Originally Posted by
Jiggs Casey
You are a beaten poster. I can tell you'd like to extract yourself from this debate now, but you can't really find a way and still save face. You have so much bluster invested at this point that you just can't stop digging despite being stuck in a hole. You sense something is terribly wrong with your argument, but you're still not sure what it is, and you're not sure how to proceed.
Poor "prophet." You just don't get it, do you? Your brain won't allow you to see, and your stubbornness helps you avoid the material presented plain as day.
What a sadness.
It won't do any good, but despite explaining it to you some 3 or 4 times now, and providing others who've explained it 3 or 4 times now, I'll hold your hand one more time through the process.
Complex industrial societies EXIST because of cheap energy. Not the other way around. The requirement to print up all that money is directly BECAUSE mankind's net energy production has been falling for many decades now. The promise of "ever more tomorrow" has ended. The easy fields are plucked, pretty much everywhere. All that remain are ones that are far harder to harvest. Over leveraged investment banks no longer have that illusion of collateral. Further, with that enormous new energy bill, the loss in global discretionary spending (to the tune of trillions of dollars as oil price rises) cripples markets and municipal budgets. Whether you prefer to look at real or adjusted oil prices, it's the same unsustainable paradigm. What matters for growth is return on investment: Or how much energy and capital you must expend to get energy to market that does the work for complex societies. The lower that ratio, the more growth slows to a halt. It used to be 100:1 in the good ole days, and we've squandered it for decades. Now, it's closer to 8:1. That "abundant" unconventional crap you crow about? Returns about 3:1. Complex societies require considerably more than that, or they begin to wear down.
Of course, if you actually watched the short film provided to you, you'd understand that fact, spelled out in fairly rudimentary terms. But nope, you acted like you couldn't be bothered to watch (or read) anything, so you could maintain your nay-saying, "nothing-to-see-here" platform.
I'm sure you'll try and fake your way out of it again by way of "What's your point? - you don't explain it good enough for me - I'm too cool to read your link." It's the only thing keeping you afloat at this point.
Perhaps. But almost nothing that pertains to this topic, clearly.
What's amusing is that you joined this forum for the express purpose of playing the denial role on THIS issue and THIS issue alone, and you've managed to be exposed as having an extremely limited understanding of the energy/economy symbiosis. That's gotta be embarrassing.
This is a serious assessment? When was the last time the global economy tipped this close to collapse all at once? These kinds of world events have always been important to me. Some of us have been heralding that the bill on this predicament was due for over 12 years, others far longer.
There was no last time. You're comparing a geological and mathematical certainty (today) to a man-made dispute that led to a very short-term price shock (1970s). It's apples to oranges. No, worse. It's bread to oranges.
What makes it important THIS TIME is that we're not discovering any new significant fields of crude any more. Not for 30-40 years now. If you watched the short video you'd understand that, as provided by the EIA and USGS. But you couldn't be bothered. You're an excellent dancer.
That's what you need to tell yourself, beaten and out of bullets as you are. The reality is that I've spelled it out quite clearly multiple times now, and only resorted to a video teaching aid when it became clear your strategy was to remain obtuse to whatever I said.
Either way - whether you read it from me, or Chris Martenson, or Richard Heinberg, or Chris Skrebowski, or Colin Campbell or any of these men far more esteemed and knowledgeable than you are - it's been all properly fleshed out for you numerous times now. Stop claiming it hasn't been, because you're not fooling anyone.
The IEA, the USGS, the IMG, the Pentagon, the British/German/Australian governments, the EIA, Oxford Univ., the U.N., Total Oil (France), ASPO, BP's statistical data.... Again, how are all those entities lying? Where did they meet to get their story straight, and how is it that this great big "conspiracy" never leaked?
Watch the video above. It's not political. It's simple arithmetic and the basic laws of thermodynamics at play here. Finance doesn't trump that, as much as you soft-science disciples wish it did.
Admit you're wrong, and there'll be no hard feelings, .... and then we can finally switch gears and start talking about what can be done about it.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Good job. 
Bookmarks