an inflection point.

However, and this is where you and I probably part company, I don’t see that there is going to be some major catastrophe befalling us that leads to a “Mad Max” kind of existence.

I’m going to hedge my bets a little, though, with my next thought. I think that China is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Chinese officials themselves have said that if GDP doesn’t hit an annualized 8% growth rate, the country will be looking at severe social and economic “dislocation” (which I’m reading as unrest, dissension and a possible uprising). So, in some ways, China would provide a near term look at what might happen if some of the conditions predicated in a Peak Oil scenario were to come to pass. That, of course, is just my own read.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Let me preface my comments by saying that I generally take a very jaundiced view of government or “official” sources, especially where power and money are concerned.

I also don’t disagree that we’re rapidly approaching (using existing modeling techniques that rely on existing technology for extraction) an inflection point.

However, and this is where you and I probably part company, I don’t see that there is going to be some major catastrophe befalling us that leads to a “Mad Max” kind of existence.

I’m going to hedge my bets a little, though, with my next thought. I think that China is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Chinese officials themselves have said that if GDP doesn’t hit an annualized 8% growth rate, the country will be looking at severe social and economic “dislocation” (which I’m reading as unrest, dissension and a possible uprising). So, in some ways, China would provide a near term look at what might happen if some of the conditions predicated in a Peak Oil scenario were to come to pass. That, of course, is just my own read.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Let me preface my comments by saying that I generally take a very jaundiced view of government or “official” sources, especially where power and money are concerned.

I also don’t disagree that we’re rapidly approaching (using existing modeling techniques that rely on existing technology for extraction) an inflection point.

However, and this is where you and I probably part company, I don’t see that there is going to be some major catastrophe befalling us that leads to a “Mad Max” kind of existence.

I’m going to hedge my bets a little, though, with my next thought. I think that China is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Chinese officials themselves have said that if GDP doesn’t hit an annualized 8% growth rate, the country will be looking at severe social and economic “dislocation” (which I’m reading as unrest, dissension and a possible uprising). So, in some ways, China would provide a near term look at what might happen if some of the conditions predicated in a Peak Oil scenario were to come to pass. That, of course, is just my own read.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: Let me preface my comments by saying that I generally take a very jaundiced view of government or “official” sources, especially where power and money are concerned.

I also don’t disagree that we’re rapidly approaching (using existing modeling techniques that rely on existing technology for extraction) an inflection point.

However, and this is where you and I probably part company, I don’t see that there is going to be some major catastrophe befalling us that leads to a “Mad Max” kind of existence.

I’m going to hedge my bets a little, though, with my next thought. I think that China is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Chinese officials themselves have said that if GDP doesn’t hit an annualized 8% growth rate, the country will be looking at severe social and economic “dislocation” (which I’m reading as unrest, dissension and a possible uprising). So, in some ways, China would provide a near term look at what might happen if some of the conditions predicated in a Peak Oil scenario were to come to pass. That, of course, is just my own read.

[Author]

Posts