For example, radiant (electromagnetic) energy generated in Earth`s ionosphere on which Tesla was successfully working on in his experiments in early 20th century. Most of documentation was stolen after his death, by oil and banking cartel, i can bet on that.
Then, we have two-stage mechanical oscillator technology based on gravity and huge difference between input and output energy, i.e. useful work, up to 12 times with much possibility for further improvement. See this link: http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html
Also, there are hydro energy, coal, sun, wind, tidal power, geothermal, biomass, etc.
But to explore and improve all those sources, society must regain control of money issuance. Now it is completlly in private hands and that situation produce all kinds of monopoly, injustice and concealed slavery system based on debt.
With regard to energy and the economy, I think of it as a chicken and egg type riddle that is ultimately moot. Let me explain.
I typically argue that it’s a no-brainer that energy must precede the economy and is its primary impetus for growth and expansion. How else could it grow? And because of this the economy as a whole is extremely sensitive to the price of energy. However, inherent in the human race is the drive for expansion and growth and we would still have done things like tried to make flying and swimming and driving machines. This is one way to look at it – with the desire for energy pre-existing within the human psyche.
On the other hand, you could argue, in more philosophical tones, that perhaps ingenuity itself was the result of a lot of energy simply being at hand. And if there weren’t a lot of it lying around we would have never been pushed to design "things" that harnessed said energy.
Yet in both examples energy is needed for human beings to grow the complexity of their civilizations with, so I really don’t see much difference here. This can tend to chafe some people because it makes the potential of humans a mere function of available energy and the ease with which that energy can be circulated within a given groups of humans. But biologically speaking it seems so clear.
Oodles of energy in various stored forms were present long before humans were even a twinkle in the eye of the cosmos. What we decide to do with it and in what manner is up to us and carries with it a set of consequences we simply have to live with if we aren’t adept enough to analyze what they might be and react appropriately to them.
Now it’s 2009 and we’ve failed spectacularly at anticipating the troubles that were headed our way, and, at least for a few decades to come, we’re hopelessly tethered to the sinking ship of fossil fuel dependence. We need it to expand our economy and, subsequently, to dispense prosperity – at least what people today consider prosperity to be.
This business of oil is a fateful reminder of the California or Yukon Gold Rush… everyone dropped what they were doing to get a piece of the action, thinking that with minimal investment, they were sure to get rich.
Seems obvious that the oil industry (especially with regards to oil exploration) will follow the same path as other mineral resources have; gradually dropping off until very few are interested in them at all.
Funding growth seems to undermind the 2nd key concept - Growth does not equal prosperity.
Fixation on growth will probably resolve in a dramatically lower standard of living - not that anyone here didn’t know that, but to hear it coming from the “leaders” of the world… it makes for a pretty grim forecast.
This definately requires a lot of contemplation, thanks CM.
Aaron
I think there also needs to be a discussion about the broken mechanisms of price signals and the supposed law of supply and demand. I rarely see this discussed except by Matt Simmons and some folks over at the Oil Drum.
Also, with regard to supply and demand, I never see anyone talk about the two kinds of demand – at least theoretically for some people. They escape me at the moment. I think, at least according to Adam Smith, they’re effectual demand, which is the demand that can be acted upon – so people who want/need something and can actually buy it – and some kind of absolute demand. So, for example, someone who’s starving and is poor cannot act upon (purchase food) that impulse but the demand they internalize still exists as a metric within the economy.
So in terms of oil, our effectual demand has gone down (but only due to extreme price as opposed to true non-demand) but our absolute demand is actually increasing. And oil is the food of our economy. Without it, it dies.
I do appreciate all the insight & info posted to this board by everyone (especially Dr Martenson) I do have a nagging concern in the back of my head.
Maybe this isn’t the correct place to post this concern but here it goes.
I would be interested in bringing a bit of balance to the equation. My concern (generally speaking) is a question in the back of my mind which asks " Are "we" focusing only on finding the reasons why the ‘best laid plans’ are doomed to fail?
I do think & hopefully most here agree – There is no one single plan / solution or action that is going to get us out of this mess. I would be curious to see if anyone agrees that ANY action taken by ANYONE is a step in the right direction or are things going completely the wrong way.
It is a bit of this lack of objectivity or only focus on the negative aspects that are going to pull subscribers of CM into some sort of ‘pessimist bubble’ unable to acknowledge or see any merit in any action other than a NWO type of scenario.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying being critical is bad & I do AGREE that there is a general concenus of ‘over-optimism’ in the ‘main stream’ & things are a lot worse than most people acknowledge but …has there not been one shred of a positive move?
I do agree with the metaphor of - if your house is on fire then you have to put the fire out before you figure out why & change the code. Again, this said, many of the things already done are only putting the problems off until later & quite possibly making them worse when things do crash.
Maybe what I’m saying is that from a purely objective & analytical point of veiw - What are the risks to our views that could prove us wrong?. (maybe not entirely but …to a degree)
Good point Chris. I have wondered about this as well. We criticise ‘group think’ as a major reason we got into this mess. We must be careful not to let the same error cloud our analysis. I think CM’s emphasis on facts and looking at underlying information is critical in avoiding wrong thinking. However we have seen several times over the past few months how, at least short-term, our expectations can be overshadowed by events. This occurs mostly when the governernment and the FED do things that seem to contradict common sense. And like gold dropping so much today; is it manipulation,and how do you account for that? I think, though, that clear-headed analysis will prove to provide correct long-term forecasts.
That being said, there is one item in particular though that I am very curious about. What would have happened if, back last September, the crisis had not been handled the way it had? What if institutions would have been allowed to fail? The consensus I hear is that we would have had a short, very rough depression, and would recover fairly quickly. But I have not seen that scenario fleshed out by anyone. Maybe it’s impossible to speculate with any authority, but as more information comes out about all the underlying finances, maybe one could take a stab at it.
Umm… One thought that comes to mind would be the fact that every single time in recorded history that printing has been tried as a solution, the result was a collapse of the currency in question.
Dude, watch the Crash Course or something. You’re not making any sense and your comments about ionospheric energy sources only serve to underscore your failure to look at problems objectively with an eye toward what practical solutions could be implemented in the real world.
The main difference between the "groupthink" mentality and the cast of CM.com is that most of us drifted here looking to simplify a range of possible outcomes of our teetering global socio-political empire.
While there is some "cross-pollination" of thought, there is a lot of dissent, and I don’t think many people here really think a Mad Max situation will unfold, or come here just to validate their own opinions so they can gloat.
The difference is objectivity.
I think, as individuals we are objective and open minded, and as a group, we are objective oriented.
Excellent question, LYS. But I’d like to propose a slightly different version of it (in hopes Chris might answer it in Part II). The reason I think your version needs to be changed is that the decision to speculate (as opposed to invest) is one that depends on many personal factors, and I don’t think that whether or not Chris personally feels inclined to speculate on crude prices is relevant. What is relevant (in my never-humble opinion) is what factors those who are inclined toward energy price speculation should be thinking about. So I’d re-state your question this way:
For those who are inclined to speculate on crude oil prices in the futures market, how much risk do you think there is of a considerable price pull-back from current levels, due to the "undulation" factor described in the report? Specifically, if the current equity rally turns out to be a bear market sucker rally as many of us fear, could a major down-move in equities trigger the "correlation always goes to one in a panic" phenomenon, causing Crude prices to retrace their lows in the $30s?
Chris: Fantastic report, chief! I can’t wait to read part II.
Aaron et all good to exchange ideas with you again…
My point here is not to discredit anyone to or take sides but rather to spark a discussion.
I guess to oversimplify …I would use a classic debate type model where there are 2 sides to any argument. Sometimes being forced to argue a point of view whether you agree with it or not can provide additional insight or expose ‘seams’ into your own beliefs.
No doubt many (not all) of the arguements on this website are cemented in fact but I’d be curious to look at it from a different angle.
I’m all for innovative methods to create energy, but…
If Tesla had really happened onto something, I think over the past 100 years someone else would have re-invented it.
If things like the mechanical oscillator or magnet driven motors or other ‘free-energy’ machines really worked than why aren’t they hooked to generators and running houses, etc? They never seem to get past some crude prototype that doesn’t perform any useful work…
I am all for alternate energy, but even an all out effort will only make a small dent in our near future energy needs.
The stakes are so high to find cheap energy, that I can’t imagine a viable source would not be developed (unless it requires huge development costs - such as fusion). Look at the wind energy sector. These are (I believe) raesonably small, private companies that found a niche and are successfully exploiting it. I have installed solar hot water and am looking into PVs.
All that being said, I believe that conservation is probably the best method we currently have to offset the losses we will see in fossil fuels, and that is in everyone’s reach.
The way I see it, and I understand it is my opinion, nothing here is souly focused on the negative as much as majority focused on the statistical fact. There are definitely area’s of debate, but unfortunately, most scenarios are on both sides of not good. The view is simply how the individual interprets the facts.
I personally dont claim to even remotely be an expert, but after many many books, and a number of sites (like many others that take part here) I am all but 100% convinced we are in for trouble. I don’t have a crystal ball, but will major events coming to light in a range of 1-3 years apart from each-other, there is no way this is going to turn out good (I’m speaking of water, food, oil…pretty much everything, or peak everything as I have heard it referred to). Tie this in with the economic issues, means big trouble. Frankly speaking, every generation’s congress/government has pushed the fiscal problems to the next generation. Now we are at the point where it can not be pushed up any longer.
On to your curiosity, I believe EVERY step the government has taken is a complete step the wrong way. Everything they are doing will prolong the problems, and make them worse when they finally come to light, which this time, wont take 70 years to come to light (I’m thinking more like within 10, but very possibly ALOT sooner).
What action should they have taken? Personally, I am a proponent of cutting government, cut spending…I could go on a tangent here, but will save it for now I guess, but would be happy to go into detail if you would like.
If crude retraces to the low 30s, even more woe is us.
Also, I’m not an investor or speculator, but if someone asked me about investing in crude (don’t know why they would) I would pound the broken price signal drum – mainly following Matt Simmons lead. It’s not worth the risk. I think the volatility factor regarding crude is just immense right now. Now on the other hand, there are those who see crude priced in the hundreds of dollars/barrel again, so if you’ve got extra dough to sit on a bunch of crude, maybe you should.
I have the argument of "what if" nothing happens regularly… with the missus =)
She keeps both feet firmly planted in reality, but I am the "what if" thinker. I like troubleshooting problems and reverse engineering solutions. There are so many intelligent people here, it’s literally like having a virtual symposium from which to draw on for the troubleshooting.
I’ll admit, sometimes I get carried away. I suppose a "minimal impact" event is entirely possible. This shambling old beast might lumber on until I’m old and gray.
But what it comes down to in my mind is I like the "earthy" lifestyle, and no matter what happens, it’ll make me healthier and happier - so there are goals common to both catastrophic and relatively unchanged living situations.
I’ve mentioned it before: What could be the trigger for social unrest?
For those of us who live in urban areas in particular, when do we pick up the BOB (bug out bag) and get in the BOV (bug out vehicle) and head for our BOL (bug out location). (Acronyms borrowed from Neil Straus’s amusing book, "Emergency.")
I think the price of oil is the key. Why?
I think urban dwellers can handle a lower standard of living. They can handle some fairly high levels of unemployment before picking up the sticks and torches. Heck, in my area, many of the folks in the center of our city have been living with high levels of unemployment for a time. They have been relegated to the margin and are used to living on the margins and scraping by as best they can. Many are dependent on state assistance. They don’t care so much whether housing prices decline (most don’t own houses). They don’t care whether stocks decline (they don’t own stocks). They don’t care about pensions (they don’t have them). What they DO care about is whether their dollar, whether from a state check or their low-paying jobs, will stretch far enough to buy them the basic necessities: Food and gas. As long as they have food and gas they’re fine. But they are already stretching their dollars to the absolute max. And when they wake up one day and find that they can’t afford to fill up their car and they can’t stretch their dollar far enough to get what they need at Grocery Outlet (Lowest Prices!) then I start to worry.
Then you have to consider the factors that play into a possible dramatic spike in oil prices:
Supply – classic peak oil problems.
Garden variety inflation (albeit at high levels).
Currency collapse. (I see this as a slighly different issue than garden variety inflation – an international panic that causes run on the dollar as opposed to sustained but more gradual increases in prices caused by ‘too much money.’)
Some international flareup.
The total inability of the government to do anything about a sudden gas shortage. The government can always print more money; they really can’t do anything to address a gas shortage except ration gas, which is the same thing as having a gas shortage.
When the price of gas doubles in two months and you start seeing the "No Gas" signs at the stations and some empty store shelves, then I think it’s probably time to think about heading for the hills.
Everything we talk about on this site goes into the SHTF equation. But if you’re looking for the trigger point for social unrest, I think it’s got to be the price of gas. Don’t you all?
[quote=ErikTownsend]Umm… One thought that comes to mind would be the fact that every single time in recorded history that printing has been tried as a solution, the result was a collapse of the currency in question.[/quote]Erik, you simply don`t understand what money is and with lack of other information, you draw false conclusions. Are you aware that private commercial banks "print" deposit or entry-book money all the time in form of debt? About 97% of all money in circulation in U.S. is that kind of privately created or should I say counterfeited money which brings society gigantic debt and harsh taxation. Another problem is FED which is also privately held.
Money in circulation is backed by people`s work and production of various goods and services. Exactly the same concept and great understanding of money nature which Founding Fathers of U.S. implemented with success to gain victory over England and promote their country in a bastion of freedom and welfare for its citizens. China does the same today with its "non-performing loans" (non-credit money actually) building itself in a prosperous superpower. But U.S. society was later manipulated by private bankers (mainly from Europe) to gave up their sovereignity over process of money creation.
I recommend you to visit American monetary institut website http://www.monetary.org/ and read Stephen Zarlenga`s "The Lost Science of Money" book or equally good "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown. Both contains complete historical background and practical examples for understanding what money really is and why the Government (or Congress) should only have the right to coin or issue money.
1.) In your table "Growth In…" how can for Oil 1985-2007 be 1.6% while the two subsets intervals are 1.5 and 1.4 percent respectively?
2.) I note the way your chart of zigzags over a 4 year period shares commonality with the late Dr A. S. Bakhtiari of the National Iranian Oil Company of his concepts of T1, T2,T3,T4 (particularly T2). Maybe this is coincidence. If not, some of his comments he outlined a transition to demand outstripping supply starting in 2009 to 2010 which you and others share (including myself). In your upcoming part 2 post, if you find value to his ideas, consider at least referencing his T2 stage which he projected to run circa 2009-2012. They may enhance some of your analysis and points in your next post.
His work I find most prescient and excellent quality. For those not familiar with him, considering searching sites such as "Oil Drum" and "Energy Bulletin".
3.) Agree on referencing the Hook, Hirsch and Alexlett report. It all starts and stops with quality of data. Your background and experience shines here…keep it up.
Curious in your next report how close I will be to what you post.
