Hypothetical: the current recession is just the beginning of a very long, brutal, global decline in wealth and standards of living, across the board, but in particular for the richest nations.

This will last for decades- for the rest of our lives.

The root cause of this recession will essentially paralyze entire economies.

The question I'd like to explore is, given this hypothetical and the reality on the ground of billions of people globally, and hundreds of millions here, and the infrastructure we have in place......

What political philosophy best manages large, modern societies through such a decline, and why?

If you aren't interested in exploring this hypothetical that's fine but please, don't argue agains the premise on this thread. Let's explore this (hypothetical) premise.

Kill or be killed.

please help me better to understand the stated hypothetical scenario before i delve more deeply.

are you suggesting something like peak population, or peak standard of living, or something similar?

something similar might be peak output of food & fiber from Planet Earth? i'm just trying to get a grip on what the challenge is that you speak of.

Martial law will rule, the global decline will cause a giant "3rd world country". There will be a 1 world government and the "sheeple" will fallow, and I think this will happen sooner rather than later,
site like 24hourcampfire will be gone if not the entire internet, power systems will fail due to lack of funds, they "brown shirts" will try to save the citys and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves, we will have mass exicutions (cleansings) so the select few can survive, food supplies will be cut short, without medical care minor infections and transmitable dieses will kill off hoards of people, only those who can survive and don't trust "big brother" will eventually weather the storm, but it may take decades. New societies will be formed based largly on trade of goods and servieces.
I know I sound paranoid but i think this is where we are headed

THERE WILL NOT BE A GOLBAL DECLINE....man you've been converted by the nutcases here. Yes some countries in Europe have dead ended. But there are huge parts of the world with flourishing economies. And they will continue to flourish. And we won't grow probably at rates we'd like to but we'll grow too. It's up to us to figiure out how to tap into the growth that isn't ours and it won't be easy but don't let the guys here convince you to throw in the towel on the USA!

i didn't realize we were speaking of TEOTWAWKIK or some such.

if so, about 6 months of uncontrolled, unorganized incivility. then after a year, some 200 million of the current 300 million will be gone, in the US. Earthwide, don't have a clue.

i suspect we'll devlove into two groups. those who choose to live inside the "fence." and the group that elects to live as wild, feral humans, outside the fence.

it's be two radically different lifestyes, for certain. brutal in both cases, so noone will escape brutality. we've already seen incivility on this board. just wait till it resides in a house next door.

I don't think that is what he's doing. Looks like he's wanting opinions on how things will be at there worse (world-wide) and how people will carry on everyday life. As to the above statement of a "One World Government", whether you believe in God and are Christian(2 different things I mite add) it does specifally state such a prediction along with other series of events that fall into line leading up to one another. As to the rest of the members opinion, as much as I don't want to believe it, way of life could come down to near or exactly that senario. As to the otehr claim of "other countrys" growing and flurishing, I have no doubts about that. But bare in mind, THOSE may/will be the very countrys that will have a choke hold on the rest of the world during this time ahead...if it actually comes to it.

Darwin was right!

The nation/state is over. There is no need for a nation/state.

So let's look at this from the individual sovereign and small sovereign city/states.

For the first time in human history technology will allow the individual to be his own sovereign. Two terminologies in particular is the Internet of course and fuel cells for the home. The Internet is still in it's primitive form much like the automobile of the early 1900's. Look at where the Internet has come from since the 1990's we can only imagine what the Internet will be like in another 150 or so years. I've looked at some of the schematics of fuel cell technologies for the home. I don't know if anything is available yet but when it gets off the ground it will truly free humanity.

As the nation/states implode the city/states will become sovereign. One may ask why would there be city/states? I think because most humans like to live with others and humans will tend to cluster into sovereign city/states. The advanced Internet and fuel cell technologies will be a major benefit for city/states as well individuals. Politically, city/states lend themselves to libertarian principles quite well because of their smaller size. I'm not talking anarchy here. City/states will be run on membership fees rather than taxes. The power to tax as a monopoly leads to slavery as I think most humans are coming to realize. Also the monopoly of force is also slavery. I see city/states being run on the old New England town meeting style.

Well this is enough to digest now and get the ball rolling.

Can you cite one example in recent hstory where that has actually happened? Outs side of the Vatican, which is a historically curiousity, I can't think of many others?

Histroy shows that nations/country's go through a natural cycle of growth and decline..As one country or nation declines, its replaced by another which is in its ascendancy..

While national boundries change and countries sometimes come and go, they are only replaced by similar geo-political units..

Mans nature is to "herd" and the perceived benifits of being in a bigger and bigger "herd" drive the nation building process..

As an example of all this look at post WW2 Europe. You see the rising Soviet empire reach its zennith, and then its eventual collapse, followed by the same process in the EU..The EU hasn't quite collapsed yet, but it will and when it does, it will be replaced by another rising empire (possibly Muslim?)..

The city state came and went about a thousand years ago..even when they were common in Europe, they still formed affiliations with other similar city-states which eventually resulted in the formation of countries as we know them today..

A theocracy will fix it all in due time -- count on it. Jesus Christ will set it all straight. Ready or not, here he comes!

Liberty works best. To maintain liberty, you need strictly limited government. To maintain strictly limited government, you need the rule of law rather than the rule of men, i.e., all are equally under the law, and no one possesses any arbitrary power, i.e., all actions of government officials need to be based solidly in legislated law. Note I specified legislated law, since any other (such as regulatory law created by agencies of government by unelected agents) is arbitrary and therefore despotic. All this along with a strict adherence to the subsidiarity principle. Look it up.

A theocracy headed by Jesus Christ.

Why? Because it was written so shall it be and no force on earth can stop it.

Had you been posting more I might have read down to see if you had beat me to it.

i've been having a long drawn out conversation with a devout Presbyterian couple. their view is that what the world needs is a cartharsis, is that what you mean?

Hi folks,

While TEOTEAWKI may be a result of my hypothetical, that's not my interest here. I'm talking about a brutal global recession/depression that is essentially permanent for our purposes, since it will outlast us here, and how the common political systems might handle this. In particular, OUR political system- with it's competing tendencies towards socialism and free-market capitalism.

No it doesn't...

Again look at history and cite one example of a successful country or Empire that was founded on true Liberty ie no suppression/domination of any its citizens or subjects under its control...

I spoke of liberty under law. You're speaking of anarchy. Two different animals. In fact, liberty can only exist under law.

PS Freedom is not synonymous with liberty. Freedom means the absence of restraint only. Liberty refers to the freedom to act only in accordance with one's right to do so. A right is objectively determined, discovered through reason, accepted by tradition.

the third leg of the stool represents the productivity of the Earth. are we all in denial, or just some of us?

Western civilization has cluttered itself with lots of human dead wood. The third world have been attracted to the largess thrived and prospered, dragging western civilization further down.
A totalitarian government will need to step forward to clean out the remains of western civilization or sweep the dregs off the roots and branchs of western civilization.
There's no other choices.

Jim

mussilini

Mussolini was a silly buffoon not unlike the nincompoop in Vensuela.
Actually Frano was a better example.

Jim

please don't hesitate to correct me if i'm wrong, but what i'm hearing is that a benign Dictator at this point in our development is better than a democracy, given that democracy has some weaknesses that are expressing themselves in a kind of negative manner?

does civilization as we know it need a "reset" button?

At least Franco had going for him the fact that he stopped the communists in Spain. That's the full extent of my defense of the man, however.

Let me explain myself a little here.

The election coming up, the state of the debt/deficit, and the direction of the country are things we debate hotly here.

But that debate has a premise, and here it is: the economic paradigm of the last 100 or so years is a sound model from which to assume that the way things have functioned, is how they will continue to function, more or less.

I'm rejecting that premise for the purpose of my hypothetical. I'm saying: there will soon be a massive, unsolvable change that will completely destroy the global economy as we know it.

I'm saying arguing about tweaking a tax rate here or cutting a budget by .9% versus 1.27% will soon seem completely absurd. In hindsight, current politics will look like kids playing dress-up.

So: if you want to explore this, work with the following assumptions. The economy is paralyzed. It CANNOT be fixed. It WILL NOT come out into a boom cycle. The degradation of quality of life (at least as measured by dollar wealth and consumerism) will be real, and it will be huge, and it will be forever.

So- who manages that better? D's, R's, or some new party/philosophy? If you see a new philosophy, what is it?

Jeff_O,

YOur first line is correct.

I have not read down through the other posts, so don't knowif this has been posted or not. The U.S. was the last of the really great free countries. It was great because it was founded on Judeo/Christian concepts based on God's Word. History shows as nations turned away from God's Word they lost individual freedoms. The last one prior to the U.S. was Britian, I think. Look at that country and you will see what U.S.A. in a few decades.

Premise is flawed.

NO ONE Manages large societies. Individuals manage themselves. even in a Large Society, each individual must manage himself.

This is were collectivism fails-the concept that man can be managed externally.

BMT

There's the problem with your question, Jeff. What destroys economies is the absence of liberty. Nothing else. You can take a worthless piece of real estate like Hong Kong, permit the people economic liberty, and within no time it will become a thriving and wealthy metropolis. Prohibit the con game called modern banking, and prosperity becomes even easier. An economy is just the sum totality of individuals pursuing their enlightened self interests under the restraint of traditional law (i.e., the deterrence by punishment only of victimization). Allow that to happen, and an economy thrives. Strangle it with taxes and regulations and it dies. We're caught in a spiral web of strangulating taxation and regulation at every level, and growing. That's the reason, the only reason, we're experiencing economic decline. The solution is not greater control, but less.

So: if you want to explore this, work with the following assumptions. The economy is paralyzed. It CANNOT be fixed. It WILL NOT come out into a boom cycle. The degradation of quality of life (at least as measured by dollar wealth and consumerism) will be real, and it will be huge, and it will be forever.

So- who manages that better? D's, R's, or some new party/philosophy? If you see a new philosophy, what is it?
_________________________

Government is the problem! Government is what caused this situation. Without changing how government interacts with the economy, the producers and consumers, all you would be doing is rearraging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The Dems and Repubs are the two sides of a pot metal quarter, not unlike the quarter you currently have in your jeans.

Jim

Wrong. There's something that destroys economies, and will destroy ours soon enough.

But let's not debate the premise here. Grant my premise. Think outside the bun. The most fundamental building block of the global economy fails... there's no solution that puts us back where we were- none.

It's the end of an era.

Does a collective approach work best to protect life and liberty and what remains of the resource base and environment, or does an individualistic approach.

I don't pretend to know. I'm exploring this too.

I don't think economies can be managed, period. Any outside interference does not allow the market to grow and adapt freely.

Wow! Did I really just type that?

Now what will happen? Several paths, none pretty.

Unless the world sheds the +20% of dead weight population and ~25% waste by governments. I think we are headed to a massive die off.

I think a 1929 style recession will open the door to a major political shift, away from republics.

In short? RUCK UP! It's gonna' get sporty!

You and your peak oil BS.

Good point, and I agree within the current paradigm.

What if the current paradigm broke? What if everything from our cities to our agricultural methods were no longer practical? What if the economy collapsed beyond any recognition? What THEN?

Shaking head: Oh Jeff, you never studied.

at least someone is willing to suggest that they don't have a clue, but want's to know.

beyond all of our inabilities, and lack of knowing, we know that the world is happening before our very eyes.

in a more perfected world, my house would be gaining in value every year. land as a productive resource is worth something also.

but, here we are with 7 billion people, more or less, 300 million being in the USA, and highly educated.

why can't we just control the world? why do people get in our way of progress?

in Somalia, without gov't, why isn't anarchy working?

Lol... That took a while.

It's not BS. It's empirical fact. It's not even debatable IF. Only WHEN.

When it happens, and best estimates are that it's begun already or will soon, everything I've described will happen. Folks, this modern world that we take for granted is entirely predicated on cheap, concentrated, portable energy. Oil. Nothing else meets those three criteria- not hydrogen, nothing.

Ask yourself this. Can the world economy function with a gallon of gas at many multiples of it's current cost? Because that's what's going to happen.

But let's argue that on another day. If granting the premise is too difficult for you- fine. There's other threads.

Excuse me....but I've got to change brands of whisky so I can get into the never never land mode!

By the way, I'm not saying we all DIE. I'm not talking post-apocalypse here.

I'm saying things change dramatically, over a period of decades, and we (humanity) come out the other side with a functional world so to speak.

But for OUR intents and purposes, it won't be something we see. We will see the downfall.

Here's a concrete one to chew on. Given my premise, is a LACK of environmental regulation, or strong environmental regulation, more beneficial to humanity as a whole?

Energy, energy, energy, energy.

It is taken for granted now, it will not be so for long. In the end there is going to have to be some major paradigm shifts in the way nations are governed and operated because of changing energy sources. Some here believe that there is no end of cheap energy IN THE LIQUID FORM WE HAVE ORIENTED OUR ENTIRE NATION AROUND.

This is incorrect and will soon be shown to be so... soon at least in terms of nation state life cycles.

Energy is the cornerstone of what builds a healthy economy. There is no getting around it. We need to be investing hundreds of Billions USD every year in exploring concrete and solid ways to get our country oriented to energy forms we have in house instead of depending on the crude oil fairy to grant us easy access to light sweet crude.

Instead we dump 10 times that into saving TBTF banks and helping domestic industries move abroad.

~shakes head sadly~

Jeff dealing with the realities of a dramatic shift in energy sources would make a damned fine start. Aside from that we need to concentrate of the produce/consume economy and get away from financialization... demons live in that land. Banking is a utility in a healthy economy and should be regulated as such.

Will

Right on Will.

An Empirical Fact is: "Pertaining to, or founded upon, experiment or experience."

Your hypothetical is based upon "Peak Oil" which has been predicting such a thing for two or three generations now.

Fact, oil is finite.

Fact, the source of the earth's energy--the Sun--is also finite.

Problem: Humans have been solving problems for a very long time. Humans will be forced to solve the next one. In order to do so, personal liberty is necessary. The Soviets has resources and order-- but lacked personal liberty--and thus inventions to solve their problems.

The day you, Jeff, were born, the iPhone was a fantasy-science fiction. Today, its "normal".

When one discounts humanity, one is bound to fail.

BMT

It cannot be over-emphasized that the problem is COST. The COST of this liquid energy will go exponential as production declines and demand stats high.

The cost of energy is a major structural element of the globally economy. Hell... it's THE major structural element.

When it fails- and it will- everything changes. It will make the current endless recession seem like a bad joke. There will be massive societal upheaval. So- perhaps one thing that changes is as Will says. We remove the parasitic financial class. Currently, speculators add .80� to the retail cost of a gallon of gas. There's an obvious one.

So to my point- what political theory, what political movement or party, is most likely to say this, to actually attempt to remove the parasitic parts of the finance sector

We have a 100 year supply of coal that we are not allowed to touch and sufficient domestic oil for other purposes.

We also have wind power going online and nuclear. Pleayy of energy by political forces (many from the peak oil crowd) won't let us use it.

BMT

Agreed. But freedom to allow folks to invent, and profit from their inventions, is what makes change.

Witness: Thomas Edison.

Not some CZAR from the Politburo telling everyone to have 1 child.

BMT

Who's not allowed to touch it?

My god every time I go home I pass be another mountain that has been blown straight to hell in the process of removing coal. I see trains with hundreds of box cars loaded to the brim with prime bituminous pass me by on the way down New River.

I don't know where they ain't allowed to dig it but it sure the hell ain't in my old stomping grounds. :p

Will

Beautiful! And true.

But you still don't get it. It's ok, we are so "of the era" that it's very difficult to imagine otherwise.

Who buys an iPhone when an economy is in such turmoil that the basics- such as how to afford food when you've lost your job because the company you worked for went under because nobody buys their widgets because everybody can barely afford food?

Who can afford to commute to work from the suburbs at $20/gal?

Transporting goods cheaply is the most basic element of the global economy. Look around you. Virtually everything you own, is directly traceable to CHEAP OIL.

So- will humanity prevail? Yes we will. But it's going to get very ugly first for a very long time.

So given this premise how do politics play out? How do the positions of the current parties dovetail with this?

$20 per gallon-No problem--Work at home via computer.

Cost of transportation increases? CHINA loses. Imports decrease.

CHINA will have turmoil, famine and death. We produce enough food, with Transportation costs HIGH, foreign imports go DOWN.

Canning (versus frozen foods) goes up. Fruit is irradiated and stored in Pure Nitrogen.

These solutions exist today, but CHEAP TRANSPORTATION keeps them at bay.

Did you know that band-aids are s irradiated?

BMT

"Peak coal" is just as real. Again, it's COST. We've picked the low hanging fruit, things just get more expensive from here. Same with natural gas.

And coal isn't cheap, portable, and dense (all three). It can't fly planes, power cars, or container ships (practically speaking).

Nuclear is a good one. Guys who hate it- like me- are going to have to just STFU. But it still doesn't provide for cheap transportation of goods.

China will have those things. We are in a better position by far.

Which doesn't change what I'm saying. Long, deep, dark recession. Decades long. Deeper than anyone can imagine.

Does classic liberalism or conservatism show a way forward? Seems to me both have the assumption that things are more or less stable and "normal".

Works for the Navy . . . . .

And most Trains are ELECTICAL with Diesel generators.

BMT

Promotion of personal freedom breeds SOLUTIONS to problems.

Cannot be shown to have worked under any Monarchy or Communist system.

BMT

We have enough coal to power the US for several centuries to come.

so, what do we globalist humans need? we need cheap, or available food, cheap clothing, cotton, or otherwise. wool, down, etc. etc. are not bad, in a cold climate.

and of course shelter. waterproof shelter, with a central htg system. now, we're talking.

would all of those attributes be down in the Heart of Texas??

+1

They're closing down lots of coal burning plants, and plan to close down the rest of them by making it too expensive for them to remain in operation.

A clue.

so, should we release all humans to go with the flow? or should we work to keep them bottled up within various countries?

seriously, what are the advantages and disadvantages about or related to such choices??

i mean, we've got the Euro, the Yen, the Chinese Yuan, and the Peso.

the Peso, you say?

Start your own thread.

This one is JO's

Gus, did you forget your anti-psychotic today?

I knew it, blame the Mexicans

so sorry for being honest on a internet thread. i return the programming to the original poster.

sorry for disrupting the status quo.

BMT: cost, my friend. Cost.

It will simply cost much more to move things and people. How- pray tell- does our economy absorb THAT one, when we can't even manage things in times of cheap energy and (therefore) goods?

I'm not advocating for giant government. I'm so sick of government I could puke. But I'm also not seeing our current free market system as a clear way forward either. Wealth concentrates; in theory, it's then used to capitalize business ventures and viol�, we get to work for those ventures or make an entrepreneurial play off of them (like me making parts for a manufacturing company).

But if you grant my hypothesis of a massive recession/depression... Does that wealth un-concentrate? I'm not so sure.

BTW, there's other converging "doom" factors, from dropping aquafirs to climate change (yep) to collapsing fisheries and so on. Ever killed a bird with a shotgun and wondered upon dissection how those 3-4 pellets killed it so convincingly when none were really lethal? Cumulative effect. It's a force multiplier.

All in all I do believe that my scenario is quite likely.

Hawk, he is much easier to take this way, believe me.

Its like talking to my daughter. She wants to test for her black belt. Fine, pay the $450 fee from your own earnings.

Her initial response was worry about making the money in time. She was soooooo concerned, she kept asking me to solve the problem. I refused. Solve it by working. So she figured out a way to get business (babysitting).

Once shown the power of her own initiative to selve her own problem, she was able to handle it.

This Thread is just a bigger problem that humanity will have to work on. When government decides a problem is Too Big for the people--it is wrong.

BTW-one aspect of this that you do not address--YOU ARE GOING TO DIE.

So am I.

So is Gus.

Failure to recognize death as natural, skews the debate. Here, in your problem, PEOPLE WILL DIE. That is the worlds only unchangeable fact.

BMT

And I NEVER "toggle", trust me!

But when nobody can pay a babysitter, then she can't take those lessons, and the instructor loses her and her peers, and then goes out of business. Nobody takes over the lease on the building, which means the strip mall is now running at a loss, and neither the mall owner or the karate instructor can buy a car... washing machine... shoes... all of which are now ridiculously expensive because the cost to transport them has gone exponential.

I get that man will prevail, yadda yadda yadda. But since, again, we can't even run our affairs in anything even approaching "sustainable" even in a time of cheap, abundant, portable energy, why are you so sure we will prevail (in anything approaching our current form as a nation)... without it?

I'm kind of thinking the current pallette of political concerns that we are all so horned up over are pretty trivial in comparison. I'm trying to figure out how, or if, this changes my thinking of how or who to vote for.

Our current free market system is anything but free, Jeff

Eyeball, that's true. So in the hypothetical I'm putting forth, are we better served by making it more free (less regulated) or less free?

The answer isn't as obvious as it seems. The problem I'm describing is, in large part, one of infrastructure. That's been the domain of government here due to it's scope.

If we have to retool our infrastructure, say for hydrogen powered semi's and electric cars, are we better off taking a free market approach or a more regulated approach? I don't know. It's a question that's coming though.

Why don't you like nuclear?

It makes a mess we can't dispose of.

-------

Here's an example of how this'll work. My dumbass kid missed her bus, so I had to drive into Eugene to pick her up. At $3.65/gal, this cost me ten bucks. Annoying. At $10/gal, this is a $30 trip. At $15/gal it's a forty-five dollar car trip.

Many things we take for granted, become not feasable, with skyrocketing fuel.

Now add in that in a recession money gets tighter for most people and make it a BAD recession that never ends and the problem is clear. Economic paralysis. Now make a pair of jeans cost $70, instead of $30. Transpirtation costs... Ear of corn is $3.50 instead of 3-for-a-buck. Who buys it? What happens to the farmer, then?

This may very well be the tipping point that has me never vote Dem again- not advocating for the "D" view here- or it may convince me that national debt isn't even relevant anymore and therefore, not a deciding factor... but it sure does bear some thought beyond just the usual political crapola. IMHO.

So do you.

Couldn't resist that one.

Not for lack of trying though, eh?

Jeff no one can manage the future. All I know is that if people have the liberty and freedom to solve problems they always will.

History does show this. I watch a DVD college course on the middle ages and all the way through the middle ages people kept solving problems. I always though the middle ages were pretty stagnate and not much was accomplished. Boy, was I wrong.

I know one other thing, change is inevitable. Those can change will survive and those who can't won't.

Jeff don't look to others to fix your problems, fix your problems your self. Be self reliant.

Preach it, brutha Tim!

I'm in the process of setting up a new business. Change is stressful <g>.

I reckon some folks will have to move back to town!

Go to work, come home! X 5

Take a bath on Saturday and go to church on Sunday!

REPEAT!

Problems solved!

Things will become MUCH more local, and that ain't a bad thing.

It'll also smooth out the cheap labor in foreign markets problem. That labor will be much more expensive with transport for the goods factored in. Make it easier for the US worker to compete.

Good post!

Pretending to look into the future and clamoring that the problems of tomorrow cannot be solved because one only thinks of today's solutions and economics is a wasteful exercise.

The serious problems of tomorrow will be (are) societal and will be far more difficult to solve than energy problems which in many ways are already solved and nevertheless will receive new and better solutions.

They can and will be solved, but not in time to spare us decades of pain.

Carter, in his doofy cardigan, had a point when he turned down the White House thermostats. If we'd started then, we'd have been operating from a position of strength. We didn't. We aren't.

Let me put it bluntly. There IS NO solution that maintains the world as we know it. None. Anyone who says otherwise, is lying (if a politician) or clueless (if otherwise).

It can be debated WHEN, but not IF, our ability to produce oil begins to decline. Pessimistic PROFESSIONALS say it's already happened. Optimistic ones say 5-10 years. Think on that. There's NOBODY credibly saying otherwise. Oil supply has peaked or is about to. Oil demand is increasing. Oil consumption is growing, not decreasing. See the problem?

The key here is not that oil runs out. It won't, ever. There will always be another barrel in the ground. The key is that it gets very expensive. The big, easy fields are found and actually are mostly in decline. New finds are trivially small when viewed against global consumption, and, as a rule are much more difficult (expensive) to extract. The days of poking a stick in the ground and hitting a gusher are long gone. For instance, there's oil in the Gulf but it's 6000, 8000 feet underwater! That's a whole other extractive ballgame. And from memory, even what's in the Gulf is equivalent to ~30 days of consumption.

Again, the key here is COST. Rising oil costs WILL. drag everything else down with them. Everything. Virtually every object and activity in a modern American life is directly connected to the price of oil. And costs WILL rise, dramatically, forever, exponentially, and soon.

That's what is funny about you and most liberals. You all think you are the FIRST ones to be aware and to 'think' about these things.

You believe YOU (royal you) are the first ones to experience what we are experiencing.

There is much humor in your post, but thankfully for the ENLIGHTENED, such as you, we don't have to worry.

Thanks for standing that post...........laffin

The shortages are engineered on multiple levels in order to hike the prices. Three forces want prices high: the environmentalists (who want to impose on humanity a more low tech existence, population control, less pollution, less destruction of wildlife ecosystems, etc.), the globalists (who use environmentalism as a cover for their efforts to eliminate the middle class so as to restore worldwide feudalism), and those who profit from oil. The shortages are engineered in a number of ways, firstly by non-development of oil finds, secondly by slowing the rate at which it's pumped from the ground, thirdly by making fuel refinery regulations so burdensome as to be unprofitable, and fourthly by refusing to issue new licenses to build fuel refineries to replace those being shut down.

Local food production, too, would be a huge step in solving the problem. We don't need to import our food from Argentina or Australia, for gosh sake. We've become accustomed to that, but in my parents' youth folks ate the foods that were available locally and seasonally (as few could afford the prices that would need to have been charged to bring in imported food stuffs), and that was it. Huge savings in fuel costs right there.

PS The inability to afford imported foods was not due to the Depression. That was a steady state of affairs before easy credit. Same with cars, i.e., the vast majority only bought the lowest frills car available, because folks paid cash before anyone ever heard of a car loan, so the car manufacturers mostly made no frills cars. Few remember the days before the credit card, but that's a very recent phenomenon. Hell, check writing is a relatively recent phenomenon, which in the past was only something done by the extremely wealthy. All others paid cash for everything. Having to pay cash tends to make one frugal, i.e., motivates one to seek out the lowest possible price for every need. Medical insurence used to be like ten dollars a month, and had a $500.00 deductible, so everyone could afford it. Third party payer is the reason medical costs are so high now. And few were in debt. But banks only prosper when lots of folks are in debt, so frugality needed to be eliminated from the American culture, thus came easy credit.

So many problems could be solved by just putting the banks back in their boxes and getting government out of our lives, allowing the free market to operate to produce the most efficient economic system possible.

Looks like you beat me to it. So why were you pretending to be ignorant of possible solutions previously?

Those aren't solutions. They are adjustments. They are what will come about AFTER the decades of pain.

Hey... I live in the woods, man. I just had a lunch in which only the tortillas and sour cream were from the store. The eggs, pepper sauce, onions, garlic, zucchini, chard, and corn all came from my land.

I'm not saying the sky is falling and we are all gonna die. I'm saying the sky is falling and we are all gonna suffer, that the very physical structure of our country will change, and that practically speaking we will be in a grinding recession for as long as it matters to any of us here.

I'm not saying more government is a solution. It's not clear to me that less is, either. Not that it matters. You and I both know government won't be shrinking. So what political philosophy deals best with compounding crises like the ones that are here, or coming?

That's borderline gibberish, smart guy.

If this is something you already knew- great! Obviously it's not something most here have yet assimilated.

You'll be fine anyway with your .gov pension. Working for the government since you were 18 has it's advantages.

The only thing that will prevent folks from adjusting to anything is government regulations and burdensome taxation. Government is almost never the solution. In the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, it's the problem.

That's not true, at ALL, in the environmental realm.

Besides, you are attempting to deflect this through minimalizing the stakes here. I'm saying, our houses will soon burn down, and we won't be able to rebuild them anytime soon. You are saying, living under a tarp in the yard is a solution.

It's an accommodation to the reality of one's house burning down, but it's a little disingenuous to call it a solution.

But if you are conceding the imminent fire, that's progress.

Not all of longed for soccer mom jobs. I'm happy to have served so you can continue to be a [bleep]'ish wimp.

I'm inclined to agree with TRH's reply. I would add that in order for the above to succeed over the long, long, long run, it needs to be rooted in some fundamental moral absolutes, including: Human life is sacred, and all people are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...

No, it is not "Gibberish", Mister,.....and I followed what Scott said clearly,......

and would submit a big +1

Your entire OP screams "Nervous".....and agitated, and generally chitting bricks........

that's funnier than chit, too.

GTC

Liberty (which only exists in the context of the rule of law) is what unleashes man's super creative, problem solving, abilities. Where the state thrives, liberty fades, and so, therefore, does the creativity and problem solving capacity of humanity. No getting around any of those principles. They're as sure as gravity.

One must first concede the constancy of change and the inability to predict the outcome.

You miss on both parts.

BMT

Change is conceded. Yet, in the realm of energy policy it's not actually happening, is it? Furthermore I don't think you are grasping the magnitude of this. There IS NO substitute for highly concentrated energy that is basically stored from past eras. We can concentrate energy in liquid hydrogen, but that's just a glorified storage medium- it takes more to do that, than you get back out. The biofuels are just a way for people to feel good; they are not a viable solution.

There simply isn't one.

Oh, we'll retool and rework our infrastructure; we aren't going back to the Stone Age. But COST is the key. Cost. Just as everything is becoming incredibly expensive due to skyrocketing energy costs, and the nations of the world are buried in debt... we are going to retool our transportation infrastructure? Globally? And that's somehow a good thing? Nah.

As to predicting, thinking the outcome of this is pretty simple to predict, though. Entire world economy entirely predicated on the availabilty of a finite, irreplaceable resource that's about to become less and less available.

Call me Nostradamus but that ain't a tough one.

I'm actually sitting pretty on paid-for land with a year-round trout creek, deer, huge garden, and NO debt. I'm not chitting bricks. Im positioned, lol. I've been seeing this coming, generally speaking, since before there was an Internet for you to babble on.

However, it's time for us to start chitting bricks nationally on this subject. Time to pull back the Empire and TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS HERE AT HOME. This is real. It's gonna happen. TRH's "liberty" won't stop it. Neither will a dreadlocked hippie's biodiesel Jetta.

Mister.

You remind me of the guy just south of you that's "Waiting" to get his "New" knees.....the azzwhole that has magazines he wants in the landfill,.....and thinks burying large Wildlife with a Backhoe is cool,.....on a board like this, Jeff.

You're both loud mouthed, arrogant (and by actual self proclamation), " I'm actually sitting pretty" types.

Sound pretty goddam nervous actually,....the BOTH of ya'

WTF would I know about "Sitting Pretty" ?

You think you're some sorta' Icon,....and the only swinging Richard around that ever had his act together ?

You're using words like "Gibberish" and "Babble" more and more in responding to those you just MIGHT (fat [bleep]' chance) actually be asking these deep troubling (to YOU , anyhoo) questions of.

By all means though,....KEEP WRITING.

GTC

face it bub...you are a target for the mass exodus from the city..................you are too close and screwed.

Scared little property pimp shopping for a Lathe ?

You better pay some attention,....this fellow's about to start "Making Things",.....for the new, and inexorably LOOMING "Era"



Really,.....go to "Burning Man" and find out....

you'll be "Sitting Pretty"

I fail to understand what chitting in one's own nest has to do with 'Pretty",.... myself.

GTC

All I know is it will be a FUN road trip the day after a doctor tells me I have 3 months to live.

OK,....so there's no "Gunsmithing" involved,....WTF is this lame azzwhole and his tribe of tree spiking friends gonna' do with an engine lathe....?

Build Bongs ?

That'll work

GTC

20% or electricity from Wind in 2020. This, though subsidized, appears that it will happen.



Coal.



so, really, we can't.



agree



Panic in your tone. Move to Lakeview, Oregon. See how people do just fine living in the DEPRESSION THAT NEVER ENDED. Cash economy is weak. Trade, thrift, and skill is strong.



yes, it is. Predict the future always is. Read the last generation's version of peak oil. They were SURE, absolutely SURE, we would be in caves by now. Nuclear war having been waged. The Saudi's ruling over us. Yada, yada, yada.

DID.

NOT.

HAPPEN.

As for the future, consider this:

The Starfish Story
Original Story by: Loren Eisley



One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed
a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.

Approaching the boy, he asked, "What are you doing?"

The youth replied, "Throwing starfish back into the ocean.

The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don' throw them back, they'll die.

Son, the man said, don't you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish?

You can't make a difference!

After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf.

Then, smiling at the man, he said&#65533;

I made a difference for that one.

BMT

So,.....get your perceived "Leadership Hat" on,....quit talking down to people,....and tell us WTF you act stupid every Friday Night,...and than argue with whoever responds to your stupid [bleep]' questions.

Go for it,....."Sitting Pretty" (Yo,....that IS JO's NEW handle)

Lets hear it.

GTC

This sorry self appointed "Global Energy Engineer" can't (or won't) repair the gas tank on an old roto tiller properly (To "Cheap"),....the failure due to a shabby half assed lack of maintenance, one month.

.....THIS month he's DEFINING "Energy" solutions,.....

WTF,.....does this sound familiar ?

GTC

The end of the USA is ahead if some how Obama wins in 2012.

Check out the following book:

patriots a novel of survival in the coming collapse

The US will collapse much like ancient Western Rome collapsed back in on itself in a number of city/states on the Italian peninsula. The States of the US will gain sovereignty, i.e power as US collapses back in on itself.

If the national government can right itself back to limited constitutional government then the nation as a whole will survive. If not, then the national government and nation will be the handful of States around the DC proper.

In no case will the US just cease to exist. It took about 500 years for the ancient Western Roman Empire to shrink to a number of city/states and for the Eastern Roman Empire to morph into the Byzantine Empire. I expect it will take a number of decades or centuries for the US to do the same.

One more item, the national government created all the problems the nation faces today expecting the national government to solve those problems it created is shear madness.

If one is a surviour one will start developing solutions to solve problems to maintain one's standard of living what ever that standard is.

Kept Spain out of WWII

I am ready for the big bang and in fact hoping that it comes before the 2012 elections. I would nothing more than to see the whole shootinmatch go out in a blaze of glory.
I figure the states will be busted up about 5 ways and mexico will get a big chunk of it. Canada and Russia will also share in teh spoils.
It will take an iron fist to defend your little area. Those without a iron fist will be killed off or put in slavery. That includes your kids and your wifes someone else will be taking them.

Simple - We need a return to scholarship, and to move away from brief exchanges on the subject of politics and economics such as TV news, radio talk shows, and internet forums. People need to return to actual education insted of "whomever wins the arguement has the more sound philosophy". America is steadily dumbing down on everything.

Where politics are concerned both conservatives and liberals have become completely unreasonable. They figure if a little is good, then a lot, or complete is best. So if a little free market is good, then we should de-regulate EVERYTHING, and that will be better. Or if a little regulation is good, then we should COMPLETELY regulate everything.

The liberals take extreme views and label anything conservatives do as facism. Conservatives label anything a liberal does as socialist.

If someone has a solid education in politics and economics they would know that PURE anything doesn't work. Socialism shouldn't be a bad word, but it's THE label for anything that isn't extreme laissez-faire capitalism (which doesn't work any more than pure socialism does).

Our nation combines elements of capitalism and socialism. We don't go extreme either way and that's a good thing; because NO ONE want's to be a PURE capitalist any more than anyone want's to be a PURE socialist. They're not exactly lining up to move INTO Somalia (pure capitalism) or Cuba (pure socialism/communism).

American politics is about finding the RIGHT balance of the two. We need a return to that, rather than A-holes on both sides pushing extreme right or left views that don't work.

And where politics is concerned, we need to stop being so damn hostile, and return to gentlemanly debate.

Oh, and by answering this, does not mean I ascribe to or agree with your assessment of world conditions. But I disagree with your assessment in a gentlemanly way, and I see no need to demean you just because we disagree.

In other words, our national government needs to return to limited constitutional government.

This is because you fail to see that there will be no SINGLE solution to the energy needs of the fuure. The solution is energy sources from a number of technologies, some fossil some renewable. But to think there's going to be a one to one swap for oil is foolish. We will never not use oil, but we will use oil much less for transportation in the future. Oil will be reserved for what ONLY OIL can do, and electricity, from a wide variety of generation sources, will do most other transportation jobs.

The technologies are mostly out there now, we just need to make more use of them and allow them to evolve. Most of the world is changing already, but the big change will be when we hit peak oil; that's the shock that will hasten the change. The world will never run out of oil, we'll just outstrip our ability to get it out of the ground fast enough for it to be a cheap energy source.

It wil be a painful change, but we'll make the change and we'll be better off for doing it. The nation that will rise to the top is the one best positioned to make the change when the time comes. At this point, the US is a near dead last.

Uhm... I DO see that. That was the point of this thread.

In your first post, you said you didn't agree with my hypothesis. In your second, you laid out pretty much just what I've been saying. You've done confused me. Are you just not agreeing that there will be a long, painful transition period?

We'll come out the other side, likely into a hydrogen/nuclear economy. But there will be several DECADES in between. Guess what, that's "it" for most of us.

It's repaired, properly, and running great.

You got a screw loose, Mister.

The starfish thing is a platitude. Platitudes don't fuel container ships. If they did, you & TRH would have this sorted out two pages ago my friend!

Total nuclear war was a legit concern, and in fact nearly happened at least once. Belittling it as a concern is amusing but not relevant. It wasn't a resource running out; it was a decision that wasn't made. Completely different...

If indeed they are that screwed in Lakebiew, then they are that much closer to REALLY being screwed by $12/gal gas and a massive jump in fundamentals like foodstuffs.

Coal is isn't portable, and electricity (via coal) is only inefficiently stored energy- similar to hydrogen only worse. Cost cost cost. Can't seem to say that enough.

You know why Rome fell? It wasn't because of butt-sex in the bathhouses. It was because they were a wood-fueled economy. They hit "peak wood". Even though their empire had expanded through Europe, which had plenty of wood, the COST of getting back to Rome became prohibitive. They couldn't even smelt coins properly towards the end due to lack of wood.

We will find energy sources to power an infrastructure post-petroleum. But it will be a much more localized infrastructure. And in between it's gonna get brutal.

Hang on!

Platitudes? I've merely summarized received wisdom as passed down to us from some of the greatest minds in history. I guess you can lead a horse to water ...

Here's reality, lie-beral hypocrite:

Socialism has a 100% failure rate, and the closer to socialism we've gotten, the worse the situation has become. Socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) have eld to this situation.

The best idea is to scrap the .gov largess, do away with the feel-good socialism embodied by the (D)s, schit-can the .gov mandated BS embodied by the (R)s, and get back to the Constitution.

Hell, if that means balkanize so the left (like you, Jeff) and their parasitic tendencies can have their own areas, fine, do it.

The rest of us - MOST of the area of the U.S. - will get back to living in this nation as it was meant to be, free of the likes of you and the "free schit army".

When you socialist regimes collapse, as they all have, we'll simply bury the bodies (hopefully all of them), and take back the land.

The left's idea, Jeff... The one's you can't even truthfully admit to yourself that you believe in... have failed. Every time, and are failing again.

Only a fool fails to learn from history, Jeff. You don't even bother to try.

Ask yourself, Jeff...

Are you and yours better off now, nearing life lived by another's leave, or were you better off when you were more free to make and control your own destiny working as much, making as much, as you saw fit?

That'd require an honest answer, and you've yet to give even yourself one of those...

Well I can't tell if you're talking about energy or just social issues. Energy wise, you and I may share some parallels in our beliefs, but socially I'm not so sure. We'd have to discuss more. I see you as a liberal and you would tend toward the more far left side of the spectrum. I'm a moderate, and I'm really tired of far right and far left ideology. As the two sides become more polarized, America becomes more screwed.

Actually, the only thing I can say on this topic is that the premise is fundamentally flawed. It was flawed when the Club of Rome started this intellectual masturbation in 1968 and it's been no more than that ever since.

You can explore this hypothetical all you want, but as the software engineers say, GIGO. Garbage is what you'll get and what you've got.

Which was only to be expected as Constitutional federalism has been gradually replaced by centrally consolidated governance at the national level. The Founders understood, even then with our much smaller populations and geographic size, that a nation this large cannot be governed (regarding internal matters) from the national level. How much more is that the case today?

Internal governance, they understood, needed to be diverse, i.e., "thirteen experiments in republicanism," as they put it. Today, had we heeded their wisdom, that would translate into fifty experiments in republicanism, united nationally on only a very few factors, mainly as looking outward toward other nations as a union of sovereign states. Under that system, polarization isn't an issue, as just about everybody can live under a republican system, and a set of laws, that they can at least tolerate, as populations would shift to the states which more closely approximated their ideal.

Additionally, this ability to "vote with one's feet" would have had a moderating effect on state governance, as there would be a competition among the states for the most desirable laws. When so many laws personally affecting us come from Washington DC, however, that competitive aspect is eliminated, so our representatives in the central government feel no particular impulse to provide only those laws which please Americans. They instead develop the sense that "Folks have to take what we give them, and we can manipulate the system such that even a large majority opposing certain trends in law will be unable to affect change to their liking, so we legislators can focus our energies instead on pleasing the powerful lobbies of the large corporations and the international banking establishment (both of which will assist us in getting reelected), while we continue to lead the people by the nose." That's essentially what we have today.

Kevin,

Ok, agreed on energy more or less. I understand it's getting a little noisy here with Crossfire hollering but there MAY be a discussion to had.

My interest in the social impact of peak oil is that it will define the coming decades; it'll be the water we are swimming in so to speak. Similar, I suppose, to a major war in that regard.

We seem to be prone towards lurching to the right or left in this country. So, I'm trying to wrap my brain around the ramification of a far-right mindset dealing with this, v. a far-left mindset. As I said earlier, I do feel that the modern mind is particularly unsuited to this problem. Oil, and a consumptive, cheap-energy based economy, is built into our DNA at this point.

Our economy, our infrastructure, and our agriculture are entirely dependent on being able to move people and goods around. In the case of agriculture, our modern factory farming, while highly productive, relies entirely on massive "inputs" from fossil fuels- both as fuel, but also hugely on nitrogen fertilizers that are derived from natural gas.

Again, COST. Food will still be grown, goods will still be transported, but the cost will obsolete our current way of life.

So, it's very easy to say as TRH does that individual freedom solves this, or as BMT says that hope and change will (sorry pal but that's what you were saying). Those things might solve problems that we have in our current economic paradigm. I suppose they can't hurt, and are preferable to the alternatives, in the coming crumbling of this economy, but they aren't solutions... and they fail to acknowledge the issue, really, which is that on the most fundamental level possible, the rug is about to be yanked out.

Say we lurch to the right. Environmental regulations are gutted, allowing for things like strip-mining the Rockies for the low-quality oil beneath them.. Industry is deregulated. We continue massive military expenditures and global interventionism. Taxes are lowered. Entitlements such as Medicare and SS are drastically cut. Government shrinks; by TRH's estimation, which may be true, individual liberty thus increases. Concurrently, as the cost of oil skyrockets and the economy goes into deeper recession, unemployment goes ballistic, capital is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the ultra-rich, and the effects of entitlement cuts are... brutal. Unregulated industry takes what it can, uses high unemployment as leverage to put the final nails in the coffin of the American worker, and the finance sector runs away with what's left.

Say we lurch to the left. Environmental regulations tighten. Government attempts to regulate industry in ways that help but might not. The military is cut and the Empire (hegemony) pulled back. Taxes are raised to support massive entitlements. Debt soars. Concurrently, as the cost of oil skyrockets, and the economy goes into deeper recession, unemployment goes ballistic (but benefits (essentially welfare) are increased and lengthened; capital is taken from the ultra rich and redistributed to the less- productive poor, resulting in less available seed money for entrepreneurs, and we end up with a bankrupt entitlement-based nation.

Am I missing something in that analysis?

So, Kevin, I do agree that the answer, such as it is, lies somewhere in the middle. This flies against the sentiment here to lurch to the right. Heck, I've even been feeling that as my disgust with Washington grows. I guess my intent her with this thread is to a) raise awareness that actually debt/deficit/entitlements are not the biggest looming issue, and b) to pick the brain trust here as to how they see this hypothetical (sic) scenario playing out as seen through different polical lenses so to speak.

Very much appreciate those who are participating.

YES.

Every prediction of the future has been wrong. It cannot be done. Therefore, your prediction is WRONG.

My prediction is wrong.

But we have several principles that have PROVEN to better humanity overall.

These are individual liberty. Small government. Basic principles of natural law. EX: Murder is wrong, but self defense is right, even if it result in death.

When these principles thrive, humanity thrives.

As for the Starfish: It is not a platitude. It is truthful guidance. None of us can fix these problems. Each of us can do our best to help. When we each have this freedom, humanity is better off.

Witness: Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She could not help all of the poor, but to those she helped, the help mattered greatly. Moreover, she brought a culture of hope to the poor, and shame to rich. Combined, much has improved in India.

When we lack such freedom, humanity suffers. Again, witness the USSR under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, etc.

Collectivism, has never had such success.

BMT

We can just spend our way out of it. Then when the US recovers, we can lift up everyone else through global spread the wealth humanity programs.

That is of course unless the Tea Party debt deal recession doesn't overwhelm sound Keynesian economics.

.............I see that Paddler possibly changed his user name to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Peddler???

As usual, your posts are full of crap including the two above.

No SIR! Additional govt spending CANNOT and WILL NOT grow the private sector economy. Something that you`ll never fathom.

Oh ye of little cranial mass, just let Obama finish his work, without all the Republican interference, and you will see the magic come true.

Whoever Peddler is, he ain't Paddler, but he is damn funny!

No one could be a stupid as you pretend. You're obviously one of the regular members here having some fun under a second screen name.

............TO: OH YE OF NO ECONOMICAL EDUCATION WHATSOEVER,,,WHICH YOU,,,the resident Campfire village liberal moron certainly DOES NOT HAVE.

If Obama had any magic (of which he doesn`t) he would have turned the economy around by now.

If his policies are SOOOO good as you say, then why ARE all the economic indicators (ya KNOW,,THOSE NUMBERS which come from OBAMA`S OWN Dept of Labor and from other govt depts),,,,,,,,,,SO DISMAL???

You have the brains of a fricken fruitcake!

..........Ya never can tell.

That's because the hole dug by Bush was so deep that no man could possibly fix it in one term. Get your head out of the sand. Besides, despite the president's best efforts, he keeps getting torpedoed by the racist Tea Baggers. You guys need to get on the winning team and stop sabotaging the country's recovery.

Ah, but see Hubbert DID predict peak oil for the USA, decades in advance. It flew against the (giddy) conventional wisdom of the time and nearly cost him his career as a respected geologist... until he was shown to have NAILED it. And his model has been shown to be very accurate when fields are aggregated... certainly very accurate within a set of parameters (best to worst).

Consumption is fairly straightforward to predict- certainly within a set of parameters (best to worst).

Even taking best case scenario (which ain't gonna happen) WRT consumption, and best case scenario for production (also unlikely- see below), peak oil production occurs soon. Very soon.

(one muddying factor in predicting future production is that OPEC nation have direct financial incentive to overstate their reserves. There is opacity there. But they are dis-incentivized to understate reserves on several levels, and beyond that, modern petro-science has a pretty good grasp on these things. So- likely OPEC has even less reserves than is stated, but even using their numbers, peak oil is either here or coming soon to a gas pump near you!)

So... peak oil is not really a prediction. It's a projection. HUGE difference.

As to predicting the results of spiraling oil costs, I don't think that's really much of a prediction either. We all saw and felt what $5/gal did. Household budgets were largely able to absorb it because we we on the tail end of the housing boom and there was still fat in Everyman's budget... I think we can agree that, say, $7/gal fuel would have an enormous impact. Households don't have much, if any buffer left. Credit card companies retracted credit. Home equity lines of credit are unavailable for most. Wages are down, unemployment up. Food went up and stayed up. We are, as my contractor friend put it to me yesterday, squeezed.

So I don't agree that projecting the social and economic mayhem of say $10/gal gas is a prediction at all.

What your position amounts to, at least on the energy front, is that something new will sweep in, out of the blue, and replace what oil does. It will not. Ask a "hard science" guy- Penguin- if the physics of that are possible. They aren't.

I'll disagree that collectivism is always bad. Environmental regulation is collectivism, and it's a complete necessity. Public schools sure beat the alternative (no public schools). Our old people would be literally destitute, many of them, without SS and Medicare. The creation and maintenance of a transportation and energy infrastructure is collectivist. Finally, the existence of a military is collectivist and I would never argue against having a military.

There's no thing and one thing only that can pull our economy out- more high tech green jobs.

............Well sir! You are either pretty damned STUPID, OR, you are a total incompetent failure when it comes to doing any research! I`d say BOTH!!

When GWB left office,,,the yearly deficit was $265 billion.

When GWB left office,,,the total nat`l debt was around $5 trillion.


HERE are your BOY`S current #s after just 2 years and 7 months in office.

Current yearly deficit is now,,,,$1.65 trillion.
Total nat`l debt is now,,,,,,,,,,$14.5 trillion.

In just over 2.5 years, Obama`s rate of spending and increased debt, has exceeded all other US presidents before him,,,,,,COMBINED!!!

Peddler, Paddler, Piddle, Poodles, picked of a barrel full of peckers or whomever the hell you are, you`re one damned idiot!

Typical BIG lib argument...."It`s all Bush`s fault!"

One DNC talking point after the other from you.

Guys. Please. Peddler is a sock puppet; he's playing you.

Don't let him derail the thread.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

..........Sock puppet??? More like a condom head assuming he could find one small enough!!

Most condoms (even the smalls) would be too big for the head on his shoulders, not to mention in another area....

......I`ll be thinking about you on election night.

Your boy,,,will be defeated.

Then you`ll become MORE in-consequential than you are now!

........Taking your cues from the LYING big lib media???

You conveniently forgot to add in the part,,, "BEFORE",,,,"it`s all Bush`s fault."

Speaking of little peters, I think you have a sticky period or comma key on your keyboard.


Or maybe that's just your way of "over compensating" for your little brain lol.

..............The more you post, the more the complete and idiotic moron you look!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There aren`t enough exclamation points, commas, periods, which could imply, indicate or emphasize what a total and complete ass you are.

You are very representative of your own party`s symbol.

Like in `010,,,,the "jack ass" will be crushed in `012.

If you think that the current economic situation is a mere "recesssion",..then you're too damn dumb to even have a discussion with.

This is a currency meltdown.

Gold doesn't hit $1800+ an ounce as a result of a "recession".

Still compensating for your lack of a point I see.

If you think a currency meltdown is the worst we got comin', you're too damn dumb to have a discussion with....... read the thread....










(what's gotten into you today, anyway?!)

.............Well at the very least, my posts have content and intelligence, which is a far cry from what you have posted or can ever post.

How do ya explain the debt #s that I posted earlier?

Whether you are Paddler, Peddler or whomever. Everytime you are confronted with actual facts, you resort to feeble im-maturities within your replies.

That`s what liberal do. Why change!

Guys... get a room...

The ekklesia of Christ as He established it, in spiritual preparation for eternity in the kingdom of God.

No attempt at any man-made substitute stands a snow ball's chance and may not even delay the inevitable.

.............Piddle paddler peddler wouldn`t survive in a room with me!.....

Not a good idea.

JO on "peak oil":


No, Jeff, it's not going to happen.

There are several reasons. First of all, you'll notice that when oil/gas gets too expensive, demand falls off. Then the price goes back down.

There are many other factors though. First, there is enough coal in Montana alone (according to the governor there) to provide oil for 200 years at our current rate of consumption, at around $50/barrel using the well understood process of coal gasification. The only obstacle is the environut movement which will be swept aside if things get bad enough.

Then there are the tens of billions of barrels of offshore oil that the current administration is blocking from development, as well as major new onshore supplies facing the same blockage.

None of this even factors in the emergence of cheap biofuels, which are possible.

LONG before we "run out of oil" solar, nuclear and other major sources of energy will be fill the gap, along with practical hydrogen or battery-powered vehicles.

The economy does face some long-term issues, most importantly the wave of retiring baby-boomers who'll turn from taxpayers to tax consumers.

However, I think President Palin will get things back on the right track. =:-D

Gah! Not Palin!

Thanks for the post.

First off, to address your first statement, it categorically IS going to happen. It's not "if", it's "when".

Coal liquificatiin is very likely to be part of an attempt to mitigate the costs of declining oil. It's not really a fix, though. It's a very energy-intensive process; much more so than oil refining. Energy will be expensive, remember. The carbon output of the process is beyond massive, so something will have to be done about that. They've got ideas... But the main problem is, as usual, cost. Coal mining is a very oil-intensive process, ironically, so the cost of getting the coal and transporting it goes way up. The price of coal will rise due to demand as oil starts to taper off and we need more electricity. Finally, coal extraction has followed the same predictable pattern as other resource extraction: we've picked the high-quality, low hanging fruit. It just gets harder and more expensive from here.

So, I agree that coal liquification will be somewhat of a bridge to whatever is next, but it will be an expensive bridge, and the fundamental problem here is cost. The high cost of energy is what (among other things, lol) will keep us in a permanent state of economic malaise.

Then there's the ecological cost of ripping up states like Montana and Wyoming, but that's a foregone conclusion unfortunately. How do you put a price on that?

Agree that solar and nuclear will be big parts of future energy infrastructure. Likely hydrogen too. But none of them are what oil is: cheap, portable, concentrated and already existing as energy (in the case of hydrogen, which is best seen as an energy storage mechanism, not a source).

Peak oil does not destroy humanity. That's not my point. My point is, it's a hugely under-reported, near-certain economic disaster that has no solution that doesn't take several decades, and uncounted trillions of dollars, to even get to a functional replacement infrastructure. Can the US and global economy just make that happen without adverse effect? Are we well positioned as a nation to absorb this hit? I'd say no and no.

Get used to it, "President Palin" has a lovely sound really.


Not if other energy sources come online fast enough. Then, there's no "crunch" as oil runs out - it simply becomes more expensive and used for things like plastic and pharmaceuticals.


I think you need to read up on this. The original cost I saw per barrel for oil produced from coal was $40/barrel. I raised it a bit to account for inflation, however that is still well below the current cost per barrel of oil. Do some research.


The only thing keeping us in a state of economic malaise is President 0, which is a temporary condition. The parallels between him and Jimmuh Carter are staggering.


The percentage of those states involved would be quite low. The gasification process doesn't have to happen there, rail could take the coal to New Jersey or some other "armpit state". :-) (Apologies to any NJ residents reading that...kind of.)


Solar and nuclear are both "cheaper" than oil, given proper oversight and regulation - as opposed to the current ridiculous state of affairs.

BTW, nuclear waste is an eminently solvable problem - drop it, suitably packaged, at the mid-Pacific subduction zone. If packaged in super-strong, non-corrosive "torpedoes" they'd hit fast enough to embed in the sea bottom, then eventually they'd be dragged down to the mantle. Problem solved.

The reason that approach hasn't been pursued so far, though, is the "waste" is too valuable to throw away...look into "reprocessing". A fast breeder reactor program could recycle 90% of the "waste" back into useful fuel.

Then there are thorium reactors, in which China is heavily investing, which use a very plentiful fuel and produce waste that decays in just a few hundred years.

The problem is absolutely not that there's not enough energy - it's that the current view of how to exploit it is FUBAR.


You're way off base with this assessment. That's all.

The only way the energy sources that COULD mitigate the crunch could be online in time is if we started... yesterday. It's going to be massively expensive. In my opinion there's neither the political will nor financial ability for any nation to do this... short of putting economies of a pseudo-wartime footing.

By the way, what is Pres. Palin's energy policy other than "drill baby drill"? Is she pushing for what you and I agree must happen, starting yesterday? Is it a central theme for her?

I'm enjoying reading your posts- well done sir- but I'm of the feeling that you are complexly misjudging the size of the problem. In your first post you (I think it was you) mentioned the deepwater Gulf fields. In the best case scenario they represent about a month's worth of global demand. And that oil is under 8000 feet of water and 20,000 feet of rock. To say it sill be expensive to extract is an undestatement. Same with the Alberta oil sands or the shale oil formations in the Rockies. Cost.

As production declines and price goes exponential, it cripples our, and everyone else's, already-FUBAR economy.

I suppose if I were to put it succinctly (hard for me, lol), I'd say that in order for what you say to be true, there'd need to be a lack of denial, global will to tackle this, and economies able to do the infrastructure upgrades.

I see denial, no will, and no resources.

Therefore, nothing will happen until it's a crisis. And therefore, there will be decades of pain.