I have a confession to make.  Privatization disgusts me.

And oh no no no, innovation will not, can not, fail.  The timing will be tricky, that is all.  This video at the end of the day, supports privatization.

Tech is magic, we did not need no stinkin helium anyway.  Just click your heels.  Close your eyes.  And wish.  Siemens is working on it.

The video is the most clear-headed video saying where things are going.

QuoteNone of this is intended to scare you or turn you into a doomer.  This is all just stuff we need to come to terms with.  The American dream does not exist.  The only reason it existed before was because the U.S. empire was at the peak of it's imperialist power...

Proxy wars and genocide shows America going the way Italy, Germany, and Spain did in the last century beyond any doubt.

It is time for concerned citizens to meet up.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 17, 2024, 10:32 AMThe video is the most clear-headed video saying where things are going.
It is time for concerned citizens to meet up.

That was a quite reasonable, non psycho babble video, making a reasonable point. The presenter had valid points and data (without fact checking it anyway), didn't do the "pull my finger" trick with peak oil or other claims of it being Planet X's fault or whatever the equivalent is nowadays. He did seem to want to assign all consequences to his ideas, and all hope to his solution, and that is always suspect as single problems and single solutions are rarely true.

But his argument was well thought out and reasonable. And I'm not sure it creates doomers more than it might socialists or communists, casting about as it does to dispense with capitalism without discussing the other systems available. The socialists in Europe seem to be doing okay generally speaking, and socialism still allow for richer folks without having the consequences America does as to what to do with the poorer folks.

All of this unfoldindg will certainly be fun to watch, as Social Security continues to devour the federal budget, and interest payments, and the fate of Greece nears, and I'm glad the presenter didn't discredit the entire claim by doing the usual running out of this, running out of that, or some MAGA squealing about migrants or conspiracy praddle that seems to be involved in most of these "shit is bad, will probably get worse and gots to change".

 

The quasi-socialist states of Europe have the same problems as the FSoA, with the most successful of them in Scandinavia having until recently relatively small and racially homogenous populations.  Norway also has been the beneficiary of North Sea oil.  I don't see the Scandinavian Dream lasting any longer than the Amerikan dream will though.

I don't think any political system can manage economic shrinkage, which is why it progresses to collapse.  It's also why proposing one is a hornet's nest of problems, landmines and potholes.  With shrinkage you have 3 ways to manage it.

1-  Everyone takes an equal hit

2-  One group takes a big hit the other a small hit

3-  One group is wped out of existence, the other's improves.

This all falls under the category of, "You can please some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time but you can never please all the people all the time."  As economics spin down, more and more people fall off the economic cliff until you reach critical mass and you have political lockup.  In a Parliamentary system, no goverment party can gain a majority and coalitions cannot be formed.  In 2 patyr systems, you have polarizaton.  Inability to govern effectively leads to social instability leads to radicalization and violence.  Ultimately, you get anarchy.

I don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.

So, if you find violence entertaining, it will definitely be that.  It is entertaining, as the spectators at  the Colisseum found in Rome and as we find watching Superhero movies.  Until it happens to you.  Then it's not entertaining, it's an existential crisis.  Which if you survive will be an entertaining story to tell, if not you'll be dead.

RE

QuoteI don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.
RE

Reference to US per capita energy use use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off? And I don't mean run of the mill Watts riots or Rodney King or George Floyd riots and BLM stuff,more like large scale Hooverville based violence, entire towns being taken over so civilians can loot Walmarts and grocery stores for food, the stuff imagined by the survivalist types.

New Orleans after Katrina, that scale, but lasting longer, multiple cities, National Guard needing rolled out to stop the violence, etc etc. 60,000 Kwh/person? 40,000? 20,000? 5 years? 20?

Quote from: TDoS on May 17, 2024, 08:41 PMReference to US per capita energy use use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off? And I don't mean run of the mill Watts riots or Rodney King or George Floyd riots and BLM stuff,more like large scale Hooverville based violence, entire towns being taken over so civilians can loot Walmarts and grocery stores for food, the stuff imagined by the survivalist types.

New Orleans after Katrina, that scale, but lasting longer, multiple cities, National Guard needing rolled out to stop the violence, etc etc. 60,000 Kwh/person? 40,000? 20,000? 5 years? 20?

To answer that question, if you had the information of the per capita energy use of the people living in Gaza prior to the growth of Hamas, or that of the Houthis in Yemen, or that of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region of Ukraine prior to their break from the Ukrainian goobermint and  their call to Vlad the Impaler for help, you might be able to work it out mathematically.

You would also need to know the current per capita energy use of the lowest ~20% of the population of the FSoA today versus what it was 40 years ago, then calculate the estimated rate of change (aka the 2nd derivative) downward of that use.  Then all you need to do is extrapolate the curve forward and see when it becomes as low here as it was in Ukraine when the grand scale violence broke out and you would have your answer.

It is at that point where you have an existential crisis of a significant enough segment of the population that they have nothing left to lose.  If they do nothing they will die slowly, so they resort to violence when peaceful appeals for enough help to stay in the survival zone fail.    They may die quicker, or they may force enough downward pressure on the haves to give up something so they can survive.

So, since you are the one who knows where to find information like per capita energy use for different places and demographic subsets, I set you the task of finding out the relevant information, andthen I'll be happy to give you an educated guess.  Without such information it's just a WAG.

You also have the problem of discontinuity in the 2nd derivative, points at which the rate of change itself changes significantly.  In this case that would be something like a sudden increase in price of oil or NG due to a sudden decrease in its availability.  Perhaps the Russians decide to halt all export of energy to Europe.  Or the Iranians sabotage Saudi production using their Houthi proxies.  Or Chinese hackers bring down the grid in retaliation for trade protectionism.  Any number of scenarios couuld cause a discontinuity and rapid descent to large scale violence.  Extrapolating the smooth curve forward just gives you the best case scenario.

Without good data, I can't make an educated guess.  It would be like going to the track to bet on the ponies without studying the Racing Form to see prior results for the horses in given track conditions.  You're just shooting craps.  Or playing blackjack without counting the cards as they come out.  Only way to gamble and win more often than you lose is if you hve enough information to improve the  odds of picking the right answer.  I don't shoot craps at the casino.  I play blackjack, and I count.  I win more than I lose.  Or I did back in my college days anyhow.

RE

I'll make an addendum to my last post.  There's a psychological factor to consider.

In the last few generations, the population of the FSoA has never been as poor as the poorest in Gaza or Ukraine.  We haven't had existential level poverty here since the Great Depression, which ended with WWII.

In the following decades there was growth in per capita energy use and a better standard of living for all except for one segment left out, the black population.  They broke out in mass protest, civil disobedience and violence in the 60s.  It was resolved through socialization with the Great Society program of Lyndon Johnson.  Then everone continued upward until the 80s, when stagnation set in.  Since then, we have had and ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

We may not need to drop all the way to existential crisis for bigger levels of violence, the difference between the way the rich live and the poor do and the diminished expectations of achieving the "Amerikan Dream" may be enough to set it off while people still have enough to eat to survive.

However, food isn't the only  essential for survival, shelter is also.  The increasing amount of Homelessness right now is a bigger threat than food availability is.  As this class of people grows and becomes more visible, it will be harder to control with sweeps of tent cities and mass shelters and concentration camps.  That is probably where the violence will break out first.

RE

Quote from: RESo, since you are the one who knows where to find information like per capita energy use for different places and demographic subsets, I set you the task of finding out the relevant information, andthen I'll be happy to give you an educated guess.  Without such information it's just a WAG.

We are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is. Peak oilers have proven it with oil for a century. Duncan has already demonstrated net energy per capita at the global level doesn't work, and did it in the last century. Supposing that the idea has validity is itself the fault, not a better calculation from a less experienced and less educated amateur than the PhD scientist who originated it.

Might the idea be involved in doomer hopes and dreams? Sure. Just as peak oil might. Or wars, pandemics, rogue states with nukes, according to the old Diner PlanetX and Yellowstone going BOOM were quite interesting as well.

WAGs are part and parcel of the doomosphere and your entire doomer career...why are you objecting to it this late in the game?

Quote from: REWithout good data, I can't make an educated guess.

Of course without good data you, and I, and everyone else, can make an educated guess. The guesses are simply better informed with first good data, and then more data and then more good data. It is why they are called "guesses".

Some knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because they had any better data? Or were better educated in the use of the same data?

So no, I don't automatically buy the "better data" angle, if only because with the same data some people have what it takes to generate the right answer, and some don't.

Quote from: REI play blackjack, and I count.  I win more than I lose.  Or I did back in my college days anyhow.
RE

Card counting operates in a system with quite limited outcomes. Interesting that you presume you card counting changes an already discredited idea into a better one if you just had more or better data. 

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 04:03 AMIn the last few generations, the population of the FSoA has never been as poor as the poorest in Gaza or Ukraine.  We haven't had existential level poverty here since the Great Depression, which ended with WWII.

Okay. Sounds reasonable.

Quote from: REThen everone continued upward until the 80s, when stagnation set in.  Since then, we have had and ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

I recognize that the video claimed that things began to change during Ronny's tenure, but it was generally referred to as the Go Go 80's, as the actual stagflation that Ronny got credit for ending, rightly or wrongly, happened late 70's early 80's and Jimmy seemed to get the blame for. As compared to Ronny, who got the credit, rightly or wrongly, for "curing" it.

So, claiming a stagflation during the Go Go 80's requires more context. Certainly inflation had dampened down, as economic growth was ramping up. Stagflation is the opposite of both at the same time, if I understand the definition correctly.

Quote from: REThe increasing amount of Homelessness right now is a bigger threat than food availability is.  As this class of people grows and becomes more visible, it will be harder to control with sweeps of tent cities and mass shelters and concentration camps.  That is probably where the violence will break out first.
RE

Well, homelessness is increasing. And where I live, is already quite visible. The wife and I went to a Cracker Barrel last night, which sits by a mass transit bus stop. There was an encampment of some sort, at least a dozen people, a few large tents, set up in a large grassy area nearby. It hadn't been there a couple months ago the last time we went there.

And we are also seeing quite an influx of Central/South Americans showing up on all street corners with sqeejees and bottles of soapy water. Some are selling flowers or bags of chips. I don't imagine that gang has made it to Anchorage yet.

I don't think I buy the correlation of increasing homelessness and increasing threat level. Irritation level? Sure. Wishing for less from regular citizens and general irritation? Sure. But Hooverville's don't seem to be quite the thing they once were. Yet.

Quote from: TDoS on May 17, 2024, 08:41 PM

QuoteI don't see much hope for a peaceful way out of our economic problems, because even if Green Hydrogen could be used to substitute, we're going to have a shrinking amount of per capita available energy until such time as we have a significant die off of the population.  That won't happen without violence.
RE

Reference to US per capita energy use use since 1965. We've had shrinking per capita energy use here in the US since 1979.

So 45 years of this thing happening, how more farther does the per capita current Kwh or a quantity of additional years/decades before the violence kicks off?

That graph is interesting but it does not mean much.  It would be interesting to correlate economic indicators and gas prices with the curve. 

But why does it not mean much?

Half of this energy use, or a huge part of it is elective.  In a city, more than half of all energy use is elective if you have decent public transportation.  Life does not depend on a visit to a mall, though without such useless activities American life sucks bad.  There is nothing to do but be by yourself if you are not an energy hog.

The exact measure of excess us is not the issue, but there is a level below which energy use is necessary and not elective.  Enough gas or electricity to cook, or get to a job if you have one.  That is the bitch line.  The amount of energy it actually takes to keep the show going.  That number could be worked out with enough study and effort.  The number would vary by location but the point is, the number exists.  So somewhere above that line, but close to it, things will go to shit.  Depending on the stupidity of the status-quo, collapse could come sooner. 

Above the line dissidents are violently suppressed but life goes on.  Below the line the FSOA becomes what Berlin was when the Soviet Army rolled in.  Ironic for sure.  Society does not work with energy use below this line, nothing works there is no power.  There is no longer enough power to turn the wheels of necessity.  40,0000kWh in the lower 48?  Backlash in the social knots that hold things together, already loose, snap tight and what looks like George Floyd riots spread, and then nothing stops the riots as the knots break.

QuoteWe may not need to drop all the way to existential crisis for bigger levels of violence, the difference between the way the rich live and the poor do and the diminished expectations of achieving the "Amerikan Dream" may be enough to set it off while people still have enough to eat to survive.

I agree, and then those who still had enough to eat can watch dominoes fall right up to their front door.

The double domino effect kicks in at the end.

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".  My only connection to PO is my participation on the forum as Rogue Economist.  My interest in economic collapse crossed over with their interest in the decreasing per capita energy consumption.

In terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.  One such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

I never said anything about stagflation, I mentioned stagnation, which was in reference to wages and income.  It began in the 80s, more or less.  Who was POTUS is irrelevant.  I also don't say card counting changes anything, it's just an analogy.  Of course it's just a game and there are fewer variables so it's easier to make predictions.  Far as outcomes are concerned, even though the variables are many, the outcomes are limited.  Thing could get better slowly or quickly; or they could get worse slowly or quickly.  I'll discount the first 2 choices as likely.  Not enough data to make book on the other two.

RE

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMSome knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because

I am not going to argue this, but I will express my annoyance.

Hubbert described a model which described how oil would deplete.  Given the data he used the model was 100% correct.  Does his model describe actual reality? If you plug in real world data it does.  Data which Hubbert did not have.

Math models often can be poor in predicting exactly what will happen because math models are always an abstraction of reality.  Typically valid over a narrow linear range.  Models properly built do express the form real world events will take.  But math models are no better than the data that is used.  Garbage in gives garbage out, and the model has to be correctly built to begin with.

Hubbert gave his talk and drew his graph.

The graph is only output from his peak oil model given knowledge of oil deposits at the time.  The graph is not the model itself.  Graphs only show results and Hubbert's graph is correct given the data he had.

We have better data then Hubbert did fifty years ago.  Now we know shit will start hitting the fan hard in ten years.  In ten years all global fossil fuel liquids will be in sharp decline.

On the bright side.  Oil tankers that will move Antarctic oil up across the roaring forties will be built strong enough to survive the new hurricanes which global heating shall bring.  There is another math model that describes that.

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".
RE

Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2024, 09:24 AMThat graph is interesting but it does not mean much.

I agree. And the point I thought I made, other than using it as information to demonstrate that it has been going on a long time, Richard Duncan claimed it as a world ending event...and it didn't work out as planned.

Quote from: K-DogIt would be interesting to correlate economic indicators and gas prices with the curve. 

It would. And I would bet someone like Gail Tverberg has already done it, and probably used it to predict the end times herself, somewhere between her peak oil claims going sideways in 2008 and within 10 years of that as she focused more on energy, as her discredited oil claims had already dinged her credibility.

Quote from: K-DogHalf of this energy use, or a huge part of it is elective.

Indeed. And then there is the efficiency of a fixed amount of energy use, allowing more to be done with the same, or even less, with increases in it. Part of the reason why a global peak in 1979 didn't bother folks anymore than the recent one in 2018. Folks use less, and use it more efficiently.

Quote from: K-DogThat is the bitch line.  The amount of energy it actually takes to keep the show going.  That number could be worked out with enough study and effort.  The number would vary by location but the point is, the number exists.  So somewhere above that line, but close to it, things will go to shit.  Depending on the stupidity of the status-quo, collapse could come sooner.

Well, some have certainly tried to work it out. And I would agree that it seems likely someone could, but those who have tried to date don't appear to have a handle on it quite yet.

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Quote from: REIn terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.

Okay...so when someone calls a time, and a volume, and gets it wrong it isn't failure. Would you volunteer that it is just incompetence, making a guess they knew was a WAG but pretending it time and volume certain? And then when the WAG didn't work out, and they did it again, with the same result, what would that be? Just stupid as a stump?

Quote from: REOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Quote from: REWho was POTUS is irrelevant.

The video seemed to take a different angle. Would you say his claim was materially wrong? He had quite a bit of causality assigned to Reagan there.