Close your accoutns at banks that took TARP

[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.

[Arraya]

Allen-I’ve stated on here before, that a mad max existence is a choice. To me it looks like we are choosing that path as of now. Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. As far as USG-Finance nexus, they are only interested in preserving themselves at the expense of the collective and in the end what ever they are doing will backfire and cause a period of unrest. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. The financial industry is a dinosaur that is not adapting to the new finite world it finds itself in and they will do whatever they can to keep doing things the same way, because that is all they know. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. Major changes are ahead and it surely will be bumpy ride and I don’t think it will look like we were conditioned to think but that does not have to be a bad thing.

[Arraya]

Allen-I’ve stated on here before, that a mad max existence is a choice. To me it looks like we are choosing that path as of now. Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. As far as USG-Finance nexus, they are only interested in preserving themselves at the expense of the collective and in the end what ever they are doing will backfire and cause a period of unrest. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. The financial industry is a dinosaur that is not adapting to the new finite world it finds itself in and they will do whatever they can to keep doing things the same way, because that is all they know. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. Major changes are ahead and it surely will be bumpy ride and I don’t think it will look like we were conditioned to think but that does not have to be a bad thing.

[Arraya]

Allen-I’ve stated on here before, that a mad max existence is a choice. To me it looks like we are choosing that path as of now. Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. As far as USG-Finance nexus, they are only interested in preserving themselves at the expense of the collective and in the end what ever they are doing will backfire and cause a period of unrest. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. The financial industry is a dinosaur that is not adapting to the new finite world it finds itself in and they will do whatever they can to keep doing things the same way, because that is all they know. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. Major changes are ahead and it surely will be bumpy ride and I don’t think it will look like we were conditioned to think but that does not have to be a bad thing.

[Arraya]

Allen-I’ve stated on here before, that a mad max existence is a choice. To me it looks like we are choosing that path as of now. Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. As far as USG-Finance nexus, they are only interested in preserving themselves at the expense of the collective and in the end what ever they are doing will backfire and cause a period of unrest. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. The financial industry is a dinosaur that is not adapting to the new finite world it finds itself in and they will do whatever they can to keep doing things the same way, because that is all they know. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. Major changes are ahead and it surely will be bumpy ride and I don’t think it will look like we were conditioned to think but that does not have to be a bad thing.

[Arraya]

Allen-I’ve stated on here before, that a mad max existence is a choice. To me it looks like we are choosing that path as of now. Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. As far as USG-Finance nexus, they are only interested in preserving themselves at the expense of the collective and in the end what ever they are doing will backfire and cause a period of unrest. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. The financial industry is a dinosaur that is not adapting to the new finite world it finds itself in and they will do whatever they can to keep doing things the same way, because that is all they know. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. Major changes are ahead and it surely will be bumpy ride and I don’t think it will look like we were conditioned to think but that does not have to be a bad thing.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya] Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. Either way, I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. [/quote]

Arraya: I would certainly agree that is an exciting time to be alive. We’re going to see a major transformation, societally speaking, in values, attitudes, mores, etc and one that is long overdue.

Much like the Great Depression bred the Greatest Generation (as did WWII), I think we’ll emerge from this a better, stronger nation. And, by stronger, I don’t mean militarily, nor do I mean religiously (there are evangelicals that are positively salivating at the thought of a “new Kingdom”). I mean a return to core values, like honesty, integrity and character. I think we can all agree that those have been in exceptionally short supply as of late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya] Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. Either way, I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. [/quote]

Arraya: I would certainly agree that is an exciting time to be alive. We’re going to see a major transformation, societally speaking, in values, attitudes, mores, etc and one that is long overdue.

Much like the Great Depression bred the Greatest Generation (as did WWII), I think we’ll emerge from this a better, stronger nation. And, by stronger, I don’t mean militarily, nor do I mean religiously (there are evangelicals that are positively salivating at the thought of a “new Kingdom”). I mean a return to core values, like honesty, integrity and character. I think we can all agree that those have been in exceptionally short supply as of late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya] Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. Either way, I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. [/quote]

Arraya: I would certainly agree that is an exciting time to be alive. We’re going to see a major transformation, societally speaking, in values, attitudes, mores, etc and one that is long overdue.

Much like the Great Depression bred the Greatest Generation (as did WWII), I think we’ll emerge from this a better, stronger nation. And, by stronger, I don’t mean militarily, nor do I mean religiously (there are evangelicals that are positively salivating at the thought of a “new Kingdom”). I mean a return to core values, like honesty, integrity and character. I think we can all agree that those have been in exceptionally short supply as of late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya] Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. Either way, I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. [/quote]

Arraya: I would certainly agree that is an exciting time to be alive. We’re going to see a major transformation, societally speaking, in values, attitudes, mores, etc and one that is long overdue.

Much like the Great Depression bred the Greatest Generation (as did WWII), I think we’ll emerge from this a better, stronger nation. And, by stronger, I don’t mean militarily, nor do I mean religiously (there are evangelicals that are positively salivating at the thought of a “new Kingdom”). I mean a return to core values, like honesty, integrity and character. I think we can all agree that those have been in exceptionally short supply as of late.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya] Though, we do have the ability to change. It’s up to our collective actions. Which would include major changes in how we structure our societies and do business. I don’t think it is possible to do this with centralized planning, except maybe infrastructure wise. I think it has to be done on a local level, which is what it really comes down to, the people we live around. All things are transient and we will adapt or perish. My thinking is evolved to the point where I think eventually we may get rid of the nation-state at least that should be our goal. Not on a french revolution level but as a natural progression towards a more free society. Either way, I look at this time as probably one of the most exciting times to be alive. [/quote]

Arraya: I would certainly agree that is an exciting time to be alive. We’re going to see a major transformation, societally speaking, in values, attitudes, mores, etc and one that is long overdue.

Much like the Great Depression bred the Greatest Generation (as did WWII), I think we’ll emerge from this a better, stronger nation. And, by stronger, I don’t mean militarily, nor do I mean religiously (there are evangelicals that are positively salivating at the thought of a “new Kingdom”). I mean a return to core values, like honesty, integrity and character. I think we can all agree that those have been in exceptionally short supply as of late.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Malthus called. He wants his theory back.

Yes, the disaster is always a few years out… then a few more years… and so on.

Seriously, though, I’m not an expert on energy. (But then, clearly, neither are you. The difference, of course, is that I acknowledge it.) But one thing I’ve noticed is that over the long term humans adapt. Over the last 150 years we’ve moved from dirtier, less efficient fuels (wood, coal) to cleaner, more efficient fuels (electricity, gasoline, nuclear), and through technology we’ve made the latter even cleaner and more efficient. While I’m sure we’ll have some supply/demand bumps in the road from time to time, I see innovation and technology staying ahead of disaster. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. I’m not sure that “increased net energy going forward” is the issue. After all, isn’t it PER CAPITA (as opposed to aggregate) net energy USED (as opposed to produced) that’s the critical metric to track? (That is, we’re adjusting for increased efficiencies.) And, to be clear, I basically buy into the “peak oil” theory – there’s a certain logic to it. Although, again, I’m no expert.

Anyhow, I think your premise is somewhat flawed. Economic growth does not necessarily require “increased net energy.” I think it makes more sense to say that economic growth requires (among other things) that the productivity of energy USED (which, admittedly, assumes a certain amount of energy is actually available for use) expands faster than the population over the long term. And it wouldn’t surprise me if we’re behind somewhat on that count. But, again, necessity is the mother of invention. I’m sure (most of) our ancestors of 150 years ago couldn’t have imagined the wonders we see today.

I’m a cynic and skeptic by nature. But I’m also basically an optimist. Humans are a pretty hearty lot. I’m more concerned about nuclear war than about running out of energy.

Again, energy is an issue. I just don’t hold the same Malthusian views on the issue that you do. And there are smart folks on both sides of this debate, so playing “expert vs. expert” would be pointless.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Malthus called. He wants his theory back.

Yes, the disaster is always a few years out… then a few more years… and so on.

Seriously, though, I’m not an expert on energy. (But then, clearly, neither are you. The difference, of course, is that I acknowledge it.) But one thing I’ve noticed is that over the long term humans adapt. Over the last 150 years we’ve moved from dirtier, less efficient fuels (wood, coal) to cleaner, more efficient fuels (electricity, gasoline, nuclear), and through technology we’ve made the latter even cleaner and more efficient. While I’m sure we’ll have some supply/demand bumps in the road from time to time, I see innovation and technology staying ahead of disaster. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. I’m not sure that “increased net energy going forward” is the issue. After all, isn’t it PER CAPITA (as opposed to aggregate) net energy USED (as opposed to produced) that’s the critical metric to track? (That is, we’re adjusting for increased efficiencies.) And, to be clear, I basically buy into the “peak oil” theory – there’s a certain logic to it. Although, again, I’m no expert.

Anyhow, I think your premise is somewhat flawed. Economic growth does not necessarily require “increased net energy.” I think it makes more sense to say that economic growth requires (among other things) that the productivity of energy USED (which, admittedly, assumes a certain amount of energy is actually available for use) expands faster than the population over the long term. And it wouldn’t surprise me if we’re behind somewhat on that count. But, again, necessity is the mother of invention. I’m sure (most of) our ancestors of 150 years ago couldn’t have imagined the wonders we see today.

I’m a cynic and skeptic by nature. But I’m also basically an optimist. Humans are a pretty hearty lot. I’m more concerned about nuclear war than about running out of energy.

Again, energy is an issue. I just don’t hold the same Malthusian views on the issue that you do. And there are smart folks on both sides of this debate, so playing “expert vs. expert” would be pointless.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Malthus called. He wants his theory back.

Yes, the disaster is always a few years out… then a few more years… and so on.

Seriously, though, I’m not an expert on energy. (But then, clearly, neither are you. The difference, of course, is that I acknowledge it.) But one thing I’ve noticed is that over the long term humans adapt. Over the last 150 years we’ve moved from dirtier, less efficient fuels (wood, coal) to cleaner, more efficient fuels (electricity, gasoline, nuclear), and through technology we’ve made the latter even cleaner and more efficient. While I’m sure we’ll have some supply/demand bumps in the road from time to time, I see innovation and technology staying ahead of disaster. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. I’m not sure that “increased net energy going forward” is the issue. After all, isn’t it PER CAPITA (as opposed to aggregate) net energy USED (as opposed to produced) that’s the critical metric to track? (That is, we’re adjusting for increased efficiencies.) And, to be clear, I basically buy into the “peak oil” theory – there’s a certain logic to it. Although, again, I’m no expert.

Anyhow, I think your premise is somewhat flawed. Economic growth does not necessarily require “increased net energy.” I think it makes more sense to say that economic growth requires (among other things) that the productivity of energy USED (which, admittedly, assumes a certain amount of energy is actually available for use) expands faster than the population over the long term. And it wouldn’t surprise me if we’re behind somewhat on that count. But, again, necessity is the mother of invention. I’m sure (most of) our ancestors of 150 years ago couldn’t have imagined the wonders we see today.

I’m a cynic and skeptic by nature. But I’m also basically an optimist. Humans are a pretty hearty lot. I’m more concerned about nuclear war than about running out of energy.

Again, energy is an issue. I just don’t hold the same Malthusian views on the issue that you do. And there are smart folks on both sides of this debate, so playing “expert vs. expert” would be pointless.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]

2-4 years max before we have serious declines.

[/quote]

Malthus called. He wants his theory back.

Yes, the disaster is always a few years out… then a few more years… and so on.

Seriously, though, I’m not an expert on energy. (But then, clearly, neither are you. The difference, of course, is that I acknowledge it.) But one thing I’ve noticed is that over the long term humans adapt. Over the last 150 years we’ve moved from dirtier, less efficient fuels (wood, coal) to cleaner, more efficient fuels (electricity, gasoline, nuclear), and through technology we’ve made the latter even cleaner and more efficient. While I’m sure we’ll have some supply/demand bumps in the road from time to time, I see innovation and technology staying ahead of disaster. Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention. I’m not sure that “increased net energy going forward” is the issue. After all, isn’t it PER CAPITA (as opposed to aggregate) net energy USED (as opposed to produced) that’s the critical metric to track? (That is, we’re adjusting for increased efficiencies.) And, to be clear, I basically buy into the “peak oil” theory – there’s a certain logic to it. Although, again, I’m no expert.

Anyhow, I think your premise is somewhat flawed. Economic growth does not necessarily require “increased net energy.” I think it makes more sense to say that economic growth requires (among other things) that the productivity of energy USED (which, admittedly, assumes a certain amount of energy is actually available for use) expands faster than the population over the long term. And it wouldn’t surprise me if we’re behind somewhat on that count. But, again, necessity is the mother of invention. I’m sure (most of) our ancestors of 150 years ago couldn’t have imagined the wonders we see today.

I’m a cynic and skeptic by nature. But I’m also basically an optimist. Humans are a pretty hearty lot. I’m more concerned about nuclear war than about running out of energy.

Again, energy is an issue. I just don’t hold the same Malthusian views on the issue that you do. And there are smart folks on both sides of this debate, so playing “expert vs. expert” would be pointless.

[Author]

Posts