This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

If Egypt Is America's Future, Is Italy Its Past? John Taylor Ponders The Oil Scramble Ahead

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Oil Scramble Ahead?
February 3, 2011
By John R. Taylor, Jr. Chief Investment Officer
FX Concepts

Studying Italian history forty years ago I learned that the major reason behind the peninsula's decline from Renaissance greatness to its sickly position in the mid-19th century was its loss of economic advantage. Political chicanery and internecine wars played a lesser role to the opening of the Atlantic, which eliminated its dominance in international trade, and to Italy's lack of physical resources. No coal, no iron ore reserves, and no fast flowing rivers meant the industrial revolution passed the country by. According to this view of history, the leaders were overwhelmed by the forces of economic change. On the positive side, the Miracolo Economico, which brought prosperity to Italy after WWII, was driven by the discovery of major natural gas fields in the Po valley. With their coming exhaustion Italy could be slipping back to its old position as an also-ran.

Countries that control more of the factors of production will be dominant. Today, the tables seem to be turning on the West. As education has become almost universal, knowledge, intellectual expertise, and competent labor have become less expensive and less valuable as a result. With the economic distress in the developed world forcing a massive increase in global money, capital has become universally cheap. Developing countries that were starved for capital now must protect themselves from an overabundance. There is a distant parallel here with Renaissance Italy, as its banking, financial, and trading expertise became common throughout Western Europe, devaluing it; Italy's edge was gone. Today the western world is losing its advantage in knowledge, labor, and capital. With communication now global and historically inexpensive, more and more trade, and growth, does not have to pass through developed world ports or phone systems. Because the playing field has become level for the first time in history, we would argue that, at this time in history, the battle has shifted to raw materials. If we assume that today's critical resources are gas, oil, agricultural output, and rare earths, Europe is totally out in the cold and the US is supported only by its strength in food production. Although commodities have played a diminishing role in economic history and, thanks to scientific advances, should continue this long-term trend, the scramble for scarce resources should impact economic cycles and growth in the decades ahead.

It was less than three years ago that oil went to $140 per barrel and the commodity index climbed over 3 standard deviations and 60% above its 4-year average. An extreme like that should statistically occur about once every century, but despite dropping below the 4-year average for half of 2009, we are now about 2.7 standard deviations and 50% above it, and still climbing. This is a big surprise and a big problem for global prosperity. Now, the turmoil in Egypt has lifted the fear component in the oil price as well. Furthermore, a deep political rift between the US, as Israel's protector, and the newly democratic but primarily fundamental Egypt and its allies in the Islamic world is a distinct possibility. Saudi Arabia could come under pressure. The most negative near term result of this split would be OPEC's refusal to increase oil output, despite the rising price, something similar to the situation after the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Food, not oil, has been the primary focus of this recent inflation scare, and the trend of climbing prices actually seems to be accelerating. The tight supply status in many critical commodities, plus the recent weather foibles around the world, should keep this move intact until the global economy turns down, dropping demand. The increase in headline inflation should also turn the global economy down. Not only does the cost of food and fuel drop the demand for manufactured goods, clothing, and leisure activities, but it could convince the ECB and other central banks to raise interest rates.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:34 | Link to Comment Sokhmate
Sokhmate's picture

Egypt homos

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:06 | Link to Comment Ras Bongo
Ras Bongo's picture

You must be one of the CIA contractors that train driving in the streets of Cairo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWOK0Lfh7w&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/node/3164

11:09pm The US Embassy in Cairo sent this statement to Al Jazeera: We have seen a video that alleges a US embassy vehicle was involved in a hit and run incident that injured dozens in Cairo. We are certain that no embassy employees or diplomats were involved in this incident. On January 28, however, a number of our US Embassy vehicles were stolen. Since these vehicles were stolen, we have heard reports of their use in violent and criminal acts. If true, we deplore these acts and the perpetrators."

 

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 17:44 | Link to Comment Malcolm Tucker
Malcolm Tucker's picture

 

Here is a post comparing Tony Blair (major tool) and George Galloway (consistent thorn in the side of Blair) speeches on Egypt, VIDEOS included:

http://fedupmontrealer.blogspot.com/2011/02/tell-what-politicians-really-think.html

Galloway is ^&*%ing AWESOME

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:52 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

I just thank God the United States is virtually bankrupt at this point in time.

Otherwise, our government would be interfering in the Egyptian revolution in ways unimaginable.

Here is what supporting current US foreign policy gets them.

The Palestine you Don't Get to See (Zionism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Li7As2R84k&feature=player_embedded

P.S. Saudi Arabia is 100% Sharia Law fully supported by our ZOG.

Someone tell Glenn beck, any revolution there results in less radical Islam, not more.

P.S.S. Anybody here telling me to shut the fuck up on this subject and the words I use, You can go fuck yourselves you scum bag cock suckers.

It will be interesting to see how many creepy web crawlers we have this evening using the junk button here on this issue at ZH.

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:08 | Link to Comment msamour
msamour's picture

So far no junks, well done! I agree with some of your statements. I do think however, that Mohamed El Baradei is a CIA plan. Does anyone think it strange how quickly he appeared ou of no where in the first week of protests?

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:19 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Spoke too soon.

I love that junk button. I get to see how many fagot junkers are trolling here .

I hardly ever use it unless it is absolutely necessary.

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:42 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

Fagot junkers?  Cdad is sober?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 03:54 | Link to Comment ConfederateH
ConfederateH's picture

Yeah, I junked you Michael.  And if I am a faggot then you just like having your junk touched!

 

As long as the Saudi's accept US fiat in leiu of oil, Barry could do whatever he wanted in Egypt.  Is it possible that Barry Hussein want's his Muslim brothers in the MB to take over Egypt?  Is is possible that they helped O get elected?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 15:11 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

The MB are of no concern. The history of blood lust in Egypt and the middle east from Islamic Jihad and Ayman al-Zawahiri are well ingrained in their memory and have been virtually rejected by them.

You know you can unjunk by hitting the junk button a secon time.

Here is your homework assignment.

The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), "Baby it's Cold Outside"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory -- by Adam Curtis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

 

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 16:37 | Link to Comment 4xaddict
4xaddict's picture

Everyone seems to forget about Turkey when they talk about political outcomes in Egypt. They have a democracy of sorts there that doesn't involve too much military dictakership or jihadi craziness.

What ever is best for the US at the time will be the outcome here and with the US so heavily invested in Israel it's not going to be MB friendly imho.

Funny the latest ZH article is how marines are leaving texas for Egypt to "help with evacuations if required"

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:17 | Link to Comment lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

Michael / I would never junk you ...... you are a TRUTH TELLER .

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:00 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Thanks Lynn.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

It is too funny seeing the junk chickens too chicken to leave a comment and challenge me.

The only strength they have is just enough to push the junk button. ROTFLMAO.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:53 | Link to Comment I Told YOU So
I Told YOU So's picture

Michael I've got your back on this point.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:47 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

You don't think that Uncle Sam knew about (Mu)Barak's plan to attack the protestors?

You seriously believe that the quisling kept Wednesday's plan secret when he spoke the night before to his paymasters?

I don't.  When Uncle Sam said "this must end now," he meant that the Square needst to be cleared by any means necessary.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:58 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Slipmeanother
Slipmeanother's picture

A full and detailed plan of the Mubarack thugs counter attack was found on one of the so called Pro Mubarack protestors. It laid out in detail the counter attack using weapons and looting plus the focused attacks on the media. There is no way the local US intelligence assests would not have seen the plan prior to its issue

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:43 | Link to Comment BernankeHasHemo...
BernankeHasHemorrhoids's picture

I've noticed this myself. You tell the truth and some idiot marks it as junk. I challenged the guys who mark my posts as junk to come out and say why they disagree but they never do.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:45 | Link to Comment BernankeHasHemo...
BernankeHasHemorrhoids's picture

I've noticed this myself. You tell the truth and some idiot marks it as junk. I challenged the guys who mark my posts as junk to come out and say why they disagree but they never do.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:38 | Link to Comment That Peak Oil Guy
That Peak Oil Guy's picture

The oil is running out, bitchez!

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:58 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

 Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Beatrix would really get their panties in a bunch if they ever ran out of oil to sell.

Not going to happen in your childrens lifetime. They will find all they need to sell come hell or high water.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:34 | Link to Comment That Peak Oil Guy
That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Yes, and it will get more and more expensive.

Sorry guys, oil is not really running out.  That was just a quick comment to get in at the top and raise some ire.  ;-)

No, oil is just getting more expensive at this point.  We have a long time until it will "run out".

However, we are already seeing the ill effects of high prices on the economy.

TPOG

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:39 | Link to Comment AssFire
AssFire's picture

It seems as though the Carter years are replaying themselves...That's why hoarders never throw stuff away- they know it will always come back in style.

I will put on my gold chains and listen to some BeeGees while waiting in the gas pump line soon.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:42 | Link to Comment Sokhmate
Sokhmate's picture

you know, Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother, You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:51 | Link to Comment cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

Until Tragedy strikes.  ;-)

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:05 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

Burn, baby burn, disco inferno! Burn baby burn..

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 00:41 | Link to Comment cbxer55
cbxer55's picture

Nah! Too Much Heaven here.

Too much snow also, nothing burning here. :-(

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:24 | Link to Comment steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture

I will put on my gold chains and listen to some BeeGees while waiting in the gas pump line soon.

Listening on a four- track tape in a Mercury Meteor station wagon w/ Chucks, no doubt ...

 

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:40 | Link to Comment fragrantdingleberry
fragrantdingleberry's picture

Yep: Jimmy Peanut has been reincarnated as Barrack Osama.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:09 | Link to Comment holmes
holmes's picture

If you're rich or in a union, the affirmative action president has your back. If you're non-union middle class or poor, you're screwed.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:45 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

Saudis already announced they will make up any deficits caused by Suez disruption....not that their noise means anything.

The fear spec is driving the oil pricing bus for now, helped by the rush of Bennybux chasing up bids.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:57 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

According to Peak Oil, the Saudis and the world generally can't increase production even if they want to.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 00:52 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Shhhhhhhhh

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:11 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

I call. Let's see your hand, Abdullah.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:02 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 The Saudis do have a slight buffer in that they can pump up production, i.e. deplete their tank farms, for a limited period of time. They could ameriolate a Suez disruption of a few weeks.

  Their spare capacity ~1-2 mmbpd is mainly heavy sour for which there is no refining capacity at present.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:33 | Link to Comment tonyw
tonyw's picture

"They could ameriolate a Suez disruption of a few weeks."      Ameri olate love it, wonderful typo. Given that the Suez canal cuts off about 6,000 miles going all round Africa then you only need to allow for the extra sailing time and additional tankers required, then a couple of weeks is all that is needed. Of course at the beginning you will have a two week gap but hey, we don't run things that tight do we:-)

 

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 19:47 | Link to Comment Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

I am still waiting for the first commercially-viable controlled fusion reactor.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 01:12 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 you will be waiting a long long time....google neutronicity

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:45 | Link to Comment RobotTrader
RobotTrader's picture

Natural gas is still crashed out near 50-year lows when adjusted for inflation.

Los Angeles gas prices are still a paltry $3.20/gallon, compared to the $4.75/gallon I paid in July 2007, over 3 years ago.

Amazing how the gasoline glut pretty much capped the rise in gas from $2.90/gallon to $3.20/gallon when:

- CRB index rallied huge the last 6 months

- Chinese auto demand reached world record levels

- Emerging market economies are booming

- U.S. auto sales are coming back with a vengeance

- The Morgan Stanley Cyclical index has pretty much gone vertical since 2009.

Pretty much debunks the "Peak Oil" theory.

"But John, every month the EIA, Secret Service, the Russians, etc. come out with a report that says we are running out of oil!"

LOL...

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:03 | Link to Comment pat53
pat53's picture

exactly, the world is drowning in oil. tankers full of the stuff with no where to put it   LOL

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:40 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Check out all the tankers sitting out there in the worlds oceans in real time. Uncheck all buttons except tankers on left side of page.

Looks like plenty of oil out there to me.

Live Ships Map

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:12 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Good thing we don't depend on the eyeball estimates of retards such as yourself then.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:04 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

   And how much oil do you think is plenty? 1 day of demand is ~80 million barrels.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 18:50 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

michael's math is geologically handicapped

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 15:25 | Link to Comment tonyw
tonyw's picture

Michael, I can tell you that the number of tankers moored just off the South West of England has reduced from about a dozen over the last six months and is down to just two this week.

It's not the number of tankers moving about that counts but the number moored, loaded and not waiting to unload just outside a refinery. The world uses about 80 million barels per day, so if you imagine barrels laid end to end they would roughly circle the earth twice, so it needs lots of tankers:-)

 

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 08:55 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

This planet should be renamed from "Earth" to "Oil".

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:12 | Link to Comment bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Always enjoy your contrarian, trade-the-tape view, in your posts and especially your 'Contributor' articles.

Some of the Russians, actually, think oil is 'abiotic', i.e., not 'fossil fuels', so not from dinosaurs and so on ... they think it's a natural earth product, and that we've merely been taking the oil closer to the surface, but there's plenty more whenever you drill deep enough ... which they do more than anyone ... but Russians are willing to let the Anglo press pump the 'peak oil' story as it may enhance Russia's oil revenue income ... their kind of 'pump and dump'.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 15:07 | Link to Comment tonyw
tonyw's picture

Abiotic oil is a joke to everyone that knows about oil. Look it's quite simple we have already found the large onshore oilfields and now have to look in deeper water which is harder and more expensive. Think about a wall with oil fields of different sizes and locations, if you throw darts you will find the largest fields before all the small fields. Of course we have to find the oil before we can extract it and for the last 40 years the amount we have been finding has been falling and is less than the amount we are using.

If it was not so why do you think the Russians would be talking to BP about drilling in the Arctic?

 

It's not just a simple question of cost, the key thing is the amount of energy that can be obtained against the amount of energy input EROEI = Energy Returned Over Energy Input. When oil drilling got going the returns were over 100 to 1 it's been falling since the 70s and now it's probably down to ten to one. Of course it's just not worth doing if you have to use more energy than you can get back.  Obviously as the EROEI falls then the cost of energy will increase.

 

Hope this explanation helps.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 19:03 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

your argument jumped from "some russians' " thought patterns to the "peak oil story" How about where the rest of the world is drilling, what the canadians are doing and where the americans are invading? If abiotic is a reality, why is a rapidly dropping EROEI also a reality? 

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 08:58 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

You can dig wells 10,000 feet down and find oil.  No dinosaur ever lived and died at that depth.  Oil is not fossil fuel.  The planet is constantly pumping it out.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Wow... your logic is impeccable, I presume you think the Earth is 6000 years old.

Umm, why is oil only found in sedimentary rock?

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:51 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Nice ad hominem attack  And my logic is impeccable.  It doesn't matter what kind of rock oil is found in or that you know that trivia.  Dinosaurs whether they lived 6,000 years ago or 6 million years ago never lived 6,000 feet below the earth's surface, and their remains are not the source of oil.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:21 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

oil geology by Chevron commerical

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:52 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

You're the oil company puppet and you don't even know it.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:49 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

nevermind the actual production data from places like IEA, right?

moron

LOL

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:19 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Because supply is all that matters.  No need to pay even the slightest bit of attention to the other side of the equation.

Face it, peak oil guys, it ain't happening now.  If it was, oil and other energy types would have lead all other prices up.  Instead, it's non-energy commodities and precious metals.  Sorry, this depression is caused by money printing only.  All efforts to give BB and the Inkjets a free pass have failed.  Time to pack it in.

Sadly, the world WON'T be ending next Thursday.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:58 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

   You should know better, breakdown what is called oil into its real components

C+C, NGL, Other liquids

Now, generously give an EROEI of 4 on "other liquids", in other words from an energy perspective multiply by 0.75, otherwise you double count the energy to produce the liquids.

NGL is 65% of the energy density of crude

Ignore Refinery Gains, that is simply increasing the volume for the same energy content...

Now look at the change in relative proportions over the past 10 yrs...

And fold in existing fields are decling at 4.5% per annum

They are playing the same games with oil production accounting as they are with any financial "asset", the new three card monte

And yes, the world doesn't end next Thursday...

 

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 19:10 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

well said

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:12 | Link to Comment naughtius maximus
naughtius maximus's picture

I guess in your world tractors run on fairy dust and they fertilize the fields with unicorn manure. 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:28 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I believe T is correct about peak oil.  If I am wrong, though, a tractor will also run on nat gas, propane, moonshine with a little gasoline, hydrogen gas, diesal fuel, vegetable oil, animal fat liquified, etc.  Hydrogen is the most plentiful thing in the universe, ethanol can be made from renewable resources such as apples, and you haven't thought this through.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 00:55 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Careful...or your ideas may warrant a Hydrogen tax

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 01:01 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

I own and operate an ag tractor, and have owned two in the last decade.  How many here know anything about tractors?

Here's some pointers: modern tractors have diesel engines, because they are far more efficient and durable than other engine types.  Diesel engines can only run on a narrow range of fuels (basically #1 and #2 diesel, kerosene [which is basically the same as diesel #1], and some proportion of biodiesel - which is typically made from things would otherwise be eaten by humans or livestock).  Massive work can potentially turn a diesel into a compression (Otto) cycle engine potentially running on propane.  Natural gas or hydrogen is absurd for a tractor's operating environment.  Gasoline just plain doesn't work.  So your fuel options are limited.  But, equating hydrogen's abundance "in the universe" with ready availability of a useful fuel already demonstrated you are clueless and not even interested in reality.

Tractors are expensive but can realistically last 20-30 years of frequent hard use followed by another 30+ of lighter use.  Many people still use tractors made in the 1940's and 1950's.  So they aren't something that you can just go out and replace with new models in a couple of years, without some major economic disruption.

In general, tractors are designed around a specific engine and transmission.  You cannot expect to replace the engine with a different type unless you can make several relevant dimensions identical to the original, which is rarely easy.  So don't plan on installing some new wonder engine in existing tractors either.

Here's some more food for thought on agriculture and oil:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6871

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 01:46 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Hi Max,

I agree turning a diesal tractor into anything else is much work.   It will only run on oil, fats, etc.  A gasoline engine, however, will run on many available fuels.  Do you deny that a gasoline engine that currently runs on gasoline, but is running on another fuel, will power not a tractor?  Here is an article from like 40 years ago so you can see nothing is new in the world.

http://www.engineer.ucla.edu/explore/history/major-research-highlights/ucla-hydrogen-powered-car-wins-1972-urban-vehicle-design-competition/

 

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:45 | Link to Comment Mad Max
Mad Max's picture

No gasoline-powered tractors have been made or sold in the US since the 1970's.  They are inefficient and have poor longevity.  So to have any existing tractor running on gasoline, you're looking at sub-100hp tractors (mostly sub-30hp) made prior to the mid-1970's.  Those will let you till a garden or maybe 20 acres, not much more.  There is no large existing base of tractors that are readily convertible to Otto cycle.  Have all the Ford 8Ns you want.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:02 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe.

What is our expected production rate from all this universal hydrogen and will the EROI exceed 1?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:11 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Hydrogen is not a fuel.  It is a place to store of energy.  The answer to your question depends on how many nuclear power plants we are willing to build.  Salt water and nuclear electricity have no realistic peak, so we can make as much H2 as we want.  Currently we shave H2 off of natural gas, but we would no longer even need to do that.    It can be done, but I doubt it will be. 

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:19 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

orly?  you don't say?

So the EROI will be <1 huh?  Sounds brilliant.

There's no peak to nuclear energy huh?

Why did France have brownouts from a heat wave a few years back?  You must think nuclear power is like magic or something.

BTW, don't be a dumbass

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:29 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Two comments on a Hydrogen based economy:

1) Why, if you generated electricity in what ever manner, would you then take a 50% hit to make hydrogen (this is the thermodynamical limit), if you could directly "fuel" electric vehicles? A even handed study a while back, (I'll post the link when I find it again) concluded that an H2 economy required 2.5 times as much energy to be produced as an electricity economy.

2) Do you have any idea of the complexity and infrastructure expense required for H2? And the dangerous nature?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey CB, you strike me as a reasonably sharp guy. Try the following, register at theoildrum.com and run a few of your observations and ideas by them. The crowd is fairly polite and you will get a helluva education about energy. In any discussion, stick to the facts and you will have a good exchange. Ignore the doomers though, I do.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:43 | Link to Comment Slipmeanother
Slipmeanother's picture

Let them eat angel cake!

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:00 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

uh...C&C peaked in 05/06, dumbshit

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:56 | Link to Comment I Told YOU So
I Told YOU So's picture

you actually believe what the IEA puts out?.....rrriiiiggghhtt

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:16 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Whereas you believe...Exxon? BP? Shell? James Inhofe? The voices in your head?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:14 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

no, I don't.  IEA's projections have for a decade been fantastically optimistic and I have said so.  Argued many times about this.

But when even IEA is admitting a C&C peak (which the data already clearly showed), even the cornucopians need to take notice.

For 10 years, the only thing the cornucopians could point to were the large pro-oil agencies like IEA and EIA and DOE saying we had 130mbpd in our relatively near future.  All the time, "IEA says 130" was the retort to the PO argument.  That's gone now.  Even the sources that people used to try to refute Peak have turned unfavorable.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:01 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Peak oil is BS.  Don't bother quoting sources that are motivated by "Peak Oil".

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:59 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Care to elaborate? We can have a discussion if you like. I just woke up and pan fried troll for breakfast sounds good...

 

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:46 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

You'll just start quoting a bunch of bought and paid for sources, and I'll concede you have read a lot more of that pablum than I have.  My threshold for reading BS is lower than most.

We were running out of oil in the 1970s, yet here we, are still burning away.  Gasoline, inflation and tax adjusted, is no more expensive.  The science for hybrid vehicles existed in the 1920s, yet we continued to use combustion engines exclusively throughout the 20th century. Oil has been found 10,000 feet below the earth's surface.  No dinosaur ever lived or died there.  Oil is not fossil fuel.  So all of the BS began with a lie.

It's all BS.

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  I sense more anger than understanding... at least you are in the first stage. Now go educate yourself further, your mind will be liberated.

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

I see an inability to think.  I hope you haven't spent your whole life cramming a bunch of your master's lies into your head.  It is the waste of a life.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 08:59 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

The IEA, governments and the oil companies have no motive at all to lie about phony peak oil.

LOL.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:24 | Link to Comment That Peak Oil Guy
That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Meanwhile, back in reality, production stays flat in the face of increasing demand...

TPOG

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 07:19 | Link to Comment johan404
johan404's picture

Oil demand and global GDP still haven't reached 2008 levels and oil production is still on a plateau. But the longer we stay on the plateau, the quicker the collapse in oil production is going to be when it finally happens. Like the Cantarell field in Mexico where they used different techniques to artificially keep production from declining, and when the inevitable decline finally set in, the whole oil field collapsed and production dropped dramatically instead of gradually.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:03 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Flat production with an exponential increase in the number of wells, think carefully about that. No chills running down ones spine? Think some more...

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:47 | Link to Comment Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

The simple truth so many fail and/or are unwilling to see...

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:07 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"The oil is running out" was a simple truth 40 years ago.  Gas is still around the same price adjusted for inflation and tax increases.

Still waiting for Hubbards peak.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:02 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If you want to play with the big boys, got to come up with something better that "oil is running out"... Strictly speaking, when we used the first barrel, we started running out... Care to describe the shape of the US oil production curve? Perhaps you can comment on the World Net oil exports.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:09 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

BTW that is Hubbert's Peak....  Not sure why you worried about the peak in Scientologists

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 20:34 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

Travolta heard that. It is hard to have a debate with someone who can't spell the subject matter (and who goes through the entire thread an junks every entry you make)

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:30 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Whether it's Hubbard's peak or Hubbert's peak or yo' mama's peak it is bought and paid for science.  Just like global warming or that hole in the ozone layer no one cares about anymore.  Worried about El nino lately?

It is all BS.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 09:03 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Cantarell is one field in a vast unexplored planet.

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:07 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So are the Permian, Spindletop, Kern, Ploesti, Ekofisk, Brent, Forties, Yabil, North Slope... the list goes on.

Maybe you could explain the shape of the Oil discovery curve to me and how we are using oil at 3 time the rate that we are finding it....

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 08:56 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Maybe you could explain to me the source of your knowledge on the subject and whether or not that source has a vested interest in phony Peak Oil?

Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:16 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

and my top dresser drawer is a vast unexplored world of underwear. It's really not that big and I've been poking around in it for years. And for some reason, the cherry wood does not spontaneously produce more cloth

Mon, 02/07/2011 - 07:32 | Link to Comment Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Don't bother looking for oil there.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:48 | Link to Comment Isotope
Isotope's picture

If a country has an energy supply that is inexpensive and readily available in large quantities, problems like crude oil and fresh water availability are  fairly simple to deal with. Our country should be littered coast to coast with nuclear power plants. But this isn't going to happen, and even if it starts now we are at least 25 years in the hole on construction. We have initiated a slow motion suicide for ourselves, and not one in a thousand people will understand this until it is truly too late.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:59 | Link to Comment rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

....it is amazing.... we need to create jobs...get clean energy...get free from the Middle East...etc. and yet we are not building any nuke plants!!! Is the oil lobby in firm control of D.C. or what???  France can get 80% of its electricity from nukes and we cannot????

 

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:20 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

we get like 20%.  The large lightwater reactor was always a bit of a fail for power generation.  PBMR really ought to have been the way all along

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:51 | Link to Comment Isotope
Isotope's picture

Yes. That and other designs, from huge generating facilities down to small, safe, and secure units able to supply a smaller town, especially in remote areas. It's a travesty that we haven't already had these for years.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

One on every decently located military reservation if necessary to battle the NIMBYS, immediately..  +1000

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:03 | Link to Comment HellFish
HellFish's picture

Exactly my thoughts.  Declare them national defense or emergency measures - should get you around any lawfare stoppages.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:42 | Link to Comment fragrantdingleberry
fragrantdingleberry's picture

It's the environmental lobby. The same lobby that has prevented the construction of any refineries in the U.S. for the past 20 years.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

True.  Not only that, the SUV in my driveway, with minor modifications, can run on hydrogen.  Combustion, not fuel cells.  It could be produced with nuclear power and salt water.  Hydrogen is the most plentiful thing in the universe.  It's combustion can be virtually pollution free.  This debate is about those who would steal freedom more than energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Isotope
Isotope's picture

Quoting Harlan Ellison:

"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."

In the USA, it seems the second has surpassed the first.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:55 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I concede the point.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 01:36 | Link to Comment VisualCSharp
VisualCSharp's picture

Cheesy, just because hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe does not mean it's plentiful where it can be acquired here on Earth for less than the energy it takes to acquire it. There is almost no naturally-occurring hydrogen on Earth (0.9 percent of the mass of the Earth).

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 01:55 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I thought I stated that electrolysis via nuclear power plants and salt water could provide the fuel for these vehicles.  Naturally occuring has nothiing to do with it, nor does energy input (where nuclear electricity is created), since that would be the source.  This is not what we will do, but we could easily do it and end this peak oil bullshit.  By the way, drilling in alaska, etc. in the meantime would be helpful.  A facility the size of Laguardia airport on a land mass the size of Georgia would have a negligible impact on the land.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:06 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

and now you will provide us with the math on how many nuclear plants we'd need to replace our oil joules with electrolyzed H2 joules, and how long it would be until our Uranium supply peaked?

Just so you know, it's already been done years ago, and the shit is available on TOD.

In the meantime please just STFU.  People like you think, what, that you're fucking clever and that NOBODY else ever thought of this stupid idea?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:30 | Link to Comment Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

I think its time for you peak oil assholes to stfu.  You are really ignorant.   Here is a question for you.  Why do you say that the amount of bullets my ammuntion clip holds is not a matter of need, but then you say my SUV gas tank is a matter of need, but   for you to determine.  Fuck you, I will drive what I want.  I could make moonshine to run my car in my back yard if werent for regulatory apologists like you.   Drill baby drill.  Nat gas, propane, gasoline, ethonal, hydrogen will power my vehicle.  Hot air will power your mouth.  Hydrogen powewrs rockets.  It holds less evergy than gas, but not in a power to weight ratio.  Read the fuckin link, it has been used since 1808 asshole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:23 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

the peak oil assholes are the only ones around who seem to have bothered to EDUCATE THEMSELVES about a fucking thing concerning energy.

Hydrogen huh?  We'll just magically make that from saltwater using all these imaginary nuclear plants.

Like I said, are you going to provide us with the MATH showing HOW MANY NUCLEAR PLANTS ARE NECESSARY?

It is TENS OF THOUSANDS, you effing IDIOT.  And under that type of resource utilization, Uranium production would peak very quickly...THEN WHAT?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:23 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Because ammo isn't a finite resource that the entire economy depends upon, fucktard.

And the hydrogen fueling infrastructure that you need to fill up will magically appear how?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:06 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Ca alone would need roughly 100 1 GW Nucs to replace the daily consumption of gas and diesel...

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:24 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

Downing Effect.

The nuke/H2 crowd on here seems to think that nobody else could have thought of this and that nobody has ever run the numbers.  I mean it sounds like it could work, so therefore, just believe it can work absent any data.

there are several problems with the nukeH2 solution.  The first is the sheer numbers of nuclear power plants needed.  It would be IIRC 30,000 plants worldwide to replace oil.  Then, the second problem is that in order to GROW, you'd need 3% YoY additional nuke plants each and every year.

The third problem is why I made reference to France's heat wave a few years ago.  The reason why France had brownouts during a heat wave was not because they had insufficient generation capacity of nuclear.  What happened was that their heat sinks, aka rivers, became TOO HOT as a result of atmospheric heat plus the amount of heat being dumped in them as a result of nuclear cooling and power cycle!  So, France was forced to shut down capacity when it was needed most in order to avoid a catastrophic kill-off of the marine watersheds.

This leaves France in a position where their nuclear capacity cannot grow any further.  They simply do not have enough additional cooling capacity to support more reactors.  So even IF the 30,000 reactors could be built, what cools them?  When/if cooling saturation is achieved, THEN WHAT.  Nevermind the real Peak Uranium problem, even with breeder reactors or RBMK technology (Chernobyl) which was designed to burn lower enriched fuel, making U238 more fissible, and functionally increasing the potential fuel resource base without breeders.  Sooner or later, Uranium production too will peak and then decline.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 17:45 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

Yep. Bottom line: There is no substitute for oil at this time...Its going to be an interesting decade.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 21:41 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

yes, America's "interest" will increase dramatically

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:12 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

I went to bed too early and you guys started fighting immediately after.

My take on driving your SUV and burning all you want is different from most of the folks who understand oil depletion.  My perspective is that you should go ahead.  Drive all you want and under no circumstances should you inconvenience yourself or your family to save oil.

I suggest this because I know it's futile, and even more important, I would rather see Americans burn it than Chinese.  It's a patriotic thing.  I know it is futile first, but second, I know there is no way in hell the Chinese will sacrifice GDP growth and development so that someone else can have the oil.  This is what will create the wars upcoming.

The US has 3% of the world's population and we consume about 23% of daily global oil production, and I do not see any reason to back off.  We earned it, to some extent.  

So go ahead and burn oil.  It's truly not going to matter.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:27 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

this is why I have a VW Phaeton.  Tragedy of the Commons...

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment prophet
prophet's picture

Nice!  Luv that car.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:00 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Dude, you are partially right and right on with the sentiment:

"...we are not building any nuke plants!!!"

well, some starting: NRG (HLP) South Texas Project 3 and 4, Southern Co., TVA is finishing Watts Bar 2, lots of money freed up since CO2 (the invisible gas) is killing coal units.

I challenge your statement:

"we need to create jobs"

do you have any evidence that Our Dear Leader and gang wish same?  Evidence please (v. blah blah blah).  I see the BS of today's NFP 'improvement' to 9.0% published number is, well, ...

Serious question, I have no confidence in the positive answer.

But if the agenda is to do something with the population, with the food supply, with ...

Well, then we can examine and evaluate.

- Ned

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 23:01 | Link to Comment Devout Republican
Devout Republican's picture

Yes, but France is socialist and all their citizens get health care in addition to having 80% of their electricity supplied by nuclear. 

But you forget one thing, they're not the greatest country on earth.  We are!

USA! USA! 

Palin 2012!

P.S. I'm junking myself, so you fucktards can bite me.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 07:53 | Link to Comment scratch_and_sniff
scratch_and_sniff's picture

Man it sends a shiver down the worlds back that you people could be so fucking stupid.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 08:15 | Link to Comment Devout Republican
Devout Republican's picture

Na uh you are

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:27 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Ask the Frogs how they feel about their premiums (no, it's not free for them) going up and what it's like to be healed by a doctor who makes less than an auto mechanic.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

mmm, yah, because if you're gonna get healed, you want your healer to make at least 5 times more fiat than you do.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 17:50 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

No, but i do want him to be properly incentivized to do the job well. Have fun picking up your scrips at 'La Farmacia'.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:24 | Link to Comment bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

France is coast-to-coast cookie-cutter nuke plants, supplying huge amounts of energy, which, unlike the US, they generally built on a reliable, replicated platform ... they have kept both their own agriculture and industry going ... still today benefiting from de Gaulle's vision of an 'independent' France.

We are not as bad off in Europe as the above article suggests. We do have a lot of food production here, which the EU has wisely maintained. We have infrastructure (electrified trains, public transport) that can deal with energy shortages and price spikes.

The easternmost nation in Europe is resource-rich Russia, whom the EU is yet foolishly failing to make our complete partner ... soon as the half-idiots in the EU wake up and jettison the worthless relations to the Americans (Brits can go with them if they like) ... and we deepen the partnership with Russia, we are reasonably well set here.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:59 | Link to Comment ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

I love the rural-ness and small town feel of the French countryside.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  Yes, I had a chance to live there for 4 1/2 years. Had a view of Mt. Blanc from the living room window....

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:38 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Too bad for you the Russians have somethign we don't have..  A deep seated antipathy for Europe and the overwhelming desire to throttle it using  their energy resources and bring it to heel like a yappy Belgian poodle..

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 22:03 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Thanks to horizontal drilling technology developed by George Mitchell in TX, Poland should have 200 years of nat gas and Germany about 100 years.   The technology is widely know and the drilling is not that expensive.  Hopefully the rest of W europe, e europe and Scandinavia have some of their own nat gas.

The USA was going to bring in LNG tankers fro Qatar and other places but now we have so much, they may use those LNG terminals to export NG.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

 Yes, horizontal drilling has extended the game. It is expensive though. Don't be fooled when they say 200 yrs, there is always the caveat "at current consumption rates", fold in a modest growth rate, and suddenly that 200 years gets a lot shorter.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 16:29 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

they pull these tricks on every reserve using P100 RR figures and current consumption rates

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 14:39 | Link to Comment holmes
holmes's picture

Yeah, scumbag Putin will make a great partner. Better watch your back baby.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 06:39 | Link to Comment IdiotsOutWalkin...
IdiotsOutWalkingAbout's picture

Lots of nukes are mothballed near completion. It's not nearly as grim as your view. We lack the will to do it.

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20100301/undoing-mothballs-long-abandoned-nuclear-reactors-eyed-restart?page=show

NIMBY attitude on plants and waste; fear of Three Mile Island / Chernobyl.

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 19:52 | Link to Comment treasurefish
treasurefish's picture

Are all Keynesian Central Banks of the same mold? If so, looks like fears of contagion are very well founded.

 

Read the objectives of the Egyptian Central Bank?  Sounds a whole lot like the US Federal Reserve System:

http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Story.aspx?sid=841

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:14 | Link to Comment treasurefish
treasurefish's picture

Furthermore, if the uprising in Egypt really was a surprise to the world, then what does this mean for visions of the New World Order?

 

...and why didn't Egyptians burn their Central Bank first?  

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:07 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Fed Light.

They 'accidentally' left out the full employment mandate.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:11 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

I feel like Hosni right now... my picture being everywhere and all.

Damn.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:12 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Double Damn!

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:47 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

You hit on the #1 reason the west and central banking cartel are panicking about Egypt.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:28 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

See? Central banks act like central banks.

Did you seriously think this was worth posting?

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Invisible Hand
Invisible Hand's picture

The "newly democratic" Eqypt?  WTF? (That's "Win the Future", pottie minds)

Eqypt may be very different in the near future but it will not be "democratic" in any sense that Americans understand (and our understanding is pretty poor if you ask me).

Mubarek is a dictator but what comes after him will (most likely) make him look like an indulgent, loving parent.

ISOTOPE: +1.51 E33 (that's 1/h or 1 over Planck's constant for you non-physics types).  What you say is too true and so sad.  "We did this to ourselves" will be our epitaph when we have frozen in the dark.

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:14 | Link to Comment SimpleSimon
SimpleSimon's picture

Assassination attempt on Egypt VP being reported by Fox, two bodyguards killed.  Reuters is reporting heavy gunfire in Tahrir square.

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:49 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 20:19 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

imagine how different the world would be if the current resource bases were populated by advanced cultures...the sky would be the limit for KSA's energy endowment, but atop it sits a bunch of arabs.  The failed races now sit on what's left

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:10 | Link to Comment Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Aren't we the failed race?  

We're the ones with a hollowed-out, synthetic economy underneath pyramiding debt, built on nothing but hopes of growth, dreams of bigger houses and self-righteous propaganda.  

 

 

Fri, 02/04/2011 - 21:39 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

You wallow in that don't you.. Self hating luddite..

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 12:45 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

More than you bask in the glow of jingoistic rah-rah propaganda?

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 01:44 | Link to Comment VisualCSharp
VisualCSharp's picture

You guys are talking past each other. There are at least two perspectives here: the results we can see around us (bigger houses, cars, etc.) and why we have those things (debt, QE, etc.). I happen to fall on the intuitive side of these things and agree with RNR.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 02:11 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

we have houses and cars.

Half the earth is living in huts and dying of diseases we eradicated here eons ago.

We don't have all this shit because of debt and QE.  QE didn't invent the transistor or airplane or microprocessor or the lightbulb.

If you think the way of the savages is better, shit...move into a hut, lose your shoes, vaccines, telephone and the rest of it and go be one with fucking nature.

Sat, 02/05/2011 - 06:54 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

We don't have all this shit because of debt and QE. 

 

The subprime 'crisis' added dozens of millions houses to the US.

Neither debt nor QE invented anything but they have funded a number of activities leading to the developpment of those inventions.

It is also impossible for the rest of the world to have what was built here on the world resources. If indeed 'advanced' races were able to deliver what is told here, like developping the African continent without transfering wealth from the rest of the world to Africa in a reverse motion to what was done.

 

All the 'advanced' races have provided is a steeper and steeper curve to depletion of resources.

The idea of sending people to live on areas that are used as garbage dump is recursive. The more garbage are sent there, the less life friendly those areas are.

A kind of 'everyone is free to move in the rest room to check if my shit smells good'

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!