AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: For MV On Oil and the USA Economy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
"Duell's Peak"


http//windsofchange.net/
Quote:But Mr. Kunstler leaves out human ingenuity in his dire predictions. He discounts how well Americans respond to crisis and change when confronted with it. Crises are history's great motivators, forcing humanity to adapt and leap forward. Modern technology, such as it is, has convinced me of one thing: Anything's possible. We shouldn't be so smug as to presume we can predict the future in this era.

Perhaps we should just all give up and die, the future is so bleak. Shock

Or perhaps Kunstler should be the one to commit Sipuku: after he convinces the other Ludites to to so in mass. Wink1
Or we could go back to Stanley Steamers. A restored SS was driven from New York to California for less than five dollars worth of fuel. Most was leavings from used crankcase oil stockpiled to be thrown away. I understand such vehicles can use buttermilk for fuel.

I once had a talk with the Chrysler engineers working on their turbine engine that won the Indy 500 twice in a row by five laps, and then was kicked out. I Asked them if they had worked on the established technology of the Stanley brothers, and they said the only reason they couldn't put such a car in production today was because they couldn't build a transmission that could handle it. Then I did some more reading and found that steam cars are direct drive and don't need transmissions.

My youngest son is an engine designer at FEV and said that Steam engines have some design parameters that minimize their ramp up in speed and power, but are unmatched in overall usage. The Tesla steam engine produced so much torque that a working model couldn't be built until modern alloys could withstand the deformation.

A side point is that the only pollution is water vapor, and whatever is being burned with a low-temperature fire.
My apologies for the silence of the last two days...bz...

OK, since Palladin finally started a Peak Oil thread (thank you!), lets continue here.


Kunstler's work is well known, but I personally prefer more objective presentations like the Bartlett's for US Senate; I've previously linked this on the "Global Warming" thread, but I guess no one notice. This article is a must read.

Generally, one should look at the overall picture rather than quote some optimistic predictions about particular discoveries as John did on the China-Japan thread where this discussion started. The charts in Bartlett's report show the trend, and while it is entirely possible that one or two of items John promises will come through, they will not change the overall trend.

And the trend clearly points toward scarce resources and wars over resources.

Should we

Quote:Perhaps we should just all give up and die, the future is so bleak

??? Of course not. The situation is far from hopeless, and there is a chance that a competent leadership will evolve at the time of crisis to replace Clinton-Bush mediocracy. It is certain that some of the population will survive, and rather than die, consider to be part of survivors.

Steam Engines is certainly a possibility; but switching the economy to them (or any new/old/other technology) in a rush would still be a shocking experience. I find it unlikely that large cities will be able to survive, and it might be prudent to abandom them within the next 3-5 years.

The Hybrid Car idea from the previous thread, otoh, is just a wet dream. While there was some interesting progress in batteries this year, the core issue is still where the original energy is to come from. With nuclear plants being the only realistic choice, Bush's lack of attention to the problem closes this door.

Another interesting and promising possibility to consider is orbital mirrors... and here yet again our mediocracy deserves full credit for not even looking into it.
mv Wrote:Generally, one should look at the overall picture rather than quote some optimistic predictions about particular discoveries as John did on the China-Japan thread where this discussion started. The charts in Bartlett's report show the trend, and while it is entirely possible that one or two of items John promises will come through, they will not change the overall trend.

Oh, Michael, you are too much. S6 Have you ever met a good thing that you did not think the worst about? You completely overlook the spirit and ingenuity of this country. Perhaps a little bit of Julian Simon can help alleviate some of the built in paranoia.

Quote:And the trend clearly points toward scarce resources and wars over resources.

Naturally, I dispute the overall contention here about the former, but perhaps not the later. Why are oil wells replinishing themselves? Spend some time with Dr. Gold and his work. When we actually run out of oil, we will be using other energy sources. I can use the horse and buggy/automobile or the Whale oil/Petroleum change over as an example. Come on Michael, technology is going to change things before civilization goes into the toilet. Wink1

Quote:Of course not. The situation is far from hopeless, and there is a chance that a competent leadership will evolve at the time of crisis to replace Clinton-Bush mediocracy.

Perhaps a strong leader, who will lead us to the land of milk and honey, while he takes away our liberties? Do you have any suggestions? Putin maybe?

Quote:Steam Engines is certainly a possibility; but switching the economy to them (or any new/old/other technology) in a rush would still be a shocking experience.

I think Bill was using that as an analogy. But if it works, I'm all for it.

Quote: I find it unlikely that large cities will be able to survive, and it might be prudent to abandom them within the next 3-5 years.

Perhaps you have been reading Clifford D Simak lately? S6

Quote:The Hybrid Car idea from the previous thread, otoh, is just a wet dream. While there was some interesting progress in batteries this year, the core issue is still where the original energy is to come from.

Perhaps you should explain why it is only a "wet dream"? if I am right will you be the first to appologize for your pessimism? Shock

Quote:With nuclear plants being the only realistic choice, Bush's lack of attention to the problem closes this door.

Here in NC, just today, the first nuclear reactor is going to be approved for building at a plant that currently has only one of the four origional reactors. It will be five years coming on line, but it will be onling. Then there are two more that were already approved.

And Bush is right not to try to ram it down out throuts. It will happen if it is constantly pushed in an easy informative manner. Anyway, others are taking the baton and starting to run with it.

Quote:Another interesting and promising possibility to consider is orbital mirrors... and here yet again our mediocracy deserves full credit for not even looking into it.

That is about as practical as having thousands of collectors decorating the land. Not realistic, yet. only with the creation of Space Elevators will this be a practical concept. But by then, the solar system is the limit.

The overall solution will be a combination of all alternatives.

Michael, you are to negative. You must learn to give up your propensity to think this way. When all is said and done, my optimism will be proven right. But, then again, I was born in a country where optimism was a natural part of existence.
My basic take is that the reality will end up being between MV's pessimistic view and JL's optimistic view. Nukes,man I'm all for one on every street corner actually. It's my industry!
Palladin Wrote:My basic take is that the reality will end up being between MV's pessimistic view and JL's optimistic view. Nukes,man I'm all for one on every street corner actually. It's my industry!

So, you are at ORNL?
Yea,been there since 1981. I'm not in the reactor division,but I dispose of their waste,so it is to my personal benefit if we moved to more reactors,but I think it makes imminent sense at any rate.
John Wrote:You completely overlook the spirit and ingenuity of this country.

No such thing, you are still living in the 60s (or 50s). Consider NASA as the symbol of spirit and ingenuity...in the days gone...and now the symbol of bureaucracy and morass.

Quote:Why are oil wells replinishing themselves? Spend some time with Dr. Gold and his work.

Why nobody seems to take him seriously enough to start pumping oil from the old wells? There is money to be made there ... or not?

Quote:Perhaps a strong leader, who will lead us to the land of milk and honey, while he takes away our liberties? Do you have any suggestions? Putin maybe?

Oh, surely not Putin, he lacks both brains and imagination.

Probably there is some Churchill (guts and brains) waiting in the wings, but you never know who it may be until he reveals himself....Guiliani, perhaps?...anyway, it probably will be too late.

Quote:Perhaps you have been reading Clifford D Simak lately?

Not for about 20 years,... but I have to admit, at one point I really loved his writing. Not City specifically..he improved after he wrote it. Interesting that this page does not even mention the Goblin Reservation which I thought was his best.

Quote:Perhaps you should explain why it is only a "wet dream"?

Well, because you are clearly dreaming about future availability of liquid (wet) fuel.

Quote:That is about as practical as having thousands of collectors decorating the land. Not realistic, yet. only with the creation of Space Elevators will this be a practical concept

Actually, I don't think that Space Elevators have anything to do with it. You can redirect light toward collecting solar panels on the ground.

Quote:Michael, you are to negative. You must learn to give up your propensity to think this way. When all is said and done, my optimism will be proven right.

The advantage of being negative (or realistic) is that all my surprises will be pleasant. The problem of being optimist is that you can only expect disappointments.

Better learn being negative and your future will be full of pleasant surprises...









Wink1
mv Wrote:Oh, surely not Putin, he lacks both brains and imagination.

Zhirinovsky??? :?

For MV about Ukrainian oil(in russian):
http://www.rbcdaily.ru/index0.shtml
http://www.blotter.ru/news/article013A00...efault.asp
Under John's classification it's fascism, but I can't find even single article in west "free" media about Yushchenko's fascism or even about his petty tyranny. It's OK when prime minister fix oil prices?
PS: Poor, poor Niemzov... S2
Mv Wrote:The advantage of being negative (or realistic) is that all my surprises will be pleasant. The problem of being optimist is that you can only expect disappointments.

Better learn being negative and your future will be full of pleasant surprises...

You realize that a phlosophy expert could tear your statement to shreds here. The point is that since you are a most fatalistic sort of person, when pleasant surprises do arrive, you will be unable to appreciate, and enjoy then.

And as an optimist, I by nature, do not expect disappointments. A disappointment is merely another open door. As the saying goes, "We don't have problems, only opportunities." S6

No, I'll stick with my optimism, thank you. Since you already acknowledge that life will be full of pleasant surprises, looking forward to them is even better. You can enjoy your old "blank" fatalism.

Bh, you see what I told you? I am correct,.... in spades! Wink1
bh Wrote:Under John's classification it's fascism, but I can't find even single article in west "free" media about Yushchenko's fascism or even about his petty tyranny. It's OK when prime minister fix oil prices?

It is one step on the road there. Even the US has taken several steps in that direction. It is indeed troubling.

Unfortunately, I cannot read Russian, so I don't know exactly what it states. But if he is regulating prices of oil, he is making a terrible mistake. The Nixon price fixing in the early seventies, following the Arab Oil Embargo, proved to not only accomplish nothing, but actually created a shortage, as producers simply did not make available enough fuel. Why should they, is the profit is not there?

Is this what you are talking about?
Exactly, I can add, price of petrol in Ukraine is about 40% European price.
bh Wrote:Exactly, I can add, price of petrol in Ukraine is about 40% European price.

Most of the high cost of European petrol is due to outrageous taxes.

It would seem that before our friendly PM slaps price freeze, he makes certain that there really is a scheme to fix prices. And if that is the case, perhaps he may wish to penalize the price fixers, AND maybe look elsewhere for another supply of oil.

Fixing prices never work. All it does is cause the difference in price to be shifted elsewhere, PLUS it also guarantees the scarcity of the very thing that is fixed in price. It is like a dog chasing it's tail. It never really catches it.
Fixing of prices is classic socialism.
Ukraine had low prices due to special relations with Russia. Now they want to join EU, they must "join" EU prices.
bh Wrote:Fixing of prices is classic socialism.
Ukraine had low prices due to special relations with Russia. Now they want to join EU, they must "join" EU prices.

To be more precise, it is classic tactics of ALL Collictivists. If you check out Mussolini and the Italian Fascists, it was standard practice there too. Anytime a State controled government runs into a problem, the first 'knee jerk' reaction is to manipulate things.

It never works in the long run. But it sounds good, until the citizens have to pay the bills. :roll:
John, national-socialism and international-socialism are different in national politic mostly. Economically they are enough close. Yup, it's exactly collectivism.
bh Wrote:John, national-socialism and international-socialism are different in national politic mostly. Economically they are enough close. Yup, it's exactly collectivism.

That is why I use the Word so frequently. Since it is difficult, and sometimes impossible to sort out all the different groups, be it marxists, mainline socilists, Democratic socialists, or fascists. They all have one common denominator: Collectivism, and Egalitarianism.

None of the above are inheritly evil, in and of themselves. But they make it very easy for unscrupulous individuals or groups to seize power, and ruin a nation, it's economy, it's citizens, and it's heritage. That is why I am totally opposed to any form of collectivism and egalitarianism.

If any reader is not familiar with the two terms, he/she is required to fully understand them, or he/she will never fully understand these types of societies.
And now from philosophy to real policy. We are talking about leaders of extremely "democratic" orange revolution. Week ago Bush promised to recognize Ukraine as a country with MARKET economy... S2 Extra cause to despise foreign policy of US and EU.
BTW Long live Jackson&Venik! Even when Israel will collapse, amendment will be actual for US Government. S4 Week ago Bush promised to abolish amendment for Ukraine ONLY! S2
bh Wrote:And now from philosophy to real policy. We are talking about leaders of extremely "democratic" orange revolution. Week ago Bush promised to recognize Ukraine as a country with MARKET economy... S2 Extra cause to despise foreign policy of US and EU.
BTW Long live Jackson&Venik! Even when Israel will collapse, amendment will be actual for US Government. S4 Week ago Bush promised to abolish amendment for Ukraine ONLY! S2

Come Again? :?
Pages: 1 2 3 4