Investing in precious metals 101
  • Blog
    Blue Sunburst Peak Prosperity Logo

    Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    by Chris Martenson

    Friday, October 1, 2010, 8:26 PM

Part I

By my analysis, we are not yet on the final path to recovery, and there are one or more financial ‘breaks’ coming in the future.  Underlying structural weaknesses have not been resolved, and the kick-the-can-down-the-road plan is going to encounter a hard wall in the not-too-distant future.  When the next moment of discontinuity finally arrives, events will unfold much more rapidly than most people expect.  

My work centers on figuring out which macro trends are in play and then helping people to adjust accordingly.  Based on trends in fiscal and monetary policy, I began advising accumulation of gold and silver in 2003 and 2004.  I shorted homebuilder stocks beginning in 2006 and ending in 2008.  These were not ‘great’ calls; they were simply spotting trends in play, one beginning and one certain to end, and then taking appropriate actions based on those trends. 

We happen to live in a non-linear world; a core concept of the Crash Course.  But far too many people expect events to unfold in a more or less orderly manner, with plenty of time to adjust along the way.  In other words, linearly.  The world does not always cooperate, and my concern rests on the observation that we still face the convergence of multiple trends, each of which alone has the power to permanently transform our economic landscape and standards of living. 

Three such trends (out of the many I track) that will shape our immediate future are:

  • Peak Oil
  • Sovereign insolvency
  • Currency debasement

Individually, these worry me quite a bit; collectively, they have my full attention.

History suggests that instead of a nice smooth line heading either up or down, markets have a pronounced habit of jolting rather suddenly into a new orbit, either higher or lower.  Social moods are steady for long periods, and then they shift.  This is what we should train ourselves to expect. 

No smooth lines between points A and B; instead, long periods of quiet, followed by short bursts of reformation and volatility.  Periods of market equilibrium, followed by Minsky moments.  In the language of the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, we live in a system governed by the rules of “punctuated equilibrium.”

Complex Systems

Our economy is a complex system.  The key feature of such systems is that they are inherently unpredictable with respect to the timing and severity of specific events.  For the uninitiated, they can look enormously fragile and prone to flying apart at any minute; for the seasoned observer, there is an appreciation that the immense inertia of the economic system will almost always delay and dampen the eventual adjustments. 

Like everybody else, I have no idea exactly what’s going to happen, or precisely when.  Anybody who says they do know should be greeted with a furrowed brow and a frown of suspicion.  As my long-time readers know, I prefer to assess the risks and then take steps to mitigate those risks based on likelihood and impact.

Which means that although we cannot predict the size (exactly how much) or the timing (precisely when) of economic shifts or world-changing events, we can certainly understand the risks and the dimensions of what might happen.  Just as we cannot predict when an avalanche will release from steep slope, or even where or how big it will be, we can readily predict that constant snowfall coupled with the right temperature conditions will lead to an avalanche sooner or later, and more likely in this gully than that one.  Given certain conditions, we might expect one that is larger or smaller than normal.  Although we don’t know exactly when or how much, we do know that when snow accumulates, so do the risks of more frequent and/or larger avalanches.

Such is the nature of complex systems.  While inherently unpredictable, they can still be described.  The most important description of any complex system is that it owes its order and complexity to the constant flow of energy through it.  Complex systems require inputs.  This is one way in which we can understand them. 

Given this view, one easy “prediction” is that an economy without increasing energy flows running through it will stagnate.  To take this further, an economy that is being starved of energy becomes simpler in the process — meaning fewer jobs, less items produced, and a reduced capacity to support extraneous functions.

Accepting “What Is”

The most important part of this story is getting our minds to accept reality without our passionate beliefs interfering.  By ‘beliefs’ I mean statements like these:

  • “Things always get better and are never as bad as they seem.”
  • “If Peak Oil were ‘real,’ I would be hearing about it from my trusted sources.”
  • “Dwelling on the negative is self-fulfilling.”

While each of these things might be true, they also might be false and therefore misleading, especially during periods of transition.  Our job is to remain as dispassionate and logical as possible.  

Let’s now examine more closely the three main events that are converging — Peak Oil, sovereign insolvency, and currency debasement — using as much logic as we can muster.

Peak Oil

Peak Oil is now a matter of open inquiry and debate at the highest levels of industry and government.  Recent reports by Lloyd’s of London, the US Department of Defense, the UK industry taskforce on Peak Oil, Honda, and the German military are evidence of this.  But when I say “debate,” I am not referring to disagreement over whether or not Peak Oil is real, only when it will finally arrive.  The emerging consensus is that oil demand will outstrip supplies “soon,” within the next five years and maybe as soon as two.  So the correct questions are no longer, “Is Peak Oil real?” and “Are governments aware?” but instead, “When will demand outstrip supply?” and “What implications does this have for me?” 

It doesn’t really matter when the actual peak arrives; we can leave that to the ivory-tower types and those with a bent for analytical precision.  What matters is when we hit “peak exports.”  My expectation is that once it becomes fashionable among nation-states to finally admit that Peak Oil is real and here to stay, one or more exporters will withhold some or all of their product “for future generations” or some other rationale (such as, “get a higher price”), which will rather suddenly create a price spiral the likes of which we have not yet seen. 

What matters is an equal mixture of actual oil availability and market perception.  As soon as the scarcity meme gets going, things will change very rapidly.

In short, it is time to accept that Peak Oil is real – and plan accordingly.

Sovereign Insolvency

Once we accept the imminent arrival of Peak Oil, then the issue of sovereign insolvency jumps into the limelight.  Why?  Because the hopes and dreams of the architects of the financial rescue entirely rest upon the assumption that economic growth will resume.  Without additional supplies of oil, such growth will not be possible; in fact, we’ll be doing really, really well if we can prevent the economy from backsliding.

Virtually every single OECD country, due to outlandish pension and entitlement programs, has total debt and liability loads that Arnaud Mares (of Morgan Stanley) pointed out have resulted in a negative net worth for the governments of Germany, France, Portugal, the US, the UK, Spain, Ireland, and Greece.  And not by just a little bit, but exceptionally so, ranging from more than 450% of GDP in the case of Germany on the ‘low’ end to well over 1,500% of GDP for Greece. 

Such shortfalls cannot possibly be funded out of anything other than a very, very bright economic future.  Something on the order of Industrial Age 2.0, fueled by some amazing new source of wealth.  Logically, how likely is that?  Even if we could magically remove the overhang of debt, what new technologies are on the horizon that could offer the prospect of a brand new economic revival of this magnitude?  None that I am aware of.

In the US, the largest capital market and borrower, even the most optimistic budget estimates foresee another decade of crushing deficits that will grow the official deficit by some $9 trillion and the real (i.e., “accrual” or “unofficial”) deficit by perhaps another $20 to $30 trillion, once we account for growth in liabilities.  This is, without question, an unsustainable trend.

It’s time to admit the obvious:  Debts of these sorts cannot be serviced, now or in the future.  Expanding them further with fingers firmly crossed in hopes of an enormous economic boom that will bail out the system is a fool’s game.  It is little different than doubling down after receiving a bad hand in poker. 

The unpleasant implication of various governments going deeper into debt is that a string of sovereign defaults lies in the future.  Due to their interconnected borrowings and lendings, one may topple the next like dominoes. 

However, it is when we consider the impact of the widespread realization of Peak Oil on the story of growth that the whole idea of sovereign insolvency really assumes a much higher level of probability.  More on that later.

For now we should accept that there’s almost no chance of growing out from under these mountains of debts and other obligations.  We must move our attention to the shape, timing, and the severity of the aftermath of the economic wreckage that will result from a series of sovereign defaults. 

Currency Wars

We could trot out a lot of charts here, examine much of history, and make a very solid case that once a country breaches the 300% debt/liability to GDP ratio, there’s no recovery, only a future containing some form of default (printing or outright).

In a recent post to my enrolled members, I wrote:

The currency wars have begun, and the implications to world stability and wealth could not be more profound. Fortunately, all of my long-time enrolled members are prepared for this outcome, which we’ve been predicting here for some time.

When pressed, the most predictable decision in all of history is to print, print, print.  So I can’t take credit for a ‘prediction’ that was just slightly bolder than ‘predicting’ which way a dropped anvil will travel; down or up?

The only problem is, widespread currency debasements will further destabilize an already rickety global financial system where tens of trillions of fiat dollars flow daily on the currency exchanges.

You can be nearly certain that every single country is seeking a path to a weaker relative currency. The problem is obvious: Everybody cannot simultaneously have a weaker currency. Nor can everybody have a positive trade balance.

If a country or government cannot grow its way out from under its obligations, then printing (a.k.a. currency debasement) takes on additional allure.  It is the “easy way out” and has lots of political support in the home country.  Besides the fact that it has already started, we should consider a global program of currency debasement to be a guaranteed feature of our economic future. 

Conclusion (to Part I)

Three unsustainable trends or events have been identified here.  They are not independent, but they are interlocked to a very high degree.  At present I can find no support for the idea that the economy can expand like it has in the past without increasing energy flows, especially oil.  All of the indications point to Peak Oil, or at least “peak exports,” happening within five years. 

At that point, it will become widely recognized that most sovereign debts and liabilities will not be able to be serviced by the miracle of economic growth.  Pressures to ease the pain of the resulting financial turmoil and economic stagnation will grow, and currency debasement will prove to be the preferred policy tool of choice. 

Instead of unfolding in a nice, linear, straightforward manner, these colliding events will happen quite rapidly and chaotically.

By mentally accepting that this proposition is not only possible, but probable, we are free to make different choices and take actions that can preserve and protect our wealth and mitigate our risks.

What changes in our actions and investment stances are prudent if we assume that Peak Oil, sovereign insolvency, and currency debasement are ‘locks’ for the future? 

I explore these questions in greater depth in Part II of this report (enrollment required).

Related content
» More

78 Comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 10:03pm

    #1

    JAG

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 26 2008

    Posts: 240

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    I saw this on Zerohedge; it must be TGIF happy-hour over there because this post got some pretty harsh reactions. 

    If I haven’t thanked the moderators lately: Thank You!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 10:11pm

    #2
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    “Such shortfalls cannot possibly be funded out of anything other than a very, very bright economic future.  Something on the order of Industrial Age 2.0, fueled by some amazing new source of wealth.”

    This source of wealth must be the Green Revolution.  It seems to me to be the only hope.  Without it, the financial system will collapse, and there will not enough available energy for any kind of economy till the population drops dramatically.  If it succeeds, then in the long term, even if the paper financial system collapses, then energy will still be available for some kind of economy, even if only in pockets.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 10:20pm

    Reply to #2

    Robert Gardner

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 68

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Perhaps you mean the ‘Green Revolution’ can play an important part in transitioning to a reasonable and sustainable alternative energy/economic system. With, or without it the current financial system will collapse. Currently available alternative energy sources simply do not offer high enough EROEI to sustain the current level of complexity (or anywhere near it).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 10:47pm

    #3

    SingleSpeak

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 30 2008

    Posts: 167

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Thanks again Chris,

    Due to you constantly pounding the drum and sending your reports and warnings, I am slowly getting prepared. I have no doubt that I will kick myself for not doing more now while it’s “easy”, but when I look at those around me that think the worst is over, I feel like I’m way ahead of the game. Still, without your constant prodding, I would become complacent and procrastinate. Ooops, gotta go prepare.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 11:11pm

    #4
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 306

    Observation of a Crisis

    Consider the effects of a economic crisis on the global energy complex. Lets supose that in the not too distant future the globe enters a world wide depression with the collapse of the US, Asian and European economies. Factories shutdown, raw material shipments collapse causing mines and other industrial material production to collapse. The oil and gas companies have constant demand to replace parts, and to drill new wells just to keep production in check with demand. Now what happens if Oil and Gas companies can no longer get replacment parts and new materials? This would certainly cause an acceleration of production declines. While perhaps energy companies could manufacture their own replacment parts, it may not be economically viable. The costs of insourcing production of valves metal pipes and other manufactured goods would be expensive without the economy of scale. Since the economy would be weak, its seems unlikely that energy companies could raise prices. So its very likely that an economic collapse would also triggler an collapse in oil and gas production.

    That said. My best guess is that the US will be able to maintain its high deficit to GDP gov’t expenditures for the next Two years. While the US is bad, there are many other places that are much worse. The  analogy that I would like to use is rats fleeing a burning ship and boarding a sinking ship. Investors holding on to sovergnprivate debt in collapsing nations such as Greece, Ireland, etc will choose to move their money else where. The US has an advantaged because the US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency. We will see more failed sovergn debt, including Spain (Already downgraded this week). France, Italy, and eventually Japan, before the crisis come to US gov’t debt. We probably will see some flight from the US Muni bond market, but that would only strengthen the demand for US treasuries as investors dump Munis and buy treasuries. Some investors will move int assets such as PMs, but I think the majority will still with paper assets because they are more easily convertible into other investments.

     

    I think Peak Oil production is a problem that is beyond the time frame of the economic crisis. In my opinion, Convention oil production peaked into 2005, and total oil production peaked in 2008. yet oil prices have stabilized between the $65 to $80 price range, because the economy is weak. Further more, Oil shortages would result in the loss of high oil consumption business, such as air travel and air freight that would release 10’s of Mbpd if they ceased operation. Civilization would not cease to exist if air travel disappeared. The near term danger to oil and gas production would be loss of manufacturing required to supply replacement and new equipment to maintain current production and infrastructure that prices energy to end users.

     

    Another threat on the horizon is another global war. Most of the eras of war were triggered by an economic crisis. WW2 was triggered by an economic crisis. Europe abandoned democracy in favor of fasicism during the 1930s. The worse the unemployment crisis grew the worse leaders the population elected. The 21st Century is not likely to be any different than the past 70 Centuries on how populations deal with crisises.  The proof is that we are in another global economic crisis. We have failed to learn from our past mistakes and are doomed to travel the same path as previous crisises. It should have been obvious 10 years ago to the common man that we were heading for a major crisis unless we began to change. Change didn’t happen because the population was unable or unwilling to recognize the crisis we were creating for ourselves.

    I can’t say when the next global war will begin. I can tell you that it will be near when you see a second era of fascism and totaliarism.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 01, 2010 - 11:34pm

    #5
    Davos

    Davos

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2008

    Posts: 811

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Super read!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 1:31am

    #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    Most people think sovereign bonds interest rates must rise soon, but afaics, they fail to understand the nature of the global debt trap we are in:

    http://financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/perpetual-deflation-causes-inflation

    Dr. Martenson, the most fundamental aspect that causes abrupt change, i.e. Minsky moments, is that centralization of policy prevents optimum annealing.

    Or more generally stated, the universe is trending to maximum disorder, and pockets of exponential order along the way, implode back to trend exponentially. Failure to comprehend the exponential quality of nature, i.e. entropy, is the greatest human inability:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

    A person I often agree with, the monetary PhD scientist Antal Fekete has postulated that the Yuan is strong:

    http://financialsense.com/contributors/antal-fekete/the-donkey-in-the-china-shop

    But the reason that I disagree with him is very relevant to why tariffs do not work.

    The centralization of fitness is always a weakness.  Maximum annealing to optimum fitness only occurs with a free market of individual trials. I am sure Dr. Fekete understands why I say, this is why only gold is money.

    For the specific weaknesses of China’s centralized economic and monetary policy, read my recent article:

    http://financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/perpetual-deflation-causes-inflation

    Note I recently wrote a scholarly research paper about the theory of annealing fitness and free markets:

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640

    That research derives or fits into a theory of the universe that I have proposed as a way to unify Einstein’s General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Information): (note I am planning to study “Q-Orders” as potential self-similarity case of “frequency” in my theory)

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/technology-f8/theory-of-everthing-t124.htm#3681

    As for Peak Oil, we have more Natural Gas in the world that we know what to do with, and cars run just as well with CNG as they do on gasoline or diesel, losing only 10% power if a $1000 conversion kit is employed on a gas engine without compression ratio increase.  Honda’s CNG Civic is equivalent to gas in performance, except your cost per mile drops significantly due to the fact that CNG is much less expensive per energy unit than gas. And we can make our own CNG in our back yard from human and animal feces, or even from any organic matter:

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/economics-f4/peak-oil-nonsense-t102-15.htm#3574

    Also nuclear and then later nanotech will reduce the cost of energy significantly:

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/technology-f8/computers-t112-75.htm#3671

    Those who like to quote EROEI, forget that energy efficiency is a function of technology, since everything (i.e. my definition of ‘matter’) that is not infinitely disordered, contains some energy.  It is the relative order that allows energy to do useful work.

    However, we are likely to see Minsky moments with respect to oil, because of the non-optimum annealing rate due to centralized policy of many genres. This is just the way nature deals with change.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 2:02am

    Reply to #2
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    You’re probably right.  I’d say definately right in the long term.

    My hope is that the Revolution can produce enough value (Energy), and involve enough people that it can hold off a final collapse until such a time as those present (and surviving) the collapse can strongly benefit from the energy sources that were produced under the current financial system.

    In other words, I don’t want modern fiat capitalism to die until we’ve got a boatload of Energy sources in place.

    Fantasy, perhaps.

    However, I see the Chinese giving it a try.

    They haven’t become the number one producer of Solar Modules in the world just to sell them to Europe forever.  They’re going to use them in China.  We expect them to officially release a $700+ Billion over 10 Year Energy Policy, including more Hydro and Nuclear, but also at least $200 Billion for Wind and Solar. 

    It could be that the financial system will collapse, and the Chinese will just Nationalize all of their production.  That would suck for the World, and I don’t think that that is their preferred option.  It doesn’t really benefit them to have the US collapse into chaos.  We have nuclear weapons.

    I think that they understand some of the realities that Chris Martinson talks about, unlike too many Americans that don’t have a clue about what Energy actually does for us.

    In China there are concerted efforts to build “Solar Cities,” in which are contained entire supply chains for Solar (presumably they’re doing the same thing for other types of technology).  Here in America I see people responding as individuals to Chris’s (and others’) message on Energy, but in China they’re doing it on a mass scale (which hasn’t yet been made clear to the World).  This is as efficient as its going to get as far as EROI is concerned. 

    Bottom line, though, I think there are still going to be Dollars, Euros, and Yuan involved, for a long time, though the Dollar crisis is very likely immanent.  The west wants China to strenthen their currency, and I think that they’ll be suprised when they get it, and it’s not going to be pretty.  Feel free to insert a furrowed brow and a frown of suspicion here.

    As for EROI, for Solar it’s only a few years, and it’s decreasing.  With scale, the EROI will decrease, and the scale is increasing ridiculously fast.  There’s talk in China of having 40% of their energy supply from Solar in 40 years or so.  They’re playing for the long term. 

    See a write up I did a couple weeks ago on Global Demand.  http://americansolareconomy.blogspot.com/2010/08/2011-demand-prediction.html

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 2:15am

    #7
    truenorth

    truenorth

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 01 2009

    Posts: 2

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    I don’t think so.  This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..

     

    ..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 3:22am

    Reply to #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    Agreed it will be a slow burn in terms of dollar system death, but abrupt volatility along the way, with abrupt end to the current fiat regime at the end.

    The psychological support evidence for the slow burn of the dollar is shown on the ongoing GALLUP poll chart at following link, which shows that rising public awareness of real estate being a poor investment is a linear trend since 2002, and the 2007-9 volatility increase in awareness, returned to the linear trendline as if 2007 – 9 never happened!:

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/economics-f4/stocks-vs-precious-metals-vs-bonds-vs-real-estate-t11-15.htm#3727

    I think those who are disagreeing with my comments on peak oil, are looking at the alleged global peak in production of oil and the rising marginal cost of producing oil. I definitely don’t disagree with the latter, and the former will eventually happen someday, if not already.

    But that is irrelevant to my point, so I don’t know what they are logically disagreeing with?

    My point is that energy of the universe is abundant, and it only takes technology to get at it.

    But the (millions of trial and error annealing of) technology is impeded when you have a centralized elephant dictating false opportunity costs via centralized interest rate policy, enabled by centralized fiat, i.e. socialism:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20857.html#comment92402

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/economics-f4/is-capitalism-or-is-socialism-increasing-t18-60.htm#3563

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 3:28am

    #8

    pinecarr

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2008

    Posts: 1091

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    My point is that energy of the universe is abundant, and it only takes technology to get at it.[/quote] [bold mine].  I hear you Shelby.  But have you read/heard what Chris has to say about how far we are away we are from being ready to scale up such technology?  I’ve heard some great examples, that unfortunately  I can’t quote off the top of my head, regarding how much capability we have in various areas like this (e.g., nuclear, wind) and how much MORE we’d need to meet our current energy demands.  When you see those facts laid down, as I have heard Chris do in talks before, it really hits home re just what a gap therei s between what we now use/need energy-wise, and what it would take to get alternative energy sources up to that level. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 02, 2010 - 6:04am

    Reply to #8
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Peak Oil

    [quote=pinecarr]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    My point is that energy of the universe is abundant, and it only takes technology to get at it.[/quote] [bold mine].  I hear you Shelby.  But have you read/heard what Chris has to say about how far we are away we are from being ready to scale up such technology?…[/quote]

    Wind and nuclear have almost nothing to do with transportation fuel. Nuclear, hydro, etc is a way to supplement (gradually displace) coal, which I understand is no where near a peak any way. Coal is dirty, even leaves more radioactive waste than nuclear, and the waste is dispersed into the environment.

    Natural gas is ready to go, to offset the rate at which peak oil will decline. Chris shows how fast individual wells decline precipitously, but the fact is we are still discovering new oil, so the decline is likely to be less abrupt (unless socialism’s effect is too great but in that case demand will decline too). And the sooner we get started on building CNG distribution and production, the better.

    CNG doesn’t have the scale issues that wind and nuclear have. It is not very high tech at all. Capture methane gas from rotting organic matter, then compress it into a tank. There are already CNG refilling stations and CNG production. Afaik, the only thing holding it back is apparently the ignorance of consumer (lower costs) and the lack of convenience of sufficient CNG refilling stations. As for cost of production of methane, I have not researched it sufficiently, but it is much more economic than ethanol. Afaics, at the least, CNG could give us the time to develop other energy technologies.  And/or, we could burn the CNG at the coal plants and convert coal to gasoline via Fischer-Tropsch heat and catalyst process (yes I know very low EROEI, but if methane is very cheap, then go for it).

    Also one of the links I provided in my prior comment was about nanotech and energy consumption efficiency improvements, not so much new ways to create input energy. Paradigm shift like that can sweep the world as fast as iPhone and Androids are. One of my links was about the paradigm shift I expect and am working on the existing internet that could reduce physical energy demands (why travel when virtual reality is orders-of-magnitude faster and more fun).

    Oil is nationalized (or effectively so with mega corporations-fascism) and heavily taxed+regulated every where in the world.  Can you expect anything that is socialized to not peak and decline? (rhetorical)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 12:52am

    Reply to #6

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=shelbymoore3]My point is that energy of the universe is abundant, and it only takes technology to get at it.[/quote]

    You’re making the classic error of mistaking “technology” with “energy and resources availability”

    Yes the energy of the universe is abundant, but……..  as I have quoted on this blog many times, a Spanish engineer friend of mine whose job it is to design build and install renewable energy systems in Spain, arguably the world capital of this stuff, has calculated that to merely generate 20% of the global electricity within ten years using wind alone would require:

    ALL the world’s concrete
    DOUBLE the current steel production
    THIRTY times the current fiberglass production
    HALF the copper currently produced and
    HALF the coal…. (not to mention a substantial amount of oil to produce/transport all of the above)

    Now Pedro has all the data at his fingertips to work out this stuff (he presented this at an ASPO conference in Madrid a couple of years ago BTW) and I have absolutely no reason to doubt his figures….

    So I ask you this:  exactly what else will we do while we implement your “technology”??

    Mike

    Google “Pedro Prieto” + “renewable Energy”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 12:53am

    #9

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Having suggested googling Pedro’s credentials, I did it myself and found this…:

    Pedro Prieto, Vice Chairman and co-founder of AEREN and a member of ASPO: “Just one year of decline in petroleum production would require us to install 10 times the capacity of modern renewable energy installed in the world to date”

    23/2/2010

    In an exclusive interview with Renewable Energy Magazine, Pedro Prieto discusses the concept of peak oil and provides some in-depth insights into the interesting topic of whether or not renewable energies can truly replace oil once it runs out.

    Since 2006, the Spanish Association for the Study of Energy Resources (AEREN) has acted on behalf of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) in Spain. ASPO comprises a network of organisations in over 20 countries dedicated to the study of peak oil and what needs to be done now to react when oil and gas reserves start to decline.

    AEREN is responsible for the website Crisis Energética (www.crisisenergetica.org), which has become a reference among Spanish speakers around the world for information about peak oil and the energy crisis.

    Pedro Prieto (Madrid, 1950) is Vice Chairman and a co-founder of AEREN and is a member of ASPO’s international panel. Pedro has worked as an engineer in the telecommunications sector since the 1970’s and is a member of the association Scientists for the Environment (CiMA) in Spain. He has managed several photovoltaic solar projects and provides advice on photovoltaic systems to public entities and individuals. Pedro is currently the director of development of alternative energies in a Spanish company.

    Interview date: January, 2010

    Interviewer: Toby Price

    Firstly, what most concerns you about the world’s energy system at present?

    Well, the fact that we are close to reaching peak oil – the time when oil production reaches a maximum and the point after which this fuel’s contribution to Humanity will become increasingly smaller. Shortly after, peak gas will also be reached.

    The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) declares that peak oil is already upon us, while one of the best known and most optimistic organisations, the International Energy Agency (IEA), estimates that this point will not be reached for another two decades.

    The issue of peak oil is so important to Humanity that it could overshadow concerns about climate change. At Humanity’s current rate of demand, no possible or foreseen energy substitutes to oil and natural gas exist that could replace these fuels at the same rate that they decline. This is even truer if the rate of growth we have come to expect as indispensable to a capitalist society is to be maintained.

    In a recent interview, you said that renewable energy producers “lack a sense of realism” because “they do not take into account the true cost of the energy and raw materials” required to develop their technologies. Could you expand on this?

    Ignoring the energy cost when developing a source of energy or assessing whether or not it should be used is one of the problems faced in the renewables sector. I believe that, not just in the renewables sector but in society as a whole, we should avoid assuming too quickly and easily that renewables can replace fossil fuels as and when these resources start to decline.

    My criticism of many who defend modern renewable energies is that they almost always tend to argue in a very superficial way that as reserves decrease, renewables can replace fossil fuels in both volume and at a rate which will enable the world economy to continue to grow. However, when they put the figures on the table, they almost always do so out of context.

    Here’s an example. 80% of the primary energy we consume in the world today comes from the third dimension, i.e. the depths of the Earth, the lithosphere. It is not renewable and is, therefore, subject to being used up. Two of the four sources of this energy (oil and gas) are very close to their maximum limits of extraction and point of decline, while the other two (coal and uranium) will also reach their peaks in just a few decades.

    The remaining 20% of primary energy comes from the biosphere: 13-14% of which is biomass. However, to use this energy, we have already destroyed almost half of the world’s forests and we continue to destroy them at a rate of close to 1% per annum.

    Another 5% of our primary energy demand is met with so-called renewable hydroelectric power. However, to this end and for irrigation ponds, we have had to occupy around 25% of the major river basins around the globe.

    Crops take up 12% of the total surface area of the continents, while modern renewable energies hardly appear on the world primary energy map, accounting for just 1% of primary energy production. As such, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect that we will be able to extract 99% more energy using wind turbines and photovoltaic, solar thermal or solar thermal electric solar panels within a few decades from now, and all from our biosphere.

    The idea that we can replace 80% of the non-renewable energy we consume now from the lithosphere and extract it from the already abused biosphere, while continuing to increase the amount we consume, is decidedly unrealistic and even less sustainable.

    How can we ensure that renewable energy projects have a truly positive impact on energy demand? Should energy audits be based on the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) concept for example?

    Fossil fuels have provided a net return that so-called renewable energies cannot provide. The EROI is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource.

    In the sweet oil fields close to the surface in the US, where extraction pressures were very high and fields were close to demand, petroleum reached an EROI of 100 over the last 30 years (i.e. it took one barrel of oil to supply society with a hundred more barrels).

    Today however, oil in the US only reaches EROIs of between 5 and 20. When the EROI of an oil field reaches 1, it is closed for a purely physical and geological reason, even if the oil costs $10,000 a barrel. This is something which many economists (and quite a few engineers turned economists, who we call flat-earth economists) don’t understand, because they see energy as an asset subject to market forces. However, energy is more than just an asset; it is a prerequisite to obtaining all other assets.

    EROI assessments are essential to understanding the possible real usefulness of an energy source. Our modern and highly mobile society demands energy sources that are very easily available, with EROIs that are as high as possible, and which can be stored and transported in huge quantities. This is something that is not taken sufficiently seriously when analysing modern renewable energies, despite the plethora of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of modern renewable systems, especially wind and photovoltaic solar, which, it must be said, , are generally commissioned by interested parties. These theoretically green and clean or “emission free” systems are in reality totally reliant on fossil fuels, receive subsidies from a fossil fuel-based society, and generally have many hidden energy costs that are not often presented in their LCAs.

    It would be very interesting if we could demonstrate that these energies can be sufficient and self-supporting in, for example, a closed system with a minimum critical mass. It would also be interesting if these energies could prove that they can make a net energy contribution to society as well as producing the energy required in their manufacture, transport, assembly, operation and maintenance from one end of the life cycle to the other. They would also need to prove that they could work without subsidies, feed-in tariffs, tax credits or any other support from the fossil fuel-based society.

    Last year was a record year for renewables around the world. The global recession even represented an opportunity for the sector, as many governments earmarked millions to develop renewable energies to create jobs. Do you believe we are better placed to react to peak oil thanks to the leap the renewables sector has made?

    It was undoubtedly a record year but, once again, things need to be put into context. 9,000 MW of new wind capacity, for example, was installed during 2009, taking the total to 140,000 MW worldwide. Meanwhile, around 5,000 MW of photovoltaic solar capacity was installed in 2009, bringing the total to approximately 18,000 MW. Based on the expected average performance of these systems, this equates to additional generating capacity of around 25 TWh/year in 2009 being provided by renewable energies, against a total of 300 TWh/year from these sources of energy.

    The problem is that this record renewable capacity installed in 2009 only equates to 0.12% of the total world electric demand in 2008 of 20,000 TWh. The renewable capacity installed in 2009 only covered 8% of the increase in global electricity demand recorded between 2007 and 2008. Figures show that global electricity demand based on fossil fuels is growing some 30 to 100 times more quickly than renewable capacity is being installed. This isn’t exactly worthy of celebration. The records achieved last year are nothing more than a drop in the ocean, especially if one looks at primary energy demand, where the ratios are even greater.

    Another way of looking at this is to compare renewables growth with the decrease in the supply of the main energy sources.

    If, as the chief economist of the IEA, Fatih Birol, has claimed, oil reaches its peak and starts to decline at a rate of 6.7% per annum, an additional 1,000 to 3,000 TWh would have to be found from other sources. In other words, just one year of decline in petroleum production would require us to install 10 times the capacity of modern renewable energy installed in the world to date.

    Thereafter, more and more renewable capacity would have to be installed using every decreasing fossil fuel resources. This is the double challenge we face.

    2009 also saw the founding of IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Do you consider this agency will play an important role in resolving current energy problems?

    In view of what I have just said and IRENA’s approach, I have serious doubts. The fact that this agency has been located in Abu Dhabi, an important oil producing state, and not in one of the countries that has promoted renewables says a lot about the political undertones running through all the decisions it takes.

    The circus surrounding Masdar in Abu Dhabi, the so-called “green city” or “emission-free city” also says a lot about the misleading approach being taken and is a true reflection of the deception that modern renewable energies often represent.

    I understand that you do not believe renewables will ever cover 100% of energy demand, unless we reduce consumption. What do we have to do in terms of energy efficiency and saving and renewables development to fill the gap left when fossil fuels disappear?

    Energy saving and an improvement in efficiency will have to cover the rest of the gap that renewables cannot fill; which are also, we must not forget, systems that have to be replaced every two or three decades.

    In my opinion, energy saving will have to involve not only the use of more technology, but also, and above all, RADICAL changes in the social behaviour of humans, who are very consumerist and are ruled by policies aimed at continuous growth and the use of ever increasing amounts of capital.

    Imagine that you were President of the European Union this year. What would be your three top energy priorities?

    Good question, but first let me say that no acting president of any supranational organisation, even one as powerful as the European Union, can do a great deal to change the energy sector during the six months they are in office, especially considering the limited powers they have over the policies of individual Member States.

    This said, what I would do first would be to raise the alarm and make a proposal to EU citizens, which would be far crueller but equally as necessary and even more critical than that proposed by Churchill when he asked his compatriots to fight Germany with “blood, sweat and tears”. This time, instead of the backdrop of the Second World War (win and return to the good old days), we face a far deeper, long-lasting and structural challenge.

    This time the problem is much more dramatic: we have to make citizens – who are accustomed, especially in the EU, to decades of comfort, security and high social advantages – realise that their quality of life exists because of a huge abundance of cheap, accessible and highly versatile fuels and that these fuels will soon start running out.

    We have to warn them that it is quite probable that renewables will not be able to replace these other energy sources in the quantity and time and net energy required. We, logically, need to start thinking first about those people who have most benefited from these high levels of energy and how to reduce their consumption, which will lead to radical constitutional changes and changes in the way in which capital is accumulated and distributed.

    Mobility will need to be cut dramatically in the most orderly way possible. We will have to start producing goods and providing services as close to demand as possible. Societies need to be guided towards a system for producing food and obtaining water that uses the most natural methods possible (obtain fresh water using gravity rather than pumping, desalination, etc.) and we need a far larger primary sector and far smaller tertiary and secondary sectors, which need to focus more on “needs” and less on “wants”.

    In short, we need to instigate a Copernican shift, which will undoubtedly leave many readers very concerned and give them the idea that I have apocalyptic view on the world.

    Nuclear energy, yes or no?

    Without a doubt, no. Let’s look again at the facts. The approximately 440 nuclear power plants in operation today only generate around 5-6% of the world’s primary energy and 15% of the total electricity. The 50 nuclear plants under construction and 200 in development would not cover future energy demands for even a moment once oil and gas supplies begin their inevitable and inexorable decline one, two or three decades from now.

    The gap that oil will leave in just one year once production starts to fall will require 200 new nuclear power plants of 1 GW each. A huge amount of infrastructure would also have to be adapted. Don’t forget that each nuclear plant also takes around 10 years to commission. There just isn’t enough time.

    Furthermore, Marcel Coderch (Secretary of AEREN and doctor at MIT) has calculated that it will take 50 years just to recover the fossil-based energy used to roll out several thousand nuclear power plants.

    Meanwhile, the nuclear agencies themselves admit that there are only proven reserves of uranium for around 100 years, based on the current demand of the 440 plants in operation. Finally, nuclear power is even more dependant on the fossil-fuel society than modern renewables, not to mention the problems of untreatable waste, concerns about terrorism or possible wars.

    Do you believe hydrogen has a future as an energy vector?

    It could do, although precisely because hydrogen is an energy store and not a source of energy, the question should really be: since hydrogen is not freely available in nature, which energy or energies will be used to separate hydrogen from the molecules it is always connected to? This aspect and the fact that hydrogen is a very light gas from an energy perspective and has too be subject to huge pressure when in gas form or be liquefied at very low temperatures to enable it to be transported, raises its own set of problems. Energy has to be continuously consumed to maintain hydrogen below 250ºC below freezing.

    Hydrogen also has the added and costly inconvenience of being able to escape from practically any container. It is capable of escaping from the systems used to contain it at a rate of 1% per day. This means that it would not be wise to leave a vehicle with its hydrogen tank full and then go on holiday, because it would be practically empty when you return. This is a big problem, because oil and gas can be stored very easily in large deposits over long periods of time as strategic reserves. Hydrogen reserves however, would be very difficult to manage.

    Furthermore, hydrogen is also highly reactive and bonds with many elements, especially metals, to form hydrides. It generally eats away at metals in a very short period of time. This problem means that the current gas pipelines could not be reused for hydrogen and an immense new transport and distribution network would have to be built from scratch.

    I don’t see hydrogen as a vector, except for very specific applications such as for rocket or similar launches or in the chemical industry.

    Desertec… the North Sea Offshore Electricity Grid… Are these major projects a solution to our energy problems or should we be concentrating far more on distributed networks and local supply and demand?

    No, I don’t believe they are by any means a solution to the world’s energy problems. The most ambitious projects such as Desertec would not cover any more than 20 or 30% of Europe’s electricity demand, in the best case scenario. Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Solar Plan would hardly cover 2-3% of the electricity requirements of the countries involved. The volume of materials and energy investment required would be enormous.

    Energy security would be complicated due to the vast gap in quality of life between the countries providing the land rights in North Africa, and those providing the technology and merely wanting to consume the energy produced without wanting to raise the quality of life in these areas.

    Under these conditions, the question of energy security for Europe would be as much of a concern as it is now in relation to fossil fuels, which in part come from the same areas. These projects would simply change vulnerable gas pipelines, gas liquefaction plants and oil tankers for high-voltage cables crossing the Mediterranean, which would be equally at risk.

    It would be far more rational to strive for a world with far lower levels of more localised demand and widely distributed, small and local generation and distribution networks where possible. Although it should be stressed that this reverse would be extremely complex in many parts of the world, and in some cases, impossible.

    I am fully aware of the trap in which we find ourselves.

    The sustainability of biofuels has been into doubt. Do you consider biofuels are truly viable as an energy source for the transport sector?

    Once again, things need to be put into context. If it only concerns producing energy crops locally to move a few tractors to grow the same crops and food, then it may be viable.

    However, if we are talking about replacing the almost 4 billion tonnes per annum of petroleum, the 85 million barrels we consume each day to move, among other things, 95% of the world’s transport, then no. There is no sustainable system that could fill the tanks of all one thousand million combustion vehicles on the Planet. It is not in the least bit credible in this context that this type of production will not enter into conflict with food production and the every decreasing supplies of fresh water.

    If we return to the estimated 260 MTpes gap that oil will leave only in the first year after peak oil is reached, and if this drop is projected over the decade thereafter, the professor Carlos de Castro estimates that some 300 million hectares would be required to grow energy crops to fill this gap. No, it is not by any means sustainable.

    And finally, what are AEREN’s objectives for 2010?

    We intend to continue to remain active and independent and work to raise awareness of the problem of the gradual and inexorable decline of fossil fuels and the impact this will have on Humanity, which has developed exponentially over the last century as if this non-renewable resource was never-ending.

    For additional information:

    Crisis Energética

    The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 3:48am

    #10

    Tom Page

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 26 2008

    Posts: 266

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Mike, thanks for the interview of Pedro Prieto, that’s pretty much how I see it too.  Radical changes in society with respect to energy consumption some day is the outcome that seems most likely.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 7:49am

    Reply to #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]My point is that energy of the universe is abundant, and it only takes technology to get at it.[/quote]

    You’re making the classic error of mistaking “technology” with “energy and resources availability”

    Yes the energy of the universe is abundant, but……..  as I have quoted on this blog many times, a Spanish engineer friend of mine whose job it is to design build and install renewable energy systems in Spain, arguably the world capital of this stuff, has calculated that to merely generate 20% of the global electricity within ten years using wind alone would require:[/quote]

    You quoted me without the relevant context of what I wrote.

    We don’t have an imminent problem with peak electricity, so wind is not relevant to our discussion about peak oil.

    I have stated CNG (compressed natural gas, not LPG, i.e. not liquefied) is sufficient to fill in the gaps as peak oil declines (which afaik even the experts agree won’t be an abrupt decline).

    Heck here in Philippines, the taxi drivers spend about $300 to covert to CNG (called LPG here, but that means CNG) which is what is used to cook with here (hand carry tanks). They increase their profits too. The economics works.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]…what else will we do while we implement your “technology”??[/quote]

    CNG for peak oil.

    For increasing electricity demand, just as China is doing, a combination of coal, hydro, and nuclear in that order of priority.  Wind and solar are not relevant. Long-term for electricity, we need to go nuclear, probably breeder reactors so we can maximally recycle the fuel. We have time for that, and besides we are heading in a Greatest Depression EVER, so demand increases will abate at some point.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]Pedro Prieto, Vice Chairman and co-founder of AEREN and a member of ASPO: “Just one year of decline in petroleum production would require us to install 10 times the capacity of modern renewable energy installed in the world to date”[/quote]

    Malthusians build meaningless straw-men like that to divert attention from the relevant facts.  “Renewable energy” is the catch phrase of his straw-man. Let him present the statistics on CNG replacing 1 year of oil decline instead, but of course he won’t do that, because then he can’t hype the non-crisis.

    Yes our energy future is undergoing change.  Change is a good thing.  Change is not the end of the world.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 8:56am

    Reply to #6

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    Malthusians build meaningless straw-men like that to divert attention from the relevant facts.  “Renewable energy” is the catch phrase of his straw-man. Let him present the statistics on CNG replacing 1 year of oil decline instead, but of course he won’t do that, because then he can’t hype the non-crisis.

    Yes our energy future is undergoing change.  Change is a good thing.  Change is not the end of the world.

    [/quote]

    Since when has peak gas not been a problem as well? “Peak everything”, sounds familiar?

    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 10:35am

    Reply to #6

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=shelbymoore3]We don’t have an imminent problem with peak electricity, so wind is not relevant to our discussion about peak oil.[/quote]

    Oh but we are….  The grid’s over 50 years old, and needs much maintenance, not to mention  money just to keep it in good repair..  You are ignoring the complexity of the current system.  All the bits that consist the electricity system were all built using cheap and abundant oil… And we haven’t even started discussing the possible increase in EV numbers…

    [quote=shelbymoore3]I have stated CNG (compressed natural gas, not LPG, i.e. not liquefied) is sufficient to fill in the gaps as peak oil declines (which afaik even the experts agree won’t be an abrupt decline).[/quote]

    I agree with Chris here….  things could unravel much faster than anticipated because we have the perfect storm of Peak Debt, Peak Oil, and fast depleting resources.  The rioting in Europe over austerity measures is the tip of the iceberg…  everything is inter related.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Heck here in Philippines, the taxi drivers spend about $300 to convert to CNG (called LPG here, but that means CNG) which is what is used to cook with here (hand carry tanks). They increase their profits too. The economics works.[/quote]

    Well I’d hardly use the Phillipines as an example of global transport solutions…  what percentage of the global fleet does the Phillipino fleet represent?  Start creating global demand (ie global scale) for CNG and exactly what do you think will happen to the price?  At a time when Peak Gas is hot on the heels of Peak Oil?

    [quote=Damnthematrix]…what else will we do while we implement your “technology”??[/quote]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]CNG for peak oil.[/quote]

    So why are all car manufacturers going for EV’s?

    [quote=shelbymoore3]For increasing electricity demand, just as China is doing, a combination of coal, hydro, and nuclear in that order of priority.  Wind and solar are not relevant. Long-term for electricity, we need to go nuclear, probably breeder reactors so we can maximally recycle the fuel. We have time for that, and besides we are heading in a Greatest Depression EVER, so demand increases will abate at some point.[/quote]

    And you think there will be investments in nukes during the “Greatest Depression EVER”?

    [quote=Damnthematrix]Pedro Prieto, Vice Chairman and co-founder of AEREN and a member of ASPO: “Just one year of decline in petroleum production would require us to install 10 times the capacity of modern renewable energy installed in the world to date”[/quote]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Malthusians build meaningless straw-men like that to divert attention from the relevant facts.  “Renewable energy” is the catch phrase of his straw-man. Let him present the statistics on CNG replacing 1 year of oil decline instead, but of course he won’t do that, because then he can’t hype the non-crisis.[/quote]

    The reason “renewable energy” is becoming the catch cry is because everything else, including your precious CNG is non renewable!

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Yes our energy future is undergoing change.  Change is a good thing.  Change is not the end of the world.[/quote]

    At least that’s one thing we agree on…..  but the change will be huge reductions in consumptions, not increasing use of non renewable fossil fuels.  And in case you missed it, the total production of liquid fuels already includes natural gas where it is used as a liquid, and the predictions are for declines….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 3:21pm

    Reply to #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]We don’t have an imminent problem with peak electricity, so wind is not relevant to our discussion about peak oil.[/quote]

    Oh but we are….  The grid’s over 50 years old, and needs much maintenance, not to mention  money just to keep it in good repair..[/quote]

    Not in the developing world, the brand new grid is going up here. The west is bankrupt and they won’t be able to afford to use their grid any way. Once the west (especially USA) gives up its inordinate per capita energy consumption due to coming bankruptcy, then I really don’t see a problem. The world is rebalancing, the west is decaying and the developing world is coming up.  About time! I just wish it would come sooner so the McMammoths will learn how the rest of the world has been living.

    I don’t see a problem with it.  I am living in the drastic reduction of energy per capita now, and it works mighty fine. I get everything modern done that I need to get done.

    Yeah the 30 – 80 year bond and debt bubble caused the west to mis-allocate energy.  Pay back is coming.

    Way of life will change for the better, if you ask me.  I have lived in both places, and I wouldn’t wish the western mess on any one, except those who refuse to stop that nonsense.

     [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]…The rioting in Europe over austerity measures is the tip of the iceberg…  everything is inter related.[/quote]

    Spoiled brats. They will get a well deserved spanking by economic reality.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Heck here in Philippines, the taxi drivers spend about $300 to convert to CNG (called LPG here, but that means CNG) which is what is used to cook with here (hand carry tanks). They increase their profits too. The economics works.[/quote]

    Well I’d hardly use the Phillipines as an example of global transport solutions…  what percentage of the global fleet does the Phillipino fleet represent?  Start creating global demand (ie global scale) for CNG and exactly what do you think will happen to the price?  At a time when Peak Gas is hot on the heels of Peak Oil?[/quote]

    It works fine, and the west has to move back to the way-of-life of the Philippines, it would be a much happier world. Unfortunately, I doubt the west will have to retrench that much.

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=Damnthematrix]…what else will we do while we implement your “technology”??[/quote]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]CNG for peak oil.[/quote]

    So why are all car manufacturers going for EV’s?[/quote]

    Honda didn’t. Volkswagen didn’t. But the subsidies and politics and big auto companies in bed with the big govt and big oil companies…

    The west is one giant fraud. Haven’t you all realized that yet?

    [quote=Damnthematrix]…[quote=shelbymoore3]For increasing electricity demand, just as China is doing, a combination of coal, hydro, and nuclear in that order of priority.  Wind and solar are not relevant. Long-term for electricity, we need to go nuclear, probably breeder reactors so we can maximally recycle the fuel. We have time for that, and besides we are heading in a Greatest Depression EVER, so demand increases will abate at some point.[/quote]

    And you think there will be investments in nukes during the “Greatest Depression EVER”?[/quote]

    The developing world won’t stop growing, and they will take their share of world resources. The west will either need to contribute technology or fall away into its current fraudulent mess.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]…but the change will be huge reductions in consumptions, not increasing use of non renewable fossil fuels…[/quote]

    For the west probably yes. Methane is renewable. Didn’t you know the carbon cycle is what gives life on earth?

    Btw, statistics lie. So I am not even going to go there. The only thing that matters those who deserve economically to use more, will, and the others will have to use less.  That has been true since the beginning of time.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 5:29pm

    Reply to #6
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    “Wind and solar are not relevant.”

    LOL!  So wrong.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 6:07pm

    Reply to #7
    earthwise

    earthwise

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 10 2009

    Posts: 277

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=truenorth]

    I don’t think so.  This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..

     

    ..

    [/quote]

    I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re wrong.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 6:41pm

    #11

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4738

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    truenorth wrote:

    I don’t think so.  This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..

    I think this kind of depends on your frame of reference.  For the people who suddenly lost their jobs and are now running out of unemployment insurance, I think the word “significant” already applies.

    For all the people who didn’t see the housing bubble forming and went in over their heads, the alteration in their fortunes probably qualifies as ‘significant,’ too.

    In both cases I would imagine the participants might describe their change in status as “sudden,” and that’s the point here.

    While it is true that the US is much larger than Greece or Iceland, and will probably face a slower rate of change due to its vast size, we cannot be sure about this.  Remember, back in the1970’s the whole of the US – yes, the very same place with a commanding military and the world’s reserve currency – faced a very serious monetary crisis that Paul Volker had to fix using short rates that poked over 20% for a while.  Try and imagine the impact of that happening today.

    My point here is that even the mighty US faces the risk of a sudden change in fortunes; just because something is unthinkable does not make it impossible (credit: John Hussman).

    That’s our job here, to consider all the possibilities, weigh the risks, and then decide what, if anything, we wish to do in response.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 8:07pm

    #12

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    “Methane is renewable. Didn’t you know the carbon cycle is what gives life on earth?”

    Yes I do…..  but Methane is created over millions of years, just like oil!  I know one can make one’s own biogas (we are about to embark on just such a project you may be surprised to know – my wife’s a potter, and we want to build her a self sufficient biogas fired kiln), but biogas can never replace the fossil gas currently in use, the numbers are astronomical.

    Like I said, what will occur will be a drastic reduction in energy usage (I believe 90%!), the first world will join the third world….

    There is no way known the third world can ever consume even a quarter of the first world’s levels….  there are not the resources to do it with, all the best stuff, the low hanging fruit, all the best ores, the best oil, the best coal, the best arable land, has all already been used up.  Largely wasted on trivial non essential things in fact…

    “The only thing that matters those who deserve economically to use more, will, and the others will have to use less.  That has been true since the beginning of time.”

    And who (and how?) decides who is more deserving?  Is that not what wars are for?  And, “since the beginning of time” may apply to the natural world, but not the human one….  in fact, I’d argue the exact opposite has occured!

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 8:16pm

    Reply to #11
    Davos

    Davos

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2008

    Posts: 811

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think


    truenorth
     wrote:

    I don’t think so.  This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..

    I totally disagree.

    First the banks are in bad shape. Mark to Fantasy FASB accounting didn’t help. The foreclosure mess is now turning into Foreclosure Gate, expect TARP II and expect Congress to write a draconian law allowing the banks to send a postcard and take a home – no foreclosure hearing required. Right now Title Insurance is going to be next to impossible on foreclosed homes and REO. This disaster is phase II of the unmitigated disaster the banks and Wall Street did. It’ll blow up in our faces sooner than 5 years. WAY sooner.

    Look also at the derivatives, 200 tn on the banks here. All off balance. Having 1.7tn in assets and 87 tn in off balance derivatives is not salvageable. Let me say that again, just prolonging one big bank would be a Herculean task. Without a doubt it is “un-bailoutable”. 

    Consumers make up for 70% of GDP. Look at this: they de-leveraged by 20 billion voluntarily and 600 involuntarily. 

     

    Before housing tanked consumers got their money from HELOCs. Jim Quinn’s piece on this was phonemail, in the middle of it he shows that consumers borrowed 9 billion dollars in 2008 to to spend on 4 dollar coffees at Starbucks, after the crash they closed 900 stores. They knew where a lot of their consumers were getting their spending money from.

    In the last five years, our live-for-today Boomers sucked over $3 trillion of equity out of their homes to fund their selfish lifestyles. At the end of June, there were 2.72 million mortgage loans in default at an annualized rate. For all of 2008, defaults will hit 3 million, up from approximately 1.5 million in 2007, and 1 million in 2006.

    What “essentials” do the Boomers invest all this borrowed money in every year? The U.S. Census bureau provides the answers:

    • $200 billion on furniture, appliances ($1,900 per household annually)
    • $400 billion on vehicle purchases ($3,800 per household annually)
    • $425 billion at restaurants ($4,000 per household annually)
    • $9 billion at Starbucks (SBUX) ($85 per household annually)
    • $250 billion on clothing ($2,400 per household annually)
    • $100 billion on electronics ($950 per household annually)
    • $60 billion on lottery tickets ($600 per household annually)
    • $100 billion at gambling casinos ($950 per household annually)
    • $60 billion on alcohol ($600 per household annually)
    • $40 billion on smoking ($400 per household annually)
    • $32 billion on spectator sports ($300 per household annually)
    • $150 billion on entertainment ($1,400 per household annually)
    • $100 billion on education ($950 per household annually)
    • $300 billion to charity ($2,900 per household annually)

    Of course we have 22% unemployment. Part II of this weeks Financial Sense News Hour with John Williams and Jim Puplava spell this out.

    Then you have the fact that with our insane debt – 127.5 trillion dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities so the average consumer now works from January 1 until August 15th to pay for Uncle Scam. Of course, with Globalization we now compete agains some poor soul in a LCD who makes 2 bucks a day, so our wages are 4 decades stale, circa 1973. That helps the economy.

    Of course, Wal-Mart’s CEO recently did a disclosure on our 40 million on food assistance – his little blurb revealed modern day bread lines, they form at midnight, on the last day of the month when the food stamp electronic cards get filled up, the poor folks were out there buying baby formula. Now THAT is an economy that has rebounded.

     

    Profits And Baby Formula – Our pal, Rich Yamarone, over at Bloomberg picked up an eye-opening statement made by the Wal-Mart CEO last week.

    I don’t need to tell you that our customer remains challenged…You need not go farther than one of our stores on midnight at the end of the month. And it’s real interesting to watch, about 11 p.m. customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items – baby formula, milk, bread, eggs – and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight when government electronic benefits cards get activated, and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher.

    Worse our purchasing power has been and continues to head south. Dollar to gold.

    So, in a nutshell you have:

    1. 22% unemployment.
    2. Consumers who work 7 months of the year giving all their money to Uncle Scam.
    3. Consumers who get 5 months of pay for themselves, that pay is circa 1973 wages, so they are maxed out on debt and servicing minimum payments.
    4. 1 in 8 are on food assistance.
    5. 1 in 10 I think is the number for in poverty.
    6. Their borrowing ability is kaput now that their home values have tanked.
    7. Our deficit can’t be paid with tax revenues, it can’t be paid with tax revenues plus what Communist China et al will loan us. So Bernanke counterfeits it so Congress doesn’t have to restrain itself. 

    This all is, by definition an iced cliff. It is just a matter of time before feet are flailing above heads. You can’t put a 5 year date on a slip like this. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 8:18pm

    Reply to #2
    Mike Scooter

    Mike Scooter

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 03 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    ‘Green Revolution’ in my mind is the boom in agribusiness that enables such a small number of professional farmers to feed such an astonishingly high percentage of mankind, not a pie-in-the-sky “energy policy” that probably won’t last more than an election cycle or two.  Unfortunately.

    I’d like to refer this excellent article by John Mauldin, on the topic:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/228111-best-ideas-of-the-week-energy-economy-and-the-morality-of-chinese-growth?source=email

     

    Thanks,
    Mike 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 10:15pm

    #13

    mainecooncat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 08 2008

    Posts: 155

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Hi Davos,

    The number of people living in poverty is actually 1 in 7, not 1 in 10 — I know you were wondering whether that was correct or not.

    But a little bit of statistical digging and a little use of one’s brain reveals that the number living in poverty is as high as 1 in 5, especially depending on what one considers “poverty” to be.

    The most shocking social statistic to me that really reflects the fact that we are indeed peeking over an ice-clad cliff (you should be wearing crampons if you’re that close!) is that 77% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

    Say that aloud a couple of times and let it really sink in.

    Our economy and social fabric are so delicate right now that a repeat of 2008’s oil price spike would be a bullet to the brain. Speaking of that, isn’t oil starting a potential death-creep right now?

    Here’s an article that has a pretty good breakdown on the poverty issue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 03, 2010 - 10:29pm

    Reply to #13
    Davos

    Davos

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2008

    Posts: 811

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=mainecooncat]

    Hi Davos,

    The number of people living in poverty is actually 1 in 7, not 1 in 10 — I know you were wondering whether that was correct or not.

    But a little bit of statistical digging and a little use of one’s brain reveals that the number living in poverty is as high as 1 in 5, especially depending on what one considers “poverty” to be.

    The most shocking social statistic to me that really reflects the fact that we are indeed peeking over an ice-clad cliff (you should be wearing crampons if you’re that close!) is that 77% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

    Say that aloud a couple of times and let it really sink in.

    Our economy and social fabric are so delicate right now that a repeat of 2008’s oil price spike would be a bullet to the brain. Speaking of that, isn’t oil starting a potential death-creep right now?

    Here’s an article that has a pretty good breakdown on the poverty issue.

     

    [/quote]WOW! Worse than I thought. This thing is so last minutes of Enron baked in the oven for anyone to even utter 5 years is beyond comprehensible. From your article:

    • 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty in 2009
    • National Academy of Science did its own study and found that 47.4 millionAmericans actually lived in poverty in 2008. The
    •  Census missed 7.6 million Americans living in poverty that year.
    • MY NOTE: Since from 2009 to 2010 there was a 4 million number bump we can assume that the 47 million NAS study if done today would be significantly higher.
    • Now let’s look at the poverty line that these numbers are based on: $22,050 for a family of four. Let me repeat that: $22,050 for a family of four. That breaks down to $5513 per person, per year.
    • 50.7 million Americans do not have health insurance.
    • Let’s also consider the staggering amount of Americans – 52 million, roughly 17% of the population – who are currently enrolled in “anti-poverty” programs. Over 50 million are on Medicaid, 41 million are on food stamps, 10 million are on unemployment, 4.4 million receive welfare. Not counted in this “anti-poverty” total are 30 million children enrolled in the National School Lunch Program.
    • “The number of multifamily households increased by 11.6 percent from 2008 to 2010, and the proportion of adults 25-34 living with their parents rose from 12.7 percent in 2008 to 13.4 percent in 2010. The poverty rate for these young adults was 8.5 percent when they were considered part of their parents’ household, but would have been 43 percent if they had been living on their own.”
    • In their most recent survey, this number exploded to a mind-shattering 77 percent. Yes, 77 percent of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. This means in our nation of 310 million citizens, 239 million Americans are one setback away from economic ruin.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 1:22am

    Reply to #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=ytterbius]

    “Wind and solar are not relevant.”

    LOL!  So wrong.[/quote]

    Can not be deployed rapidly enough, i.e. they can’t scale– wind because it is only efficient in certain places and not at an individual’s economy-of-scale, and solar because its extreme opportunity cost, doesn’t have a positive ROI compared to most any other investment (except with statism subsidies, wherein statism is inefficient and peaking too).

    Wind has no where near the scale of hydro. Solar is a joke. Solar radiation is too dispersed and even the mirrors to concentrate it are not economic.  I even studied the equations for Stirling engine concentrators, also solar chimneys, in detail and concluded they are not economic.

    Sorry but I have done my research and thinking for several years now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 1:30am

    Reply to #6
    Davos

    Davos

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2008

    Posts: 811

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=ytterbius]

    “Wind and solar are not relevant.”

    LOL!  So wrong.[/quote]

    Can not be deployed rapidly enough, i.e. they can’t scale– wind because it is only efficient in certain places and not at an individual’s economy-of-scale, and solar because its extreme opportunity cost, doesn’t have a positive ROI compared to most any other investment (except with statism subsidies, wherein statism is inefficient and peaking too).

    Wind has no where near the scale of hydro. Solar is a joke. Solar radiation is too dispersed and even the mirrors to concentrate it are not economic.  I even studied the equations for Stirling engine concentrators, also solar chimneys, in detail and concluded they are not economic.

    Sorry but I have done my research and thinking for several years now.

    [/quote]I’ve done the above studies also. One thing we need to take into account: When oil demand exceeds oil supply, unless we have demand destruction, we are modeling our exercises predicated on “normal” prices. That could change.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 1:57am

    Reply to #7
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=earthwise][quote=truenorth]I don’t think so.  This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..[/quote]

    I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re wrong.[/quote]

    Rather we should hope he is wrong, because the long slow delay of return to sanity is the one that maximizes the mis-allocation of capital and thus maximizes the rationing, war, and probability of being enslaved in a new global statism paradigm (NWO).  I have written extensively about that, here is an interesting recent one:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95191

    [quote=cmartenson]…I think this kind of depends on your frame of reference.  For the people who suddenly lost […] might describe their change in status as “sudden” and that’s the point here.[/quote]

    Individual volatility is good free market, and it is how nature anneals fitness.

    Most complexity is good and synonymous with free markets and optimum fitness.  The bad versions of complexity are where the explosion of possibilities, is centrally controlled, thus is actually a decrease in possibilities (or lets say the possibilities will overrun their controller):

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22098.html#comment94393

    [quote=cmartenson]…1970’s the whole of the US – yes, the very same place with a commanding military and the world’s reserve currency – faced a very serious monetary crisis that Paul Volker had to fix using short rates that poked over 20% for a while.  Try and imagine the imapct of that happening today.[/quote]

    It can’t now because of our debt levels. We didn’t have $quadrillion in global derivatives then also. We are in the death spiral from which the end game is radical economic implosion, there will be no more interest rates rises in the current fiat system:

    http://financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/perpetual-deflation-causes-inflation

    The interest rates rises will come in the new financial system which is the End Game:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html

    [quote=cmartenson]…My point here is that even the mighty US faces the risk of a sudden change in fortunes[/quote]

    Agreed, at the end game, it will be abrupt, and along the way there will be sectors which face the free market realities abruptly, but the overall global statism is likely to persist, because people do not want to change their culture of  “man controls and can insure the future” (see my first link above) and this includes the love of usury, insurance, and futures contracts (all forms of pooling, which is socialism and causes socialism to proliferate):

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 2:07am

    #14
    raptor

    raptor

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 12 2008

    Posts: 1

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    What do you guys think if part of the initial solution was instead of giving money to the banks to give checks to big part of population and at the same time shrinking the money supply.

    This way you could have reverted the pyramid, the first to get the money would have been the general population and then went back in the banks (paying debt for example).

    This could have had double effect spurring spending and paying debt. (you can’t say you cant pay your debt to your lender because you get money directly from the gov. i.e. you can’t foreclosure, you have the money.. i.e we give you the money but you first pay your debt then spend what is left. ). And whoever was frugal will have money to buy things he needs or gold or just keep it like “interest”.

    Again I’m speculating of this measure as one of the measures, not the only one.

    I think also less money would have been needed. Foreign holders wont lose in the long run too, cause the money would have been withdrawn. And I mean also the money for this should just have been printed not borrowed.

    And again clear mandate print X$ in Y steps, then withdraw them for Z time…in a law or something, so there can be no shenanigans. The money can’t be used for anything else.

    The gov. borrowing for its need is separate thing.

    I think such approach would have not generated sustainable high-inflation… just see-saw waves of inflation/deflation.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 2:30am

    Reply to #6

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    “and solar because its extreme opportunity cost, doesn’t have a positive ROI”

    I agree with most everything else you say, but that statement is plain wrong…..  Our panels paid off (in sunny Australia) in just 2.5 years..

    The problem with the alternatives is that all the infrastructure, resources, and energy needed to manufature them all have to be rolled out up front.  A similar thing is necessary with your precious CNG too you know….  there are ZERO places in Australia where I live where you’d be able to fill up even if our cars could be converted.

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 2:42am

    Reply to #14

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=raptor]What do you guys think if part of the initial solution was instead of giving money to the banks to give checks to big part of population and at the same time shrinking the money supply.[/quote]

    As I’ve said since I started posting on this site right at the beginning…..  I think all debts should be cancelled.  JUBILEE time!

    Now I’m not holding my breath, but… debt cancellation of sorts is already happening.  Lots of people are defaulting on (unsecured) credit cards, and now mortgages, and often people are “allowed’ to remain in their homes without paying a cent off their housing loans…

    Cancelling debts is better than giving people fat cheques. The banks only ever issued monopoly money….  let’em fail!

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 3:02am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]“Methane is renewable. Didn’t you know the carbon cycle is what gives life on earth?”[/quote]

    Yes I do…..  but Methane is created over millions of years, just like oil!  I know one can make one’s own biogas (we are about to embark on just such a project you may be surprised to know – my wife’s a potter, and we want to build her a self sufficient biogas fired kiln), but biogas can never replace the fossil gas currently in use, the numbers are astronomical.[/quote]

    1. We only need to replace the decline in oil, not all of it immediately.
    2. See my prior post about complexity– don’t underestimate the scale of things that individuals can do by themselves. Why do you think TPTB make the ethanol gin illegal to own and operate without a license? It wasn’t just because one can make liquor, it is because it is a scalable economic threat to statism. Ditto why hemp is illegal to grow in USA.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]Like I said, what will occur will be a drastic reduction in energy usage (I believe 90%!), the first world will join the third world….[/quote]

    That would be great because the third world lifestyle is much healthier physically, spiritually, socially, mentally, etc.. I speak from experience in both cultures. I think Chris has described the positive changes to his life in moving towards a more natural lifestyle. Nevertheless, it is only the people who are mis-allocating capital who will see themselves imploded.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]There is no way known the third world can ever consume even a quarter of the first world’s levels….  there are not the resources to do it with, all the best stuff, the low hanging fruit, all the best ores, the best oil, the best coal, the best arable land, has all already been used up.  Largely wasted on trivial non essential things in fact…[/quote]

    They don’t need to. Haven’t you noticed that Gini coefficients are rising? Nature abhors an equal (highly ordered) distribution, the trend of entropy is towards maximum (2nd law of thermo from 1856).

    This is the fundamental (math = physics = economics) reason that China will implode too, because they have been concentrating (mis-allocating) resources with their Yuan peg:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95152

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]“The only thing that matters those who deserve economically to use more, will, and the others will have to use less.  That has been true since the beginning of time.”[/quote]

    And who (and how?) decides who is more deserving?  Is that not what wars are for?  And, “since the beginning of time” may apply to the natural world, but not the human one….  in fact, I’d argue the exact opposite has occured![/quote]

    The free market (good non-centralized complexity) can, but when it is oppressed by statism (the culture of “we can control nature and insure ourselves“, see my links in my prior comment), then yes the end game is rationing and war.

    [quote=Davos][quote=truenorth]…This will take a lot longer than anyone can possibly imagine.  The United States will continue to sell paper to fund its deficit successfully for many years.  Americans will continue to spend more money than they have as well, for many years.

    Think five to ten years before anything significant happens. It’s a slow roller, folks..[/quote]

    I totally disagree.

    First the banks are in bad shape. Mark to Fantasy FASB accounting didn’t help. The foreclosure mess is now turning into Foreclosure Gate, expect TARP II and expect Congress to write a draconian law allowing the banks to send a postcard and take a home – no foreclosure hearing required. Right now Title Insurance is going to be next to impossible on foreclosed homes and REO. This disaster is phase II of the unmitigated disaster the banks and Wall Street did. It’ll blow up in our faces sooner than 5 years. WAY sooner.

    Look also at the derivatives…[/quote]

    As long as interest rates keep declining, which the Fed can always do with QE, then none of that matters. The only thing that matters is the destruction of production that the perpetually declining interest rates cause, as the public sector displaces the private sector. Eventually this implodes into rationing and war.

    Dr. Fekete is the one who taught me the math on this:

    http://professorfekete.com/

    The key thing to realize is that as interest rates decline for the public sector, the private sector can not avail of these, and thus the private sector is eaten by the public sector. And then I refer you to my prior comment about bad complexity being the one that is centrally managed. Unfortunately Fekete thinks a centralized gold standard (“open the mints”) is a solution. I am trying to teach him now, that only free market development of technology and billions of individual trial and errors is fitness. Statism will take down everything dependent on it in its wake (caveat emptor, reap what you sow). Remember what Jesus said about the birds, “if God can feed them, then certainly he can feed the humans” (paraphrased). The problem is men love what men have created so much, that they resist their ability to adapt to nature and constant change. The exponential function creeps up on statists and then obliterates them (see my link in first comment on first page of this blog).

    Note that hyper-inflation is impossible (as in 10,000% increase in prices) unless the central banks hand out cash to masses, because the masses don’t have 99 times more cash than the value of all commodities now:

    http://financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/perpetual-deflation-causes-inflation

    [quote=mainecooncat]The number of people living in poverty is actually 1 in 7, not 1 in 10 — I know you were wondering whether that was correct or not.

    But a little bit of statistical digging and a little use of one’s brain reveals that the number living in poverty is as high as 1 in 5, especially depending on what one considers “poverty” to be.[/quote]

    Include the developing world and it is 1 in 1.x. Nature abhors the “everyone must be equal” as I pointed out mathematically above.

    If men would not fear change, then without the statism parasite, even the lowest members of society would have 1000 times more than they need. But men can never listen to 1 Samuel 8 and the economic facts in that ancient book.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 3:51am

    Reply to #6
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]”and solar because its extreme opportunity cost, doesn’t have a positive ROI”[/quote]

    I agree with most everything else you say, but that statement is plain wrong…..  Our panels paid off (in sunny Australia) in just 2.5 years..[/quote]

    You don’t understand economics well enough. The key word is “opportunity cost“. Calculate the relative rates of return in percentage terms, and you can see that solar is a mathematical poverty paradigm (you never catch up in relative terms to the person who invested the same amount of capital else where). Sure you can subsidize it personally, because the relative opportunity cost is small enough nominally for you, but replicate that on any significant scale, and you will see economic implosion.

    Also the fiat system is mis-pricing many things, so even the price of grid power or the solar panels may be subsidized. This is how centralization messes up our decision making processes and causes implosion.

    Please understand that nature is a competition.  Everything is relative opportunity cost.

    For individual cases, solar may provide economic benefits over grid, which justify the opportunity cost. For resiliency (kudos to Chris!), I would have enough solar to support portable needs, e.g. foldable solar plans that you can carry in backpack:

    http://www.amazon.com/Brunton-Watt-Foldable-Solar-Array/dp/B000GEFFBO

    http://www.lenmar.com/web/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=PPU916 ($70 for 61Whr)

    Portability is the main benefit of solar imo (the fuel travels with it). For reserve power if grid goes down, I would have propane generator and huge propane (methane) tank. Has a very long storage life and much more opportunity cost effective than solar for that need.

    I appreciate the discussion, it helps me refine my explanations and test my conclusions.

    [quote=Damnthematrix]The problem with the alternatives is that all the infrastructure, resources, and energy needed to manufature them all have to be rolled out up front.  A similar thing is necessary with your precious CNG too you know….  there are ZERO places in Australia where I live where you’d be able to fill up even if our cars could be converted.[/quote]

    We don’t need to put CNG every where to start, only a fraction of  a percent of the world’s geography, in the most population dense areas. That is why CNG is already prevalent in mass transportation.

    Are you sure you don’t have cooking gas in your area? I think it is already widely distributed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 4:18am

    Reply to #12
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 306

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    shelbymoore3 wrote:

    That would be great because the third world lifestyle is much healthier physically, spiritually, socially, mentally, etc.. I speak from experience in both cultures. I think Chris has described the positive changes to his life in moving towards a more natural lifestyle. Nevertheless, it is only the people who are mis-allocating capital who will see themselves imploded.

     

    I will have to disagree with you on that statement:

     

    1. Why does the majority of the third world want to consume energy, live in nice homes, by TV, cars, just like us if they already enjoy a better lifestyle?

    2. The medium life expectancy in Third world nations is significantly lower than Western nations, and probably falling.

    3. Most of the Third world is a trash bin of the west, taking our toxic and e-waste, and the working conditions are absolutely horrible. Water polution is terrible, I am pretty sure population illness is rising faster in the Third world than the West because of all the pollution as the become industrialzed. Not only did the west export manufacturing jobs, it also exported all its pollution, since all of the dirty manufacturing production was built in countries with little to no pollution controls or laws. Companies dump toxicins into the rivers, oceans and into the air with no equipment to clean it up because it costs money.

    4. Most people in Third world countries want to immigrate to the West. Only the Rich and Middle class in Third world nations has a desire to stay but, but they are the minority of the population in Third world countries.

     

    Note that hyper-inflation is impossible (as in 10,000% increase in prices) unless the central banks hand out cash to masses, because the masses don’t have 99 times more cash than the value of all commodities now:

    Not  true. If people lose faith the the currency it can quickly loose value. In the case of Zimbabwe, Foriegners lost faith in the gov’t to honor its debt payments. Then the Zimbabwe dollar lost buying power and then the gov’t starting printing money to make up for the declining purchasing power. Consider the collapse of the Soviet Union Ruble, In the early 1990’s just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, In four weeks its lost 90% of its value even though they didn’t anywhere near the amounts required to devalue the currency that much. Similar event happped with the collapse of the Argentine dollar back in 2001. In Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, or Argentine, the citizens didn’t have rising wages. All three where suffering very high employment and the majority of the population were living in poverty.

    Hyper-inflation isn’t a monatery phenomenon, its a political one. When people lose faith (mostly foriegners) in a currency, it collapses rather quickly. Money printing isn’t usually the cause of hyper-inflation, its the aftermath of a currency collapse. Currency loses value first, then the gov’t prints money to make up for the loss of puchasing power. If a gov’t prints money and increases the money supply it causes inflation, as it takes a while for the increased money supply to get in the hands of the population.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 5:14am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Meant to add to my prior post, that note how fast computers are being miniaturized and made more power efficient, e.g. smartphones, while notice how fast batteries (e.g. since 2005 Lithium polymer, NiMh low-discharge) are adding energy density (by weight and volume) and recharge cycles. Technology is already solving the energy problem, it is just dinasours don’t like to change their habits. I haven’t driven my 25MPG Isuzu Crosswind large SUV diesel in past 10 days (been too busy on the computer to leave the house), and I have my 90MPG Kymco Super-8 CVT-automatic scooter (with my custom fabricated vinyl roof and extended relaxed position foot pegs– only one in the world I think) cost me about $2000 total brand new.

    [quote=TechGuy]

    shelbymoore3 wrote:

    That would be great because the third world lifestyle is much healthier physically, spiritually, socially, mentally, etc.. I speak from experience in both cultures. I think Chris has described the positive changes to his life in moving towards a more natural lifestyle. Nevertheless, it is only the people who are mis-allocating capital who will see themselves imploded.

    I will have to disagree with you on that statement:

    1. Why does the majority of the third world want to consume energy, live in nice homes, by TV, cars, just like us if they already enjoy a better lifestyle?[/quote]

    Because the youth in the city here watch too much TV– the mind programming machine. Seriously though, every human wants to have everything and more and more and more. There is nothing wrong with that, except when humans use debt to obtain it, then it is mathematically socialism which always ends in massive social failure:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

    More directly to the point, the filipinos smile more and have more fun. They hate  to plan too much. The live for the day, love life to the fullest, and they love abundant children.  They even celebrate death, and have week long party with an open casket at home. I think you will find this is true in most native and rural cultures, that their quality of life is ALIVE and western urban and suburban culture is lonely and dead (but “well controlled and well planned”– ahem for failure to anneal). Filipinos hate to be alone. They love to be impinged upon at random times by relatives, neighbors, and total strangers. Try that in the USA! My car engine blew up in the middle of the California desert, and when I approached people at well lighted rest stop to ask for ride to nearest town, people tried to ignore me or tell me they would call the sheriff if I asked them another question.  In the Philippines, I have run out of gas at 2am and been able to wake up an entire community to find someone who has some gas in a coke bottle.

    [quote=TechGuy]2. The medium life expectancy in Third world nations is significantly lower than Western nations, and probably falling.[/quote]

    People die here with a much more full life of love and happiness. People here are more exposed to the environment so yes they die of things like snake bites, water borne infections, etc.. But actually for those who stick with their ancient customs, they have a drastiscally lower rate of heart disease, because of the virgin coconut oil is the best oil you eat.  Our media in west lies to us and gets us to eat the oils which actually increase our heart disease, because the medical industry is another big fraud racket, just like the illegal drug racket, etc.. it is all tied together at the banksters, go read Catherine Austin Fitts at solari.com (former US Asst Secretary of HUD).

    In short, statistics lie.

    [quote=TechGuy]3. Most of the Third world is a trash bin of the west, taking our toxic and e-waste, and the working conditions are absolutely horrible. Water polution is terrible, I am pretty sure population illness is rising faster in the Third world than the West because of all the pollution as the become industrialzed. Not only did the west export manufacturing jobs, it also exported all its pollution, since all of the dirty manufacturing production was built in countries with little to no pollution controls or laws. Companies dump toxicins into the rivers, oceans and into the air with no equipment to clean it up because it costs money.[/quote]

    You are describing some parts of over-industrialized China (that Yuan peg fraud again!), but not the majority of the developing world, which is beautiful and modernizing and has a nice mix of nature and modern life.

    [quote=TechGuy]4. Most people in Third world countries want to immigrate to the West. Only the Rich and Middle class in Third world nations has a desire to stay but, but they are the minority of the population in Third world countries.[/quote]

    Of course they want to come get some of that free money too, before the End Game. But they bring it back home to the place they love in their heart and for many it is their home country, although if they are young and materialistic enough when they immigrate and especially if they are female, then yes they get sucked into the western culture morass.

    Indeed the youngest generation in the developing countries are nearly indoctrinated by TV into the western addiction.  It is sad and I am doing everything I can to change this. I am working on a massive internet social network now. But somethings are just meant to be. Mankind is meant to go into the global statism. I am speaking mainly to those pockets who want to hang on to love, nature, and good quality of life (not materialist statistics).

    [quote=TechGuy]

    Note that hyper-inflation is impossible (as in 10,000% increase in prices) unless the central banks hand out cash to masses, because the masses don’t have 99 times more cash than the value of all commodities now:

    Not  true. If people lose faith the the currency it can quickly[/quote]

    Sorry you are mathematically wrong.  Every time I explain this, people respond with that same Jim Sinclair “it is a monetary, stampede phenomenon” which does not apply to a global debt trap.

    The masses can’t spend more cash than they have.  Read my statement above again.

    The impetus for hyper-inflation is a shortage of cash, and the government then tries to relieve the shortage in a spiral.  Without the central banks handing ever more cash to the masses (not to the large banks but to the masses), then any move to commodities will peak and then fall back down again (because a move to commodities will bankrupt production and people need to spend their savings).

    Also the masses have a negative networth and thus any cash they spend on commodities has a margin call.

    [quote=TechGuy]In the case of Zimbabwe, Foriegners lost faith in the gov’t to honor its debt payments. Then the Zimbabwe dollar lost buying power and then the gov’t starting printing money to make up for the declining purchasing power. Consider the collapse of the Soviet Union Ruble, In the early 1990’s just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, In four weeks its lost 90% of its value even though they didn’t anywhere near the amounts required to devalue the currency that much. Similar event happped with the collapse of the Argentine dollar back in 2001. In Zimbabwe, the Soviet Union, or Argentine, the citizens didn’t have rising wages. All three where suffering very high employment and the majority of the population were living in poverty.

    Hyper-inflation isn’t a monatery phenomenon, its a political one. When people lose faith (mostly foriegners) in a currency, it collapses rather quickly. Money printing isn’t usually the cause of hyper-inflation, its the aftermath of a currency collapse. Currency loses value first, then the gov’t prints money to make up for the loss of puchasing power. If a gov’t prints money and increases the money supply it causes inflation, as it takes a while for the increased money supply to get in the hands of the population.[/quote]

    But we don’t have one country to run from, we have the entire globe in the same debt spiral. There is no place to run to.  If everyone runs to commodities, then the price of commodities goes so high while the debt based economy implodes, then people have no more cash and have to sell commodites, so the price declines again.

    The only way to get hyper-inflation is for the government to print the currency and hand it to the masses. It won’t happen because the governments know that is suicide and the governments are run and owned by the banksters who want to use this debt slavery to get their global statism state (NWO).

    The end of the nation-state is coming, but at the end game where the whole system devolves.  That won’t be hyper-inflation, but rather a slow withering. In 10 years, most people won’t even have a toothpick (being dramatic), much less any cash to go buy commodities. The point is there won’t be any cash.  The cash will have all moved to the gold owners, and the Gini coefficients will be very high. Then comes war and 90% tax rates, so all the gold is stolen back to banksters again.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 10:24am

    Reply to #12

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    Meant to add to my prior post, that note how fast computers are being miniaturized and made more power efficient, e.g. smartphones, while notice how fast batteries (e.g. since 2005 Lithium polymer, NiMh low-discharge) are adding energy density (by weight and volume) and recharge cycles.

    [/quote]

     

    See……..  there you go again!  Ever heard of an element called Hafnium?

     

    METALS SHORTAGES.

     

    It is not only an impending gap in demand and supply of oil that imposes upon the conservation of human civilization, the pressing and imminent depletion of world metals threatens all developments in solar energy and communications via LCD screens etc. and also nuclear power. The rate of of platinum recovery makes vehicles powered by hydrogen-fuel cells an unlikely possibility on any significant scale comparable with oil-powered transportation. Simple strategies for reusing “scrap” metals will not alleviate the shortage of metals, but ultimately recycling needs to be deliberately designed into an integrated paradigm of extraction, use and reuse, rather than treating it as an unplanned consequence.

    We live on a planet with finite resources, and yet consume them with alacrity in the false assumption of limitless expansion. Demand for metals rises inexorably due in large part to roaring economic growth in China and India, at a level that production of them struggles to meet. In consequence, the price of copper and iron ore has doubled during the past two years. The price of rhenium, used for highly fuel-efficient aircraft engines, has jumped to a record $11,250 per kilogram, which is almost twelve-times its price in 2006. Indeed, it is now only half the price of gold, which is a major boon to the main countries that mine rhenium-ore: Chile and Kazakhstan. Reserves of indium, used for solar cells and LCD’s along with those of hafnium, an essential component of computer-chips and also employed as a thermal-neutron absorber in nuclear control-rods, may literally run-out within 10 years.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 11:23am

    #15

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Shelby, it’s great to have you here, but please spend a bit more time thinking and researching than writing. I’m telling you, there is still much that you do not understand…
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 12:06pm

    Reply to #12
    Davos

    Davos

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 17 2008

    Posts: 811

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    The only way to get hyper-inflation is for the government to print the currency and hand it to the masses. 

    [/quote]Wrong.

    I don’t have time to read your other counter points, but this one jumped out at me like it was bold, in red, and 3D with large font.

    You might want to go back and look at  your monetary history. The inflation/deflation debate is neither here-nor-there. What matters is that you make the correct decision to protect yourself and your family. It is a 50-50 crap shoot if you want to make this without facts. If you use no facts you will likely chose the wrong door.

    I wrote a piece on hyperinflation – you of course don’t have to read it, but I’d encourage you to look at the table at the bottom of the page. I took the time to type in about 40 currencies that have recently hyper-inflated and died. Show me the ones where they handed the money out to the masses.

    BTW, in that article I did a graph of gold to the German Mark and discussed Weimar Germany’s hyperinflation. They couldn’t pay their debt, France and Belgium came in and took their industrial complexes and revenues, so Germany printed. Look at us. We gave our industrial base away with Globalization, we can’t pay our debt, so we print.

    There is NO difference. None.

    By the way: Just what do you think Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Benefits, Public Works and the litany of other handing the people money programs are?????????????

    H-E-L-L-O ????? 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 3:48pm

    Reply to #12
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]“The only thing that matters those who deserve economically to use more, will, and the others will have to use less.  That has been true since the beginning of time.”[/quote]

    And who (and how?) decides who is more deserving?  Is that not what wars are for?  And, “since the beginning of time” may apply to the natural world, but not the human one….  in fact, I’d argue the exact opposite has occured![/quote]

    The free market (good non-centralized complexity) can, but when it is oppressed by statism (the culture of “we can control nature and insure ourselves“, see my links in my prior comment), then yes the end game is rationing and war.

    [/quote]

    I didn’t really wanna get involved here, but I notice you keep bringing up this idea of free markets leading to “good” complexity and that this will equalize wealth distribution if central institutions just get out of the way. I’m sure you realize that there are movements in many third world countries that feel the exact opposite, and have seen their national sovereignty effectively wiped out by “free trade agreements” and globalization in general. The truth is that free market fundamentalism leads to exactly what you keep criticizing, namely a complex economic system based on the concentration of wealth and resources (as you mentioned Gini coefficients have been rising). Central governments definitely have not done much to help reverse this trend, as they try to correct almost every instability that arises with more complexity and concentration of wealth. Could we maintain this complexity if we just had access to a lot more energy and let the free markets operate? I don’t know. Would we even want to based on moral principles of fairness, empathy, compassion, etc.? I doubt it.

    Here are some pieces I wrote about the intersection of our current economic prediction and complexity if you are interested:

     “The Limits to Complexity” –  http://peakcomplexity.blogspot.com/2010/09/limits-to-complexity.html

    “A Complexity Manifesto” – http://peakcomplexity.blogspot.com/2010/09/complexity-manifesto.html

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 4:13pm

    Reply to #12

    littleone

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 24 2009

    Posts: 88

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=Davos]

    By the way: Just what do you think Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Benefits, Public Works and the litany of other handing the people money programs are?????????????

    [/quote]

    Your question begs an answer.

    Is it…Slavery for all!…Perpetual war on poverty!…or Forced Industry!? 

    This is an important question…going deeper down the rabbit hole… 

    …check out Wikipedia under William Henry Beveridge:

    William Henry Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge KCB (5 March 1879 – 16 March 1963) was a British economist and social reformer. He is perhaps best known for his 1942 report Social Insurance and Allied Services (known as the Beveridge Report) which served as the basis for the post-World War II Welfare State put in place by the Labour government.

    Wartime work

    Three years later, Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour in the wartime National government, invited Beveridge to take charge of the Welfare department of his Ministry. Beveridge refused, but declared an interest in organising British manpower in wartime (Beveridge had come to favour a strong system of centralised planning). Bevin was reluctant to let Beveridge have his way but did commission him to work on a relatively unimportant manpower survey from June 1940 and so Beveridge became a temporary civil servant. Neither Bevin nor the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry Sir Thomas Phillips liked working with Beveridge as both found him conceited.[1]

    An opportunity for Bevin to ease Beveridge out presented itself in May 1941 when Minister of Health Ernest Brown announced the formation of a committee of officials to survey existing social insurance and allied services, and to make recommendations. Although Brown had made the announcement, the inquiry had largely been urged by Minister without Portfolio Arthur Greenwood, and Bevin suggested to Greenwood making Beveridge chairman of the committee. Beveridge, at first uninterested and seeing the committee as a distraction from his work on manpower, accepted only reluctantly.[2]

    The Report to the Parliament on Social Insurance and Allied Services was published in 1942. It proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly national insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed. Beveridge argued that this system would provide a minimum standard of living “below which no one should be allowed to fall”.

     

    Support for eugenics

    Beveridge was a proponent of Eugenics. He argued in 1909 that “those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry, are to be recognised as ‘unemployable’. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State… but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights — including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood.”[6]

    -littleone

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 5:53pm

    Reply to #6
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=ytterbius]

    “Wind and solar are not relevant.”

    LOL!  So wrong.[/quote]

    Can not be deployed rapidly enough, i.e. they can’t scale– wind because it is only efficient in certain places and not at an individual’s economy-of-scale, and solar because its extreme opportunity cost, doesn’t have a positive ROI compared to most any other investment (except with statism subsidies, wherein statism is inefficient and peaking too).

    Wind has no where near the scale of hydro. Solar is a joke. Solar radiation is too dispersed and even the mirrors to concentrate it are not economic.  I even studied the equations for Stirling engine concentrators, also solar chimneys, in detail and concluded they are not economic.

    Sorry but I have done my research and thinking for several years now.

    [/quote]

    Typical American vision.

    On scaleability, the Global PV market this year is running around 17GW, compared to about 7.5GW last year.  How’s that for growth.  The cost of PV Solar has dropped by half in the last two years.  Another drop like that and we WILL be competitive with traditional sources of Energy.  Take a 20% utilization ratio, and that 17GW is equivalent on a kWh to kWh basis to 3.4 GW worth of Nuclear Power (averaged over the year).  Give it a few more years and people will forget about spending 10 years to get a single nuclear plant up and running.

    There will be numerous niches to fill in the absense of cheap oil / coal, but if you ignore Solar then you’re making a huge error in judgement.  There is more Solar potential available on the planet than any other source of Energy, and it’s going to be the cheapest of them all.  There are no moving parts and minimal maintenance on modules that are warranteed for 25 years but will last much longer than that in the end.

    Look to China to make it clear.  Their manufacturers are doubling their capacities AGAIN over the next year, and the Government has already provided 10’s of Billions of Dollars in credit to the Industry.  More is coming as China intents to create local demand for their Alt Energy products (all types). 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 7:22pm

    Reply to #6
    Nate

    Nate

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 05 2009

    Posts: 327

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    When discussing cost of a solar cell, please use EROEI. 

    Nate

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 8:30pm

    Reply to #2
    finaltable

    finaltable

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 02 2009

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=ytterbius]This source of wealth must be the Green Revolution.  It seems to me to be the only hope.  Without it, the financial system will collapse, and there will not enough available energy for any kind of economy till the population drops dramatically.  If it succeeds, then in the long term, even if the paper financial system collapses, then energy will still be available for some kind of economy, even if only in pockets.[/quote]

    My question in response to this is “What will be the cost?”  The United States has clean water and air, if not in absolute terms, then at least relative to other countries, and the cost of that has been the 10% of the population that used to be employed in manufacturing.  The EPA hasn’t made anything cleaner on a global scale, we have merely exported industrial waste to other countries so that our standard of living could continue as it had been.  It is not cheaper to produce “clean” energy in absolute terms so the question becomes “What are we going to give up to have a Greener life?”  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 8:32pm

    Reply to #6
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=Nate]

    When discussing cost of a solar cell, please use EROEI. 

    Nate

    [/quote]

     

    Here’s a nice little doc from NREL on Solar EROEI ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf ).  It’s old, but gives a ballpark.

    A couple notes.  Energy invested per Watt for Solar is / will decrease over time as industry scaling continues.  In addition, a large part of the energy cost of silicon-based PV is in the purifying of the Polysilicon.  Efficiencies in this area are increasing nicely as reactors get larger, and as improved process-control software comes on the market. ( http://www.aegps.com/en/company/news_events/2010/09_Thyrobox_PI.html ).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 8:43pm

    #16
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1374

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    finaltable

    [quote]The United States has clean water and air, if not in absolute terms, then at least relative to other countries, and the cost of that has been the 10% of the population that used to be employed in manufacturing.[/quote]

    Can you cite authority for that statement? 

    Thanks,

    Doug

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 9:11pm

    Reply to #2
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=finaltable]

    [quote=ytterbius]This source of wealth must be the Green Revolution.  It seems to me to be the only hope.  Without it, the financial system will collapse, and there will not enough available energy for any kind of economy till the population drops dramatically.  If it succeeds, then in the long term, even if the paper financial system collapses, then energy will still be available for some kind of economy, even if only in pockets.[/quote]

    My question in response to this is “What will be the cost?”  The United States has clean water and air, if not in absolute terms, then at least relative to other countries, and the cost of that has been the 10% of the population that used to be employed in manufacturing.  The EPA hasn’t made anything cleaner on a global scale, we have merely exported industrial waste to other countries so that our standard of living could continue as it had been.  It is not cheaper to produce “clean” energy in absolute terms so the question becomes “What are we going to give up to have a Greener life?”  

    [/quote]

     

    It will be cheaper to produce clean energy pretty soon (yes, it’s still an industrial process, and will have its byproducts, but certainly nothing like nuclear or coal).

    It’s not a matter of giving things up.  Without Energy you have nothing.  We need Energy, and we have options, some better, some worse.  In 10 years there won’t be these arguments because it will be abundantly clear that Solar is, at least for several large niches, entirely cheaper than any other alternative. 

    It’s made harder by the fact that the cost is upfront, as opposed to being distributed over many years by purchases of fuel, so the lenders are going to have to continue to get on board with programs and underwriting standards for the sector.

    It’s also not just a matter of thinking about only the US.  The developing World is going to keep trying to grow, and they’ll continue to need more and more energy.  They’re going to take a different path than we did in many ways.  Having a grid tie to every business and house on the planet is going to be unrealistically expensive (never mind all of the line losses involved).  This is where the distributed nature of Solar is a strength.  You can construct localized microgrids using Solar anywhere where there is Sun, and so support localized economies rather than depending on everyone to rush to the cities.

    And it’s not just large scale farming that should be thought about….  why the heck am I forced to plug in my cellphone to charge it?  Ok, so for heavy use, the option to plug in will not go away soon, but for cellphones and all manner of “remote” devices, a solar trickle charge would hardly add to the cost of the device, but would add significantly to the devices “remote” useability.  Let’s freakin get rid of half of the chargers that sit plugged into the grid all day and night and that just leak away power with no purpose.

    Blah blah blah…

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 10:22pm

    Reply to #6
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 306

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    ytterbius wrote:

    ]On scaleability, the Global PV market this year is running around 17GW,

     

    Thats grossly misleading since 17 GW is the panel rating, not the actual energy production. The Sun simply does not shine 7/24/365, nor does it produce the full amount of power unless the sun is perfectly pointing at the panels and there is no optical obstructions (clouds,dust collected on the panels, shadows etc). On average (world wide) solar panels will produce 5.5 Hours out of 24 hours at there power rating. so a 100W panel will product about 550 Watt-hours of electricity instead of 2400 Watt-hours. A Coal fired plant, Nuclear, Hydro will produce a constant power output 7/24/365. PV panel  (and wind turbines) ratings should be changed to provide real world power production, not there maximum power rating which a useless value, except for marketing.

    PV power ratings doesn’t  include the voltage conversion loss and other associated losses, such as charging losses when the energy is dumped into batteries for storage. Dumping on the Grid also reduces efficiency because AC power is sinesoidal, You can only deliver 70.7% of the energy of a PV into a AC direct conversion system. Google “RMS and AC power” if you don’t understand.

    PV is the worse ROI alternative energy, since it costs the most and produces the small amount of watt hours per dollar, than Wind, Hydro, Nuclear, etc. That said PV has a market, that is to provide low power where access to the grid is no feasible, such as remote monitoring stations and isolated devices that need a small amount of power.  Wind, Hydro, Nuclear, etc are better suited for large scale power production. I haven’t even gone into the production issues with PV manufacturing (excessive water pollution from the production of sililcon and mining of rare earth dopients to make the N-P Junctions, Nor the enormous about of NatGaselectricity that is used to make PV panels. FWIW: There are no PV powered PV manufactured plants. All PV power plants use fossil fuels to make them).

    That said Wind has it flaws, since wind turbines also cannot produce power at the rating 7/24/365 either. They need a huge investment in storage systems and 1.5 to 3 times power production than demand to make up for periods when the wind isn’t blowing. The Grid needs power 7/24/365, while the load does vary during the day at any given point in time the load remains constant. Decreasing the power into a static load cause system failures as the voltage drops, and increases the strain on transmission lines. When voltage drops current levels rise causing thermal stresses on transmission lines. High voltage systems can not be switched or adjusted fast enough to constantly switch from one wind farm to the other to make sure the grid remains in balance..  Large scale energy storage for volatile energy systems such as Wind and PV present a severe challenge as its difficult and very expensive to construct Gigawatt storage systems. The only real feasible power storage system for volatile systems (ie Wind, PV, etc) is pumped water storage. where the Wind farm power is used to pump power into a large reservoir, and hydro turbines tap the resevior to supply power to the grid. The problems are is that there is insufficent land resource where you can set up these large reservoirs, since they need a large gravity differential and a large area to store water. Much of the developed world has already developed all the best land suited for these storage systems. Its very difficult to move millions of people to free up the land for water energy storage systems. In addition there are significant losses in Pump storage system. A pump storage system needs between 4 and 8 times the base load power consumption to ensure there is sufficient water in the reservior. There is also a water shortage problem. Since many regions (such as the American West) that is too little water to support existing infrastructure (cities, agraculture). Currenly the US West is rapidly draining the aquifiers to meet demand, There is no spare water capacity for pumped water energy storage systems.

    My advice is to fully understand large scale electricity production and distribution, then learn the shortcomings of PV and wind systems. Do the math and you’ll see it comes up short and no way will PV or Wind ever eplace fossil power plant production.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 04, 2010 - 11:09pm

    Reply to #6
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    Techguy, a couple things.

    First, if you’ll note where I pointed out a 20% utilization ratio, that is where I take into account the fact that energy isn’t being constantly produced by PV Solar.  20% is about baseline, but depending on location, or possible tracking systems you can beat that percentage by 10-15%.  What I’m pointing out in using the 17GW number is the growth of the industry.  In any case, it’s certainly not grosly misleading to use industry standards to describe the industry.

    As for your 70.7% stat, how about you link to the details.  Yes, there are losses in the system, as there are in all systems, but your modern inverters run at worst about 95% efficient.  In any case, if you’re not generating the energy at the site, then you’ve got to deal with significant line losses, so this offsets much of the loss from your local Solar Installation.

    Oh, and you want to talk about the fact that Solar Manufacturing uses conventional energy to run the processes?  Come on, that’s cheap.  The fact is that with Solar’s EROEI, this is all paid back WELL before the solar equipment hits its end of life, so even if you are using coal to power the production of Solar in some location, and then you sell the produced equipment elsewhere, you are still cutting emissions.  Do your preferred sources of Energy not depend on today’s Conventional Energy for Manufacturing?

    And yes, I do understand.  I’m no whiz at math, but I have gotten a BS in physics, so have put in more than my time in considering Energy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 2:26am

    Reply to #6
    TechGuy

    TechGuy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2008

    Posts: 306

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    What I’m pointing out in using the 17GW number is the growth of the industry.  In any case, it’s certainly not grosly misleading to use industry standards to describe the industry.

     

    Sorry I disagree. Using your figures, 20% of 17GW is only 3.4 GW. Probably less than 2GW if you include conversion & distribution losses. The Global energy contructions  builds more fossil fueled power plants in just a few months to keep up with demand than PV can be added to the grid in a year.  I’ll leave it at that.

    Another issue, is how much PV panels are trashed every year from storms, accidents and general failure (incorrect installation, manufacturiing defects (ie Cheap Chinese PVs), etc). The more the amount of PVs system go into service, the higher the losses will be. One good lightenning  storm or high wind storm at a PV farm can destroy it in an instant.

     

    Small percentages always show better figures that when they are scaled up. PV systems are complex and the complexing go up like a hockey stick the bigger they become. Coal, Nuclear, Hyro are limited to a small set of components, with perhaps a dozen or so turbines producting megawatts of power. PV panels have outputs measured in 100’s of watts, it takes tens of thousands of panels to match the power of a single convential power plant. All those parts require maintaince and must be interconnected and synced together. Maintaince and service costs will be significantly higher than a single power system producing megawatts of power, and the costs will rise exponentially to the system of the PV farms.  

    As for your 70.7% stat, how about you link to the details.  Yes, there are losses in the system, as there are in all systems, but your modern inverters run at worst about 95% efficient.

    I am not referring to loss. I am referring to Sinesoidal AC output. A PV panel will produce DC at a stead voltage and current. When the AC Mains go to Zero volts the PV invertor must also follow the AC voltage and drop to zero to keep in sync with the AC Grid. When the AC grid voltage drops to zero, no energy is dumped into the grid, About 70.7% of the time can a PV panel commit energy to the grid without a storage system. 

    Storage systems are the problem with PV. 99% PV systems rely on Lead-Acid batteries. No way your going to scale a system, even up to 20% using Lithium batteries since there isn’t enough economically recoverable Lithium to make that happen.

     

    The fact is that with Solar’s EROEI, this is all paid back WELL before the solar equipment hits its end of life

    Remove the fossil fuel subsidy and I doubt it has a positive EROEI.  BTW, not all panels have a 30+ lifespan. Only Monicrystalline PV’s have a proven life of 30+ years. Thin Film panels make up the significant amount of production today. These will have much shorter lifespans do to the contant thermal cycling (from hot-bright sun, to cloudy weather) that causes microfractures in the silicon degrading them much faster.  No way that the switching equipment will also last 30 years, it will have to be replaced every 10 to 15 years. Batteries 5 to 7 years. PV systems need to include all of the costs and maintance that requires them to deliver energy to the Grid, not just the cost of the panels. Solar PV manufactures put s spin on statistics in order to sell systems. Remember the hype on the Turkey waste to energy plant? They told everyone that it had a high positive EROEI, they were dead wrong, but that didn’t stop the company founders from getting rich at the expense of suckers, I mean, investors.

    FWIW: A better policy would to start husbanding the remaining energy supplies and work on much more energy efficient infrastructure. Such has replacing Highways with trains, improving home energy efficient (HVAC). and solving the pending water crisis for agraculture, When the US West Acqufier is depleted, electricity will be least of our problems. No water no food. This is also true in most of the heavy populated regions, including Europe, India, the Middle east and China. All have major water shortages problems in the not too distant future. Only Canada, and Russia have a true large surplus of fresh water. Investments should be made to bring Water from Canada and Russia to regions short on water.People can live without electricity, they can’t live without clean water and food.

    I believe we will have a crash in PV production within a few years as the global economic crisis worsens. Demand for expensive PV systems will disappear when gov’t have no money to subsidize the cost. Gov’ts all over and running low on cash. Its just a matter of time.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 2:27am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]

    Meant to add to my prior post, that note how fast computers are being miniaturized and made more power efficient, e.g. smartphones, while notice how fast batteries (e.g. since 2005 Lithium polymer, NiMh low-discharge) are adding energy density (by weight and volume) and recharge cycles.

    [/quote]

    See……..  there you go again!  Ever heard of an element called Hafnium?

    METALS SHORTAGES.

    …The price of rhenium, used for highly fuel-efficient aircraft engines, has jumped to a record $11,250 per kilogram, which is almost twelve-times its price in 2006. Indeed, it is now only half the price of gold, which is a major boon to the main countries that mine rhenium-ore: Chile and Kazakhstan. Reserves of indium, used for solar cells and LCD’s along with those of hafnium, an essential component of computer-chips and also employed as a thermal-neutron absorber in nuclear control-rods, may literally run-out within 10 years.[/quote]

    I added the bold emphasis in the quote of your comment above.

    Hafnium is 3ppm in the earth’s crust, which is more plentiful than molybdenum, which we are finding huge quantities of:

    http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/poitras022801.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_copper_deposit#Porphyry-type_ore_deposits_for_metals_other_than_copper

    http://silverstockreport.com/2007/GMO_Vindication.html

    http://www.generalmoly.com/

    [quote=guardia]Shelby, it’s great to have you here, but please spend a bit more time thinking and researching than writing. I’m telling you, there is still much that you do not understand… Samuel[/quote]

    Specifics please? I am confident after my 5 years of researching this as a full time vocation, you find that if you lay out your specifics, I will show that you don’t understand as well as I do.

    [quote=Davos][quote=shelbymoore3]The only way to get hyper-inflation is for the government to print the currency and hand it to the masses.[/quote]

    Wrong.

    I don’t have time to read your other counter points, but this one jumped out at me like it was bold, in red, and 3D with large font.

    You might want to go back and look at  your monetary history. The inflation/deflation debate is neither here-nor-there. What matters is that you make the correct decision to protect yourself and your family. It is a 50-50 crap shoot if you want to make this without facts. If you use no facts you will likely chose the wrong door.

    I wrote a piece on hyperinflation – you of course don’t have to read it, but I’d encourage you to look at the table at the bottom of the page. I took the time to type in about 40 currencies that have recently hyper-inflated and died. Show me the ones where they handed the money out to the masses…[/quote]

    Sorry but you are very wrong.

    You quoted me out-of-context and apparently ignored the caveat that I gave:

    [quote=shelbymoore3]…But we don’t have one country to run from, we have the entire globe in the same debt spiral. There is no place to run to.  If everyone runs to commodities, then the price of commodities goes so high while the debt based economy implodes, then people have no more cash and have to sell commodites, so the price declines again…[/quote]

    The point is that we can’t get hyper-inflation without government handing cash to the masses, if the entire globe is stampeding to buy the same commodities.

    What you are failing to understand about the historical cases that you studied (and yes I had read your article and had linked to it in my writings at blogs!), is that when one nation-state’s members (i.e. a small portion of the world) stampedes to commodities, then the price of commodities only increases in the currency of that one nation-state, thus the rest of the world’s production is unaffected. However, if the entire globe stampedes, then the world production stops, and the stampede becomes a margin call on itself and reverses.

    TPTB were very wise, they realized that people had never seen this sort of situation in the history of the world, and so wouldn’t understand it nor how to plan for it. The closest case in history is the decline of Rome over centuries, with the finality of the implosion coming with war (the sacking and looting of Rome). Our case will be faster, because in Rome the coin had to be physically debased, now they only need to press a button at the Fed. Also we have the amplification effect of $quadrillion derivatives.

    This is a global debt trap, meaning the entire world is inter-linked to the debt trap. All the markets move in unison now. This is the sign that TPTB are bringing them into alignment for the new global statism order. There is no way for the dollar to devalue without also causing the other curriencies to devalue, because they are all inter-linked with the dollar reserve (dollar for oil) paradigm. What do you think “globalization” was really about? (rhetorical)

    Guys I may not be able to come back here and correct all your mistakes. But I am a very smart person (150-160 IQ I think) and I have been studying this matter as a full time vocation since about 2005. Now I am in the midst of launching a social network, and so I am very busy programming.  So if I don’t explain against your future replies, it doesn’t mean you are correct.  I hope you really think deeply about what I have written. I came here to try to pass along my knowledge to the very smart people here (especially Chris, because I was one of the first to watch his videos years ago and link to and popularize them), because I won’t have time to carry the torch from here on out, so I need some of you to understand what is really going on.

    [quote=Davos]…By the way: Just what do you think Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Benefits, Public Works and the litany of other handing the people money programs are?????????????

    H-E-L-L-O ?????[/quote]

    These are merely replacing the level of spending that existed prior to the 2007/8 implosion. They are not 99 times the value of all commodities on earth, not even close by orders-of-magnitude! You need to learn what a factor of 10 means in math.  Hello???

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 3:03am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Complexity, fundamental fraud, and non-solutions

    [quote=ashvinp][quote=shelbymoore3][quote=Damnthematrix][quote=shelbymoore3]“The only thing that matters those who deserve economically to use more, will, and the others will have to use less.  That has been true since the beginning of time.”[/quote]

    And who (and how?) decides who is more deserving?  Is that not what wars are for?  And, “since the beginning of time” may apply to the natural world, but not the human one….  in fact, I’d argue the exact opposite has occured![/quote]

    The free market (good non-centralized complexity) can, but when it is oppressed by statism (the culture of “we can control nature and insure ourselves“, see my links in my prior comment), then yes the end game is rationing and war.[/quote]

    I didn’t really wanna get involved here, but I notice you keep bringing up this idea of free markets leading to “good” complexity and that this will equalize wealth distribution if central institutions just get out of the way.[/quote]

    I added the bold emphasis in my quote of your comment above.

    Apparently you did not read what I wrote in the post that contains the comment of mine that you quoted, as follows:

    [quote=shelbymoore3]They don’t need to. Haven’t you noticed that Gini coefficients are rising? Nature abhors an equal (highly ordered) distribution, the trend of entropy is towards maximum (2nd law of thermo from 1856).[/quote]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Include the developing world and it is 1 in 1.x. Nature abhors the “everyone must be equal” as I pointed out mathematically above.

    If men would not fear change, then without the statism parasite, even the lowest members of society would have 1000 times more than they need. But men can never listen to 1 Samuel 8 and the economic facts in that ancient book.[/quote]

    Thus I never wrote that free markets would create equalized wealth distribution.  Equalized distribution of anything is not stable, because equal distribution means “highly ordered“, as I wrote above. The problem is most people don’t understand complexity or entropy at all.  Please go read my explanation of the math and physics:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22098.html#comment94393

    Note I did write that if we would stop stealing from ourselves with the usury, future contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture, then “even the lowest members of society would have 1000 times more than they need“:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

    [quote=ashvinp]I’m sure you realize that there are movements in many third world countries that feel the exact opposite, and have seen their national sovereignty effectively wiped out by “free trade agreements” and globalization in general.[/quote]

    Globalization” (what we have now) was not free trade, instead we are stealing from ourselves with our love of the usury, future contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95181

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95191

    [quote=ashvinp]The truth is that free market fundamentalism leads to exactly what you keep criticizing, namely a complex economic system based on the concentration of wealth and resources (as you mentioned Gini coefficients have been rising). [/quote]

    Complexity is increasing order, so equalized wealth would be highly ordered. The result of concentrated wealth and resources is very low complexity and very free market. Unfortunately, we have the entire world demanding that the free market not be allowed to work and that instead we steal from ourselves.  So how does nature deal with people who want to steal from themselves? Well nature (trend of entropy to maximum disorder, the 2nd law of thermo, 1859) never loses, so nature simplies hands over all the wealth to the kings that we chose to centrally manage our self-stealing paradigms (e.g. usury, debt, insurance, futures contracts).

    The way that free markets would work (if we would stop the frauds against ourselves that I enumerated above), is that as wealth becomes concentrated, others would compete more. Unfortunately, we don’t want competition, we rather prefer to gang up (pool decisions and control) to steal from ourselves. It is called socialism and it degenerates to Communism and/or Fascism every time.

    I urge you to read all the comments of “Jocelyn” (that is my pseudonym) on this blog page:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2556#comments

    The key mathematical point is the power vacuum of “democracy-by-proxy”. I have explained that at link above, also I am working on a technical solution to it now:

    Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640

    [quote=ashvinp]Central governments definitely have not done much to help reverse this trend, as they try to correct almost every instability that arises with more complexity and concentration of wealth.[/quote]

    Correct we are enslaving ourselves.

    [quote=ashvinp]Could we maintain this complexity if we just had access to a lot more energy and let the free markets operate? I don’t know. Would we even want to based on moral principles of fairness, empathy, compassion, etc.? I doubt it.[/quote]

    No. That is why I am working on a technical solution to end politics forever.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 4:30am

    Reply to #12
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Complexity, fundamental fraud, and non-solutions

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    I added the bold emphasis in my quote of your comment above.

    Apparently you did not read what I wrote in the post that contains the comment of mine that you quoted, as follows:

    [quote=shelbymoore3]They don’t need to. Haven’t you noticed that Gini coefficients are rising? Nature abhors an equal (highly ordered) distribution, the trend of entropy is towards maximum (2nd law of thermo from 1856).[/quote]

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Include the developing world and it is 1 in 1.x. Nature abhors the “everyone must be equal” as I pointed out mathematically above.

    If men would not fear change, then without the statism parasite, even the lowest members of society would have 1000 times more than they need. But men can never listen to 1 Samuel 8 and the economic facts in that ancient book.[/quote]

    Thus I never wrote that free markets would create equalized wealth distribution.  Equalized distribution of anything is not stable, because equal distribution means “highly ordered“, as I wrote above. The problem is most people don’t understand complexity or entropy at all.  Please go read my explanation of the math and physics:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22098.html#comment94393

    Note I did write that if we would stop stealing from ourselves with the usury, future contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture, then “even the lowest members of society would have 1000 times more than they need“: [/quote]

    Sorry, I must have misread what you wrote before, but I still have issues with your assertions. You say that “nature abhors” equal distributions, but this is a blanket statement that is not always true. Obviously there is almost never a perfectly equal distribution of energy/resources in a system, but some systems are much more equalized than others, including human systems. Imagine a small village in a remote part of the world with no exposure to modern technology. There may be a patriarchal or matriarchal structure, but the distribution of “wealth” is much more equal than the highly complex global economy we are a part of. 

    Entropy typically reflects a movement from order towards disorder, as some of the energy used to do “work” is rendered unusable and dispersed through or outside of the system. Increasing complexity and order is actually only maintained by bringing in new energy from outside of the system and concentrating it. I read your post in the thread you linked to, and it appears you said the opposite of what you are saying here (at least the part I bolded). From what I read in your earlier posts on this thread, it seemed you were arguing that we can maintain our complex economic and social structures if we let the free markets operate, which I guess equates with getting rid of the “man can control his future” culture that you keep mentioning. One of the main points in CM’s work has been that we  simply do not have the net energy available to maintain our present level of complexity, and I completely agree.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=ashvinp]I’m sure you realize that there are movements in many third world countries that feel the exact opposite, and have seen their national sovereignty effectively wiped out by “free trade agreements” and globalization in general.[/quote]

    Globalization” (what we have now) was not free trade, instead we are stealing from ourselves with our love of the usury, future contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture: [/quote]

    I have no idea why you think usury, future contracts and insurance have nothing to do with free markets or free trade. IMO, finance has been a defining characteristic of globalized free market capitalism over the last 50 years or so.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    Complexity is increasing order, so equalized wealth would be highly ordered. The result of concentrated wealth and resources is very low complexity and very free market. Unfortunately, we have the entire world demanding that the free market not be allowed to work and that instead we steal from ourselves.  So how does nature deal with people who want to steal from themselves? Well nature (trend of entropy to maximum disorder, the 2nd law of thermo, 1859) never loses, so nature simplies hands over all the wealth to the kings that we chose to centrally manage our self-stealing paradigms (e.g. usury, debt, insurance, futures contracts).

    The way that free markets would work (if we would stop the frauds against ourselves that I enumerated above), is that as wealth becomes concentrated, others would compete more. Unfortunately, we don’t want competition, we rather prefer to gang up (pool decisions and control) to steal from ourselves. It is called socialism and it degenerates to Communism and/or Fascism every time.

    I urge you to read all the comments of “Jocelyn” (that is my pseudonym) on this blog page:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2556#comments [/quote]

    The bolded statement once again contradicts what you wrote in the first post that you linked to. Concentrated energy/resources has allowed for great levels of complexity and order in our modern society, which is not inherently good or bad. However, the ability to “compete” and innovate eventually hits a brick wall as complexity increases exponentially and net energy terminally declines.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    The key mathematical point is the power vacuum of “democracy-by-proxy”. I have explained that at link above, also I am working on a technical solution to it now:

    Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640 [/quote]

    I’ll be the first to admit that much of what you wrote in the above link doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps its because I have no experience in computer programming and was thrown off by a lot of your technical terms. Also I’m pretty burnt out right now and need to sleep. I’ll take a look at it again tomorrow and see if I can do a better job of understanding it…

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 7:12am

    Reply to #6
    ytterbius

    ytterbius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 23 2008

    Posts: 4

    Re: Centralized policy causes Minsky moment (abrupt) change

    [quote=TechGuy]

    Sorry I disagree. Using your figures, 20% of 17GW is only 3.4 GW. Probably less than 2GW if you include conversion & distribution losses. The Global energy contructions  builds more fossil fueled power plants in just a few months to keep up with demand than PV can be added to the grid in a year.  I’ll leave it at that.

    [/quote]

    LOL!  I love how you just arbitrarily cut the number by about 40% out of your ass.  I could come up with 20% or maybe even 25% additional lossiness, depending on the situation, but 40% is BS.  I’d like to see you quantify it with backing references.

    [quote=TechGuy]

    Another issue, is how much PV panels are trashed every year from storms, accidents and general failure (incorrect installation, manufacturiing defects (ie Cheap Chinese PVs), etc). The more the amount of PVs system go into service, the higher the losses will be. One good lightenning  storm or high wind storm at a PV farm can destroy it in an instant.

    [/quote]

    Yes, it’s true, installations of any type can be destroyed or interrupted in a whole host of ways.  We’ve got Nuclear Power plants that have to be shut down if the water gets too warm ( http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/aug/23/hot-river-forces-costly-cutback-tva/ ).  That’s not good.  Yes, if a storm takes out the Inverters, or a set of panels, then they have to be replaced, but there are certainly ways to minimize the risk, and there are also ways to insure the systems.  Would you rather take out one of a very large number of independent installations, or take out one of a very small number of critical installations?  You’re reaching, dude.

    [quote=TechGuy]

    Small percentages always show better figures that when they are scaled up. PV systems are complex and the complexing go up like a hockey stick the bigger they become. Coal, Nuclear, Hyro are limited to a small set of components, with perhaps a dozen or so turbines producting megawatts of power. PV panels have outputs measured in 100’s of watts, it takes tens of thousands of panels to match the power of a single convential power plant. All those parts require maintaince and must be interconnected and synced together. Maintaince and service costs will be significantly higher than a single power system producing megawatts of power, and the costs will rise exponentially to the system of the PV farms.  

    [/quote]

    It’s true that there are complexities involved in getting everything to work smoothely.  You talk about a problem, and then give up right there; moving to conventional thinking and conventional technology; without even considering the possibility of solution.  For one thing, as the Industry develops standards and all of the components become modular and idiot-proof then there is ultimate cost savings, not just in dollars but in Energy.  Also, many of these problems are solved by automation.  Chipsets can be put together that cheaply and efficiently maximize the output of thousands of individual cells, and systems are being developed that use GPS to automatically organize the tracking of thousands of individual panels based on GPS.

    Of course this is only talking about massive large scale installations.  For those that own or host small installations, there is simply no reason that a large percentage of a user’s home energy needs cant be produced using a rather simple set of components that produce power during the day (during peak demand) consistantly and with low risk. 

    Note on modularity:  Not just components will modularlize.  Entire Installations will to a great extent modularize.  There’s no need to reinvent the wheel each time you do a different installation in a certain set of conditions.  As it is, right now we are INVENTING the wheel, so there are still many inefficiencies to be ironed out. 

    [quote=TechGuy]

    As for your 70.7% stat, how about you link to the details.  Yes, there are losses in the system, as there are in all systems, but your modern inverters run at worst about 95% efficient.

    I am not referring to loss. I am referring to Sinesoidal AC output. A PV panel will produce DC at a stead voltage and current. When the AC Mains go to Zero volts the PV invertor must also follow the AC voltage and drop to zero to keep in sync with the AC Grid. When the AC grid voltage drops to zero, no energy is dumped into the grid, About 70.7% of the time can a PV panel commit energy to the grid without a storage system. 

    Storage systems are the problem with PV. 99% PV systems rely on Lead-Acid batteries. No way your going to scale a system, even up to 20% using Lithium batteries since there isn’t enough economically recoverable Lithium to make that happen.

    [/quote]

    I’m calling BS on this.   You need to present a link to demonstrate exactly how this leads to a 70% cut in output energy from a Solar Instalation.  

    I think I get what you’re trying to say mathematically, but physically, it’s not the case.  If you run a kWh DC through a 95% efficient Inverter, you get .95 kWh AC out.  Here’s some inverter info ( http://www.jaycar.com.au/images_uploaded/inverter.pdf ).

    [quote=TechGuy]

    The fact is that with Solar’s EROEI, this is all paid back WELL before the solar equipment hits its end of life

    Remove the fossil fuel subsidy and I doubt it has a positive EROEI. 

    [/quote]

    What do you even mean?  Subsidies have NOTHING to do with EROEI.  Subsidies have to do with the Financial System, Energy Return on Energy Invested has to do with the Physical World.

    [quote=TechGuy]

    BTW, not all panels have a 30+ lifespan. Only Monicrystalline PV’s have a proven life of 30+ years. Thin Film panels make up the significant amount of production today. These will have much shorter lifespans do to the contant thermal cycling (from hot-bright sun, to cloudy weather) that causes microfractures in the silicon degrading them much faster.  No way that the switching equipment will also last 30 years, it will have to be replaced every 10 to 15 years.

    [/quote]

    The rated lifespan is typically 25 years at roughly 1% degradation per year,.  This applies to Mono and Polycrystalline modules, and the current main batch of thin films.  First Solar’s CdTe modules are warranted over 25 years, I seem to recall.  There are shorter-lived varieties, of course, and yes, this throws off the cost / Watt model that’s used today.  If somebody sells you a thin film at $.50 per Watt, but that thin film only lasts 5 years, then compared to a panel that lasts for 25 years, you’re paying the equivalent of $2.50 per Watt in terms of lifetime Energy Output.

    [quote=TechGuy]

    FWIW: A better policy would to start husbanding the remaining energy supplies and work on much more energy efficient infrastructure. Such has replacing Highways with trains, improving home energy efficient (HVAC). and solving the pending water crisis for agraculture, When the US West Acqufier is depleted, electricity will be least of our problems. No water no food. This is also true in most of the heavy populated regions, including Europe, India, the Middle east and China. All have major water shortages problems in the not too distant future. Only Canada, and Russia have a true large surplus of fresh water. Investments should be made to bring Water from Canada and Russia to regions short on water.People can live without electricity, they can’t live without clean water and food.

    [/quote]

    Generally agree.  We’re basically screwed on various fronts. 

    [quote=TechGuy]

    I believe we will have a crash in PV production within a few years as the global economic crisis worsens. Demand for expensive PV systems will disappear when gov’t have no money to subsidize the cost. Gov’ts all over and running low on cash. Its just a matter of time.

    [/quote]

    There will be a crash one day, but we’ve just barely started the boom at this point.

    As for subsidies, you should note that alternatives are already competing against subsidized industries.  The market is already warped.  Now, if you want to cut the subsidies for Fossils and Nuclear, then fine.  Ain’t going to happen.  But don’t try to use cost competitiveness as an argument against Solar’s inherent value, or particularly of its potential value.  Moore’s law doesn’t apply, but costs are going down.  Here’s an old chart ( http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm ).  Do you see a trend?  It hasn’t changed.  It’s going down still.  Prices of Equipment have been cut in half over 3 years, and Balance of System costs decrease as the Local Markets become skilled and efficient.

    [/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 7:36am

    #17

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    TechGuy wrote:

    Another issue, is how much PV panels are trashed every year from storms

    I have an interesting story about this…

    My boss tells the yarn about a house in Melbourne Australia that had its roof so badly damaged in a hailstorm, it had to be replaced. 

    First, the panels had to be removed (by my boss and his crew – qualified to do so).

    When finished… they put all the panels back on!

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 9:51am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Complexity, fundamental fraud, and non-solutions

    [quote=ashvinp]…Sorry, I must have misread what you wrote before…[/quote]

    Thanks for that kind gesture, and my warmest sentiments to you also.  I am only debating because I want the truth to set us free. I grow weary only because I wish I help everyone, but I am only one human with only 24 hours per day.

    Note I went through the various stages in my learning process (embarrassing now). At age 27 in 1992, I was volunteer for the Ross Perot campaign in Westlake Village, CA.. I walked door-to-door and spent hours talking to people in their homes. I have learned so much since then and afaics Perot did not have the big picture (and still doesn’t at his new website). I have grown more anarchist (good complexity, not what most people think anarchy would mean) and free market the older I get, losing the last vestiges of my protectionism (e.g. anti-immigration) in 2006. Very strange, afaik most people become more conservative or more liberal as they mature.

    [quote=ashvinp]…, but I still have issues with your assertions. You say that “nature abhors” equal distributions, but this is a blanket statement that is not always true.[/quote]

    It is always true over a long enough time scale (I could get into dimensions other than space-time, but that would lose the reader so lets stay within our space-time for this discussion).

    In our space-time perception of matter, the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe is trending to maximum disorder (i.e. maximum possibilities, which is maximum good complexity). The entire universe is a closed system by definition.

    [quote=ashvinp]…Obviously there is almost never a perfectly equal distribution of energy/resources in a system, but some systems are much more equalized than others, including human systems. Imagine a small village in a remote part of the world with no exposure to modern technology. There may be a patriarchal or matriarchal structure, but the distribution of “wealth” is much more equal than the highly complex global economy we are a part of.[/quote]

    However, local systems can gain order (bad complexity), because they “drain” (actually matter never moves, but that is a deeper point) energy from the external environment. But these local orders eventually peak and decay back on to trend, because it is impossible for a highly ordered system to grow exponential less possibilities forever (the type of energy needed becomes so specialized and concentrated that it becomes scarce). This precisely defines why we do not have an energy crisis, if we simply let the order die.  There is enough energy for those who want to embrace more possibilities.  It is those who cling to the rising order culture (system), that perish with it.

    You can visualize it in terms of evolution. For one example, a very isolated and highly ordered local society, has a very high probability of extinction level event. Being isolated and unable to trade, just one random act of nature could wipe them out, e.g. drought, flood, etc.. And I bolded the word random, because that is the disorder of the external environment eating away at the local order.

    [quote=ashvinp]…Entropy typically reflects a movement from order towards disorder[/quote]

    Not “typically”.  Always. Go look at the equation for Shannon-Entropy. All the other forms of entropy derive from that one (they are just recently figuring this out).

    [quote=ashvinp]…, as some of the energy used to do “work” is rendered unusable and dispersed through or outside of the system.[/quote]

    Dispersal of energy is just the increase in possibilities (i.e. “perceptions” in my generalized model), because the form of matter is no longer concentrated in one place.  That is true in the conventional physics. Additionally, I have generalized it with the concise definitions on top the following post (which can give you more understanding):

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/technology-f8/theory-of-everthing-t124.htm#3561

    It is crucial to differentiate between more non-deterministic possibilities (with random occurrence, i.e. stochastic) and more uniform possibilities, because anything uniform is not more possibilities at all, it is carbon copy and entirely determined.

    [quote=ashvinp]…Increasing complexity and order is actually only maintained by bringing in new energy from outside of the system and concentrating it.[/quote]

    Agreed, and I have an even more general model as linked above, which helps me to see things in ways that others can not see readily.

    [quote=ashvinp]…I read your post in the thread you linked to, and it appears you said the opposite of what you are saying here (at least the part I bolded).[/quote]

    I didn’t see any quote of me where I wrote opposite.  Where is that?

    [quote=ashvinp]…From what I read in your earlier posts on this thread, it seemed you were arguing that we can maintain our complex economic and social structures if we let the free markets operate,[/quote]

    Where did I say that? I was writing that the bad complexity will ultimately fail in the free market (and all those who are in it, will fail too), and the good complexity will prosper.  To repeat, bad complexity is rising order (declining entropy) and good complexity is declining order (rising entropy). Rising entropy = rising disorder.

    [quote=ashvinp]…which I guess equates with getting rid of the “man can control his future” culture that you keep mentioning. One of the main points in CM’s work has been that we  simply do not have the net energy available to maintain our present level of complexity, and I completely agree.[/quote]

    Exactly.  Chris is correct. No system can survive that depends on increasing order.  Again “order” means “centralization” or less possibilities (less disorder).  Usury, futures contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture, pooling resources, pooling decisions, and other exponential trend promises are rising order (declining entropy) paradigms.

    But the solution is not one to fear.  Increasing possibilities is wonderful! The problem is that most people when trying to solve this problem, do not embrace random possibilities, they instead try to put more order in their solutions. Everyone wants to be insured. That is the wrong direction. They add to the problem.

    [quote=ashvinp][quote=shelbymoore3]”Globalization” (what we have now) was not free trade, instead we are stealing from ourselves with our love of the usury, future contracts, insurance, “man can control his future” culture: [/quote]

    I have no idea why you think usury, future contracts and insurance have nothing to do with free markets or free trade. IMO, finance has been a defining characteristic of globalized free market capitalism over the last 50 years or so.[/quote]

    I explained it above.  I had provided a link in my prior post on that too (“Major Frauds of Humanity” article).

    [quote=ashvinp][quote=shelbymoore3]Complexity is increasing order, so equalized wealth would be highly ordered. The result of concentrated wealth and resources is very low complexity and very free market. Unfortunately, we have the entire world demanding that the free market not be allowed to work and that instead we steal from ourselves.  So how does nature deal with people who want to steal from themselves? Well nature (trend of entropy to maximum disorder, the 2nd law of thermo, 1859) never loses, so nature simplies hands over all the wealth to the kings that we chose to centrally manage our self-stealing paradigms (e.g. usury, debt, insurance, futures contracts).

    The way that free markets would work (if we would stop the frauds against ourselves that I enumerated above), is that as wealth becomes concentrated, others would compete more. Unfortunately, we don’t want competition, we rather prefer to gang up (pool decisions and control) to steal from ourselves. It is called socialism and it degenerates to Communism and/or Fascism every time.

    I urge you to read all the comments of “Jocelyn” (that is my pseudonym) on this blog page:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2556#comments [/quote]

    The bolded statement once again contradicts what you wrote in the first post that you linked to.[/quote]

    I do not see any contradiction. Explain?

    [quote=ashvinp]Concentrated energy/resources has allowed for great levels of complexity and order in our modern society, which is not inherently good or bad.[/quote]

    What you mean to say is concentrated energy has provided for rising order (declining entropy).  Agreed. And it is bad.

    I wish we would stop using the word “complexity” because it is ambiguous for our discussion.  What we need to distinguish are rising order and declining order paradigms. Complexity can exist in either paradigm (the deciding metric is referential transparency).  Complexity just means more possibilities, but it is whether they are referentially transparent possibilities, that decides if order is rising or declining. Uniformity (equal) is one example of referential INtransparency, because all the possibilities are dependent (probability-wise) on the others.

    [quote=ashvinp]However, the ability to “compete” and innovate eventually hits a brick wall as complexity increases exponentially and net energy terminally declines.[/quote]

    Exactly, if you replace the word “complexity” with “dependent possibilities”.  Note order increases linearly, as “dependent possibilities” (bad form of complexity) increase exponentially.

    [quote=ashvinp][quote=shelbymoore3]The key mathematical point is the power vacuum of “democracy-by-proxy”. I have explained that at link above, also I am working on a technical solution to it now:

    Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640 [/quote]

    I’ll be the first to admit that much of what you wrote in the above link doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps its because I have no experience in computer programming and was thrown off by a lot of your technical terms. Also I’m pretty burnt out right now and need to sleep. I’ll take a look at it again tomorrow and see if I can do a better job of understanding it…[/quote]

    Thanks for reading.  Apologies I am sort of sleepless here too, working round the clock.

    Perhaps this reply of mine will help, but it still might not make sense.  I wish I could spend more time explaining right now, but this blog is not the best format.  Chris’s videos are awesome.

    HUMOR: let me give you a little explain of filipino culture. I went to the kitchen to scratch my back with a spoon, and I returned it to the “clean” spoons and as I turned away I suddenly realized that I had been doing that unconsciously for months.  My maid was in the kitchen and I turned and said, “vitamens”. She laughed and retorted, “already salted” (meaning saving the expense of buying salt, haha a very inexpensive thing). That is the sort of joke that filipinos make to embrace the random embarrassment. They celebrate random possibilities.

    I found something I wrote a few weeks ago:

    2) Another point about complexity. While it may seem like more possibilities is more complex, notice that real [bad] complexity is for example when it takes you n-squared more time to do something, e.g. you are in the middle of an urgent project and you need a certain tool and that tool has to be shipped from China. In algorithms this is known as O(n*n) meaning it takes exponential n-squared time complexity to complete as the project size n increases, versus O(n) in which completion time scales linearly. Just to give you an idea, 10 * 10 = 100 is 10 times greater than 10. The reason that more possibilities conquers exponential trends (such as this exponential debt trap), is because communication (greater knowledge and interaction) between n independent actors, is n! (actually (n! – k!) / k! for all k), and 10! = 3628800. I hope you appreciate the jaw dropping truth of that!

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22404.html#comment94384

     

    [quote=Shelby]So was that a real interview with Rupert Murdoch?

    Give him this message please.

    Any way, here is the deal. These insane meglomaniacs are fooling themselves, because they do not understand the math of evolution and its self-organization that arises out of the frightening chaos of astronomical random possibilities:

    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg04006.html

    Perhaps how the Apaches and Geronimo resisted the Spanish for two centuries:

    http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/21.html

    Evolution can never twarted for too long, these exponential pockets of local order (control) are always overrun by humanity (evolution):

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22098.html#comment94376

    The current global morass is but a wart of the arse of evolution, and a little Compound W will shrink Satan back down to his true size. Fundamentally this period we are in now is about Satan deciding which direction he will run and hide his arse (inflicting great pain in the process on those who followed his suggestions).

    That doesn’t mean you don’t have to worry. If you have been doing any of the following activities, you will be joining the system Mr. “Murdoch” describes (you can choose to either stop or reap what you sowed)[/quote]

    Rothschild understood long ego that human desire insured future (reject the random matter which is “God”, i.e. reject God, where all matter of the universe is disordered) could used against itself to yield absolute power, “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

    http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion3.htm#PROTOCOL No. 4

    And God communicated this 2000+ years ago:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=NIV

    Satan (the ordered realm of existence) is being given his chance to destroy himself and everything that follows him.

    10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

    18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

     19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

    [quote=Shelby]Let me translate the Georgia Guidestones for you, which are the tombstones of NWO which results from the Major Frauds of Humanity:

    http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/Message.htm

    1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
      Translation: Balance is antithesis of way nature self-organizes, thus we will kill everyone while trying to defeat nature in futility.
    2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
      Translation: Artificial insemination, chop off the penises of all unfit males.
    3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
      Translation: End free speech, end diversity.
    4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
      Translation: end freedom of religion, end Christianity, destroy God.
    5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
      Translation: Oppress people with kangaroo courts bought and paid off.
    6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
      Translation: Move the kangaroo court to a place where no people can touch it or stop it.
    7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
      Translation: Eliminate local decisions.
    8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
      Translation: Eliminate personal rights.
    9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
      Translation: Talk about truth, beauty, and love, while doing the opposite.
    10. Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
      Translation: Nature is a cancer, kill it.[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 10:54am

    Reply to #12

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3] Specifics please? I am confident after my 5 years of researching this as a full time vocation, you find that if you lay out your specifics, I will show that you don’t understand as well as I do. [/quote] You could start by explaining why you don’t think that peak gas is a problem… Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 2:16pm

    Reply to #12

    jturbo68

    Status Bronze Member (Online)

    Joined: Aug 04 2009

    Posts: 86

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=guardia]

    [quote=shelbymoore3] Specifics please? I am confident after my 5 years of researching this as a full time vocation, you find that if you lay out your specifics, I will show that you don’t understand as well as I do. [/quote]

    You could start by explaining why you don’t think that peak gas is a problem… Samuel

    [/quote]

     

    I havent kept up with ALL the back and forth with Shelby and company, but I think the Gist of Shelys message is that if we discard heirarchy and complexity, then we have plenty of remaining resources and energy. We will no longer have need for gas (etc) because we will be living locally and sustainably.  Gas may be needed as a transition to that way of life, but the need for gas is not permanent condition.

    I would characterize Shelby as a ReWilder … IE one who embraces Native Culture as a sustainability model.

    Welcome Shelby,

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 05, 2010 - 3:29pm

    #18
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    shelby,

    Thanks for your response. I think I figured out where our confusion lies, and its in the term “good complexity”. I have been referring to that as low or decreased complexity compared to what we have now. In my view, increasing complexity reflects increasing access to net energy, diversity of agents within the system, specialization of functions and inter-dependencies between parts of the system. So the world you would like to see established, where there is an abundance of independent possibilities and “random” behavior, would be a world of relatively low complexity from my perspective.

    I think most people on this site agree we need a significantly reduced level of complexity (or what you call “good complexity”) in order to increase sustainability and resilience. The discrepancy between our views may be in the level of “dependent possibilities” we can live with, and the economic and political structures that should be established to support that level. It seems like you believe we can only sustain our species when we get rid of almost all (or all?) political structures and have a completely “free” environment for people to make economic decisions. You may be right about that, but it could also be the case that nature will inevitably lead humans operating in a free environment to concentrate energy/resources and create order. Although the universe may be trending towards maximum entropy, our solar system and planet certainly have enough energy to maintain a certain level of order for a long long time.

    Anyway, the real confusion was just over the definition of complexity, and it seems that you believe peak oil/gas or anything else is not really a “problem” because it will lead to the natural state that we should be in. When you reference the NWO goals and the passage from the Bible, I think we can find agreement that the forces which have been at work (whatever or whoever they may be) are completely unsustainable and have sown the seeds of their own destruction.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2010 - 11:09am

    Reply to #12
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=jturbo68]

    [quote=guardia]

    [quote=shelbymoore3] Specifics please? I am confident after my 5 years of researching this as a full time vocation, you find that if you lay out your specifics, I will show that you don’t understand as well as I do. [/quote]

    You could start by explaining why you don’t think that peak gas is a problem… Samuel

    [/quote]

     

    I havent kept up with ALL the back and forth with Shelby and company, but I think the Gist of Shelys message is that if we discard heirarchy and complexity, then we have plenty of remaining resources and energy. We will no longer have need for gas (etc) because we will be living locally and sustainably.  Gas may be needed as a transition to that way of life, but the need for gas is not permanent condition.

    I would characterize Shelby as a ReWilder … IE one who embraces Native Culture as a sustainability model.

    Welcome Shelby,[/quote]

    Thank you for the excellent summary, very gratifying to see I was understood. Just please note that is bad complexity (more dependent possibilities, aka dependent variables).  Good complexity (more independent possibilities) is what we need.

    I hope Chris can add a video to his Crash Course which really explains well the difference between bad complexity and good complexity.  I think people are confused about how to avoid complexity, as increasing possibilities is natural.  The way to avoid bad complexity is don’t make promises, insurance, future contracts, pooling capital, pooling decision making, use fiat money (a promise to pay), etc. Refer to links in my prior posts for more detail.  Also, I am trying to solve this with a programming language, which I hope will impact on our everyday lives too:

    Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640

    If there are any top programmers who would like to help out, please contact me (shelby at coolpage dot com). I am confident it will be very lucrative also. You should start by understanding what I am proposing for Copute:

    http://code.google.com/p/copute/issues/list

    http://copute.com/dev/docs/Copute/ref/

    Thanks again to Chris for providing this blog and allowing me to make these points.  I wish him and all of you the best and hope you are able to communicate these truths to your love ones. Fight the urge to protect the order of the future. Embrace the beauty of random outcomes, it is all glorious, even the painful moments (e.g. death of a love one, or in my case loss of an eye, etc) are a true feeling to be celebrated.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2010 - 12:16pm

    Reply to #18
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=ashvinp]shelby,

    Thanks for your response. I think I figured out where our confusion lies, and its in the term “good complexity”. I have been referring to that as low or decreased complexity compared to what we have now. In my view, increasing complexity reflects increasing access to net energy, diversity of agents within the system, specialization of functions and inter-dependencies between parts of the system. So the world you would like to see established, where there is an abundance of independent possibilities and “random” behavior, would be a world of relatively low complexity from my perspective.[/quote]

    Agreed, it is very gratifying that we reached some mutual understanding.

    [quote=ashvinp]I think most people on this site agree we need a significantly reduced level of complexity (or what you call “good complexity”) in order to increase sustainability and resilience.[/quote]

    The problem I have with using the word complexity to describe decreasing entropy, is that the laymen do not understand and misuse the word. They then go spouting off that technology can’t help us. They think technology equals increasing complexity, but that is not always true. Some technology increases entropy.

    I hope you all can get Chris’s attention on this, and perhaps convince him to add a video in his Crash Course to explain that technology is not the enemy. Confused people are unable to plan for resiliency.

    [quote=ashvinp]The discrepancy between our views may be in the level of “dependent possibilities” we can live with, and the economic and political structures that should be established to support that level. It seems like you believe we can only sustain our species when we get rid of almost all (or all?) political structures and have a completely “free” environment for people to make economic decisions. You may be right about that, but it could also be the case that nature will inevitably lead humans operating in a free environment to concentrate energy/resources and create order. Although the universe may be trending towards maximum entropy, our solar system and planet certainly have enough energy to maintain a certain level of order for a long long time.[/quote]

    Agreed nature does grow order until the local system can’t sustain the net energy demands, then the order disintegrates.

    Knowledge is the ability to know these impending limits a priori and optimize bearing.

    A variable to optimize is the growth versus scalability trade-off where if one designs a system with built-in order, that system can’t usually be salvaged in parts (too spaghetti twined).

    So I don’t realistically expect to end all politics, rather to provide alternatives used by the minority that give rise to resiliency.

    In short, randomized “creative destruction” is a reoccurring which repeatedly defeats the Malthusians at every major inflection point.

    Let me suggest “Random Creative Destruction, the Science of Hope” as the title for new video on this topic.

    [quote=ashvinp]Anyway, the real confusion was just over the definition of complexity, and it seems that you believe peak oil/gas or anything else is not really a “problem” because it will lead to the natural state that we should be in. When you reference the NWO goals and the passage from the Bible, I think we can find agreement that the forces which have been at work (whatever or whoever they may be) are completely unsustainable and have sown the seeds of their own destruction.[/quote]

    Agreed but that socialism will wreck great havoc on those who don’t have the knowledge of how to “come out of the Great Harlot” system (again quoting the Bible).

    P.S. It is not that I believe in fairytales (I am rational and was agnostic most of my life due to the arbitrary definition of “morality”), it is just some of the economic wisdom in the Bible is spot on the truth. But that is a whole other topic of discussion that does not belong in this thread.

    =============

    Tangent: someone at another forum, wrote that EROEI decline will destroy the US housing market (“will never come back”) and another person wrote that Paulson is betting it will be inflated back up again soon.  I responded as follows.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Don’t forget what Kissinger promised decades ago

    [quote=Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992]Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.[/quote]

    The whole world can descend into socialism and share the losses due to declining EROEI (remember the developing world uses like 1/10 of the energy per capita, so if we lower our use to equal theirs per capital, then there is plenty of energy even as we give up the low EROEI energy and the high EROEI sources decline).

    Don’t forget about the option of massive savings imported from China to be spent on US real estate:

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23054.html#comment95192

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95152[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2010 - 1:55pm

    Reply to #18
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Forward selling gold for "LBMA spot"

    Is the New World Order government is buying all the future (physical gold)?

    [quote=shelbymoore3]Agreed but that socialism will wreck great havoc on those who don’t have the knowledge of how to “come out of the Great Harlot” system (again quoting the Bible).

    P.S. It is not that I believe in fairytales (I am rational and was agnostic most of my life due to the arbitrary definition of “morality”), it is just some of the economic wisdom in the Bible is spot on the truth. But that is a whole other topic of discussion that does not belong in this thread.[/quote]

    [quote]I have heard JP Morgan has contacted HL- HECLA in order to purchase Silver directly from the mine.  This is very interesing as JP MORGAN has had a large Short position on HL for years….for the CEO to sell to them would be insane in my book…[/quote]

    I too saw the allegation that JP Morgan (i.e. the “Fed”) is approaching mines asking them to forward sell for future “LBMA spot”:

    http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/rob-kirby/the-federal-reserve-is-selling-paper-gold-and-buying-physical-gold

    If that is truely happening on a large scale, then it has a much more dire implication than you all postulated.

    Selling forward, or any futures contract, is mathematically always slavery.  For example, in this case, the “Fed” can just print the money out-of-thin-air to buy the gold, and/or the “LBMA fix” can be manipulated.

    Think about a world in which all the gold is pre-sold to the govts, and the private parties are unable to buy gold, instead forced to buy the new global fiat which is “good as gold”– meaning it can be redeemed for gold but only after paying your taxes.

    This is a world where there is no store-of-value ruler. Even if we can still buy gold, the “Fed” can destroy our store-of-value over time, because we will be paying infinitely more (they pay 0) for physical gold. They can take the gold price to 0 after gold prices and interest rates go sky high and then start a new trend down towards 0 and they will. Read my article End Game, Gold Investors Destroyed linked below. Read my article End Game, Gold Investors Destroyed linked below.

    This is a world that descends into a forever pit of socialism, where everyone becomes poorer perpetually (aka bad globalism, where the net energy reduction is globally shared and share alike “solution”):

    https://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/90650#comment-90650

     This is a world where people who disagree are beheaded.  This is the world predicted in Revelation.

    This is why I am trying to work on a way to make knowledge fungible (referential transparency of programming snippets) so there can be a fungible store-of-value, when the Harlot system ends up with “throw our gold and silver into the street”, as the Bible correctly predicts the economics:

    End Game, Gold Investors Will be Destroyed

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Oct 07, 2010 - 10:55pm

    Reply to #18
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=ashvinp]I think most people on this site agree we need a significantly reduced level of complexity (or what you call “good complexity”) in order to increase sustainability and resilience.[/quote]

    The problem I have with using the word complexity to describe decreasing entropy, is that the laymen do not understand and misuse the word. They then go spouting off that technology can’t help us. They think technology equals increasing complexity, but that is not always true. Some technology increases entropy.

    I hope you all can get Chris’s attention on this, and perhaps convince him to add a video in his Crash Course to explain that technology is not the enemy. Confused people are unable to plan for resiliency. [/quote]

    When you say some technology increases entropy, I assume you mean communications technology which decentralizes access to knowledge, and I would definitely agree with that. Most other technologies have been developed to increase efficiency (mitigate the amount of energy wasted i.e. entropy) and maintain order. Of course computer network technology (internet, cell phones, etc.) contains a large amount of embodied energy, but as you say this concentrated energy can be used to actually liberate what we may call our “collective conscious energy”.

    When people say “technology won’t save us”, they typically mean that it won’t be able to offset the terminal declines in net energy we are naturally facing. Without increasing net energy, it will be extremely difficult to continue improving technology in any other area, including computer technology. Although I don’t really understand the technical aspects of making “referentially transparent” copute code or whatever you referenced earlier, the idea of fungible knowledge as a store-of-value sounds really interesting. Please let me know if you have any more explanations about that or develop any in the future.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Oct 08, 2010 - 12:50am

    #19

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Well, Shelby I wish you good luck with your defining “good complexity“. I see this only ending in wars over who gets access to resources…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 09, 2010 - 8:22am

    Reply to #18
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Regarding the monetary end game, I wrote another explanation of Gibson’s Paradox and the ramifications:

    http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/precious-metals-f6/how-will-we-physically-trade-gold-silver-at-5000-500-t61-150.htm#3753

    [quote=ashvinp]When you say some technology increases entropy, I assume you mean communications technology which decentralizes access to knowledge, and I would definitely agree with that. Most other technologies have been developed to increase efficiency (mitigate the amount of energy wasted i.e. entropy) and maintain order. Of course computer network technology (internet, cell phones, etc.) contains a large amount of embodied energy, but as you say this concentrated energy can be used to actually liberate what we may call our “collective conscious energy”.

    When people say “technology won’t save us”, they typically mean that it won’t be able to offset the terminal declines in net energy we are naturally facing.[/quote]

    I appreciate that explanation very much.

    [quote=ashvinp]Without increasing net energy, it will be extremely difficult to continue improving technology in any other area, including computer technology.[/quote]

    Actually that is not necessarily true, although true to the degree that we don’t achieve referential transparency (the antithesis of socialism). For example, there are 100s of millions of computers connected to the internet, idling away unused CPU cycles. There is a huge amount of net energy stored that is not being used.  And that doesn’t even count the billions of human brains which are no where near being fully utilized (and are connected to the internet), in fact are tied up in political gridlock due to lack of referential transparency (see below) and the limitations of human capacity to manage such bad complexity (Dunbar number).  TV makes it worse.

    [quote=ashvinp]Although I don’t really understand the technical aspects of making “referentially transparent” copute code or whatever you referenced earlier, the idea of fungible knowledge as a store-of-value sounds really interesting. Please let me know if you have any more explanations about that or develop any in the future.[/quote]

    The output (and no other side effects) of a black box is completely determined by its current inputs. No future contracts.

    This means that works (contributions) will contain building blocks that can be reused (recomposed in N! permutations), without refactoring cascading domino failure gridlock.

    This also eliminates politics.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 09, 2010 - 12:46pm

    Reply to #18

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    This means that works (contributions) will contain building blocks that can be reused (recomposed in N! permutations), without refactoring cascading domino failure gridlock.

    This also eliminates politics.

    [/quote]

    I am not sure how to say it gently, so I will just say it.. I don’t know if you actually mean to say something when you write things like above, or you’re just coming with some words to fill up your comment box and appear too smart to mingle with the rest of us… You may think you are smart, and you may well be, but you really seriously need to learn to communicate a bit better to dummies like me. “refactoring cascading domino failure gridlock” -> that’s a major string of nouns that needs some verbs to feel a bit more alive here. You can do it.

    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 09, 2010 - 5:06pm

    Reply to #18
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    [quote=ashvinp]Without increasing net energy, it will be extremely difficult to continue improving technology in any other area, including computer technology.[/quote]

    Actually that is not necessarily true, although true to the degree that we don’t achieve referential transparency (the antithesis of socialism). For example, there are 100s of millions of computers connected to the internet, idling away unused CPU cycles. There is a huge amount of net energy stored that is not being used.  And that doesn’t even count the billions of human brains which are no where near being fully utilized (and are connected to the internet), in fact are tied up in political gridlock due to lack of referential transparency (see below) and the limitations of human capacity to manage such bad complexity (Dunbar number).  TV makes it worse. [/quote]

    Yes you are right, much of our current available or embodied net energy goes towards preserving the existing system or does nothing useful (like the idle computers you mention) and could be re-directed towards improving technological processes. Unfortunately, we have to live within an economic and political system that makes this very difficult if not impossible to do, at least for some time. In the relative chaos of a collapse in complexity, I believe it will be very difficult for people to get their bearings and  make these improvements in decentralized technology.

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    The output (and no other side effects) of a black box is completely determined by its current inputs. No future contracts.

    This means that works (contributions) will contain building blocks that can be reused (recomposed in N! permutations), without refactoring cascading domino failure gridlock.

    This also eliminates politics.

    [/quote]

    I have to agree with goes here and ask for a further explanation, because what you wrote above doesn’t make much sense to me, and I’m sure most others on this site feel the same way.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 09, 2010 - 7:15pm

    #20
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1374

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Ashvinp

    [quote]

    I have to agree with goes here and ask for a further explanation, because what you wrote above doesn’t make much sense to me, and I’m sure most others on this site feel the same way.[/quote]

    Indeed, I do. 

    Doug

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 10, 2010 - 5:34am

    Reply to #18
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=guardia]”refactoring cascading domino failure gridlock” -> that’s a major string of nouns that needs some verbs to feel a bit more alive here. You can do it[/quote]

    Hi all, thanks for being frank.  I was trying to be less verbose, because:

    1. I am literally programming 18 hours a day past week or so (harder to do at 45 than it was in 20s), so there are times when I can barely keep my eyes open and have fallen asleep and didn’t know it, so I probably wrote that just trying to cram all that was in my head into a minimal reply before I got off on something else and forgot to reply.
    2. Note my IQ is not significantly above average in the language area. My IQ appears to be focused in the conceptualization, algorithms, and “visual mathematics” area.
    3. Afair, I had already linked to the more detailed explanation 3 times in this thread. Here it is again:
      Untangling the Spaghetti Politics of the Dunbar Number
      http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-6-math-proves-go-forth-multiply-t159-15.htm#3640 
      [quote]I then had another epiphany about the mutual information which is causing the Dunbar limit. Most programmers have noticed that computer programs are essentially the same as the tribe model in that one part must know meaningfully all other parts, because over time as a part of the program source code is optimized, refactoring cascades (aka dominoes) into any other part of the program. While studying programming language design considerations for multi-core gaming in 2008, I noticed the Liskov Substitution principle and various other fundamental computer science theorems such as Turing-Halting problem and Gödel’s theorem, all expected this domino effect. As I dug for a solution, I came across Haskell, and learned that the referential transparency of the pure Lambda calculus eliminated this domino problem. Essentially this stated that if an interconnection with the world would be based only on real-time, i.e. atomic, inputs and outputs with no retained knowledge of the past, i.e. no saved state, then that interconnection could be provably connectible infinite N different ways, without any one connection being forced to know anything about the other N – 1 connections.[/quote]

    The point is that the current way that we program computers builds too much mutual information, so it results in politics and gridlock.  Politics is caused by the fact that what another person does, impacts on us, and the intractable quality that there exists no workable direct individual action when there is a lack of referential transparency to extricate the individual impacts (so we do nothing except pontificate, which causes “democracy-by-proxy” power vacuum).  But if we were to maximize referential transparency, then what other people do in the way of programming, does not impact on our ability to re-use that effort maximally, rather than re-writing all our own code for every mashup of blackboxes (aka referentially transparent functions) that humanity can envision. Have you noticed that open source projects devolve into politics? Much better if we could all code in a referentially transparent language, e.g. Haskell, and then share our functions, then projects (e.g. Mozilla Firefox, operating system, etc) would be compilations of orthogonal functions. Imagine then 6 billion people become programmers of varying degrees, because at the simplest it just involves swapping out a function for a more desired one (to gain or remove a feature).

    The point of Copute is to make referential transparency a more granular choice (since programs, aka mashups of functions, must contain some functions which are not referentially transparent) and integrate referential transparency into most popular syntax of the C++, JavaScript, Java, C# genre. Haskell is a great step forward and I have made a significant suggestion for the main weakness of Haskell (other than its academic, unfamiliar syntax), which was accepted by one of the Haskell creators:

    http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/3630

    In 2008 when I first  studied Haskell, I wrote an incomplete, succinct tutorial on referential transparency for imperative programmers:

    http://copute.com/dev/docs/Copute/ref/Functional_Programming_Essence.html

    I believe that computers and programming are becoming so important in our lives that the above really has the potential to change the world. I notice that even the analog natural sciences are being evolved into binary computerized logic, e.g. nanotech, biotech, quantum information, etc..

    Afaics, we are on the brink of major lurch forward. Although the evil stuff is growing extremely fast nominally, it is decelerating in percentage growth and near its peak (and will wreck havoc on those who don’t come out of it…agreed could be war on the horizon…); whereas smaller things grow faster in percentage terms (e.g. samplings to oak trees) and thus riding the niche growth areas will prove to be extremely lucrative and successful for small focused teams.  As the Bible says in Revelation, it is time to come out of the Great Harlot system.

    ===============

    Could this be the big one, that starts the rationing of food?

    http://www.agweb.com/article/shockwaves_from_fridays_usda_production_report/

    My take on this is that we are likely to get another inflation run (higher interest rates, lower dollar) starting now and running until the next liquidity crisis in 2011 or 2012, a repeat of early 2008. Then the liquidity crisis will rescue the dollar and send the interest rates to new lows, a repeat of late 2008. This global crash will again abate the demand temporarily and crash commodity prices again.  Remember that runaway hyper-inflation is impossible (the negative net-worth of masses is a margin call), unless the governments respond by handing out cash in orders-of-magnitude more than current cash flow of consumers. The governments are instead going to bail out the “too big to fail” and sustain the entitlements.  What is underlying through these gyrations between inflation and deflation, is that each gyration will take another segment of the western population in poverty. This is the Great Harlots regression towards a one world order (global socialism) of the “share and share alike” level.

    Btw, this gives further validation to my chart reading that silver is heading to $32- $47 before next smack-down.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 10, 2010 - 3:29pm

    #21
    ashvinp

    ashvinp

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 75

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    shelby, please correct me if I have this wrong:

    You believe we are at a point in time at which we can decentralize economic and political forms of organization (what I would probably call de-complexify and re-localize) by using existing computer technology and “referentially transparent” computer programming code, which would allow everyone on the network to share the programming knowledge of everyone else, but at the same time not be dependent on other people to make their own innovations? This would apply not only to computer software, but potentially to developments in all fields of science as they are increasingly described using computer programming logic.

    Since I don’t know the first thing about computer programming, I’ll have to take your word that this is a possibility. I find many interesting similarities between your ideas and that of Andrew Gavin Marshall, who wrote an article about “The Global Awakening” that can found in this thread- https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/global-awakening/42099

    He essentially argues that the upcoming years will be characterized by an epic race towards either a “global political awakening” (greatly aided by modern communications technology) or a global one world government (what you would call “global socialism”). Obviously this is all a matter of opinion, but these ideas are well supported by facts and I think it gives people a good “big picture” perspective from which to view our current predicaments. Thanks a lot for your contributions to this discussion.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 11, 2010 - 10:08am

    Reply to #21
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    Yes!

    Although I don’t think there is really a doubt about the battle, the bad globalization (new world order statism) will win first and peak (it is nominally huge and good globalization can’t grow fast enough), and the good globalization will be gaining momentum (because of it) to take over as the bad globalization ends in near complete failure for humanity (for  those who don’t come out of the decline into socialism). I urge people to start formulating how to come out of that and get on the good globalization paradigm to try to survive (physically and spiritually).

    What amazed me was that when I came to this realization from studying the facts and science, was to see that the Revelation in the Bible, predicted [Moderator’s note: Discussion of religion is not allowed on the forums.  Biblical prophecy falls into this category.] 

    On the subject of computer programming, the perfect ideal is not possible (because there is shared state in the real world that programs interact in), and there will be no technology that creates perfect equilibrium (infinite possibilities, infinite disorder), but it should be possible to make orders-of-magnitude gains in referentially transparency. It is also necessary to maximize the use of the coming massively multi-core CPUs (Moore’s Law hitting limits in speed of a single core). Parallelism requires referential transparency:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus#Parallelism_and_concurrency

    Computer programming is easy-to-understand conceptually.  It is nothing more than functions which call (input to and get outputs from) functions.  A function takes some inputs and returns some outputs.

    A function is referentially transparent when it does not alter its inputs, access no other data than its current inputs (i.e. does not save any state or access global states, e.g. read the keyboard), and return outputs solely computed from any algorithm on the current inputs:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referential_transparency_(computer_science)

    Such referentially transparent functions have all their effects localized and thus can be safely blindly substituted for any other function that takes similar inputs and returns similar outputs.  You don’t need to visualize some unending possibilities of cascading effects with respect to the calling functions outputs, because the calling function will still be limited to the outputs it enumerates (in its interface declaration)– the domino cascade stops there.

    Note there will be cascading effects on other functions that the calling function calls, and also cascading effects on the outputs returned by the calling function for a particular set of inputs in the calling function, but that is the whole point of substituting a function (to get new program behavior). At least the changed behavior is deterministic with respect to the calling functions output TYPES, that nuance may be a little bit difficult to grasp, but the typing of a program is one of main ways to quantify expected behavior:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2491#comment-276699 (Jocelyn is me, read all my comments on the page)

    Whereas, if you substitute non-referentially transparent functions (i.e. that rely on non-local state), then the effects on the program have no limit and effects that may have nothing to do with the calling function’s outputs.  They can affect things in strange ways that seem totally unrelated (analogous to the aliasing of sampling below Nyquist, because the frequencies in such an infinite possibilities non-localized state-machine are infinite).

    A program made of referentially transparent functions can be possibly proven to complete, try to walk all possibilities of the inputs since there is no infinite possibilities due to varying state on the order of inputs chosen to walk, i.e. the parallelism quality, but note that due to arbitrary recursion it may not complete and thus once recursion is detected during a walk, one would have to decide the recursion limit for which they give up seeking a proof of completion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_programming&oldid=387860640#Recursion

    But at least there is a mechanism to abort the test for completion, whereas, because it accesses state that depends on order-of-program execution (i.e. futures contract), a non-referentially transparent function is more generally subject to the Turing-Halting Theorem, which says it can not be known if (and when) it completes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing's_halting_theorem

    [Moderator’s note:  Discussion of religion and religious dogma is not allowed on the forums.  See the forum rules.  This is not because we are necessarily hostile to these ideas, or are pushing an agenda of a-religiosity.  Rather, we have found that the debates which arise are insoluble, and tend to explode into shouting matches.  Never have we seen a question of religious dogma (or the meaning of a religious text) successfully resolved on this computer forum.  Therefore we have decided, especially since these issues are–at best–peripheral to the 3E’s, that we are simply not equipped to sucessfully host discussion of these ideas.]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 11, 2010 - 12:35pm

    Reply to #21
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: The global political awakening

    What Brzezinski apparently can’t see, because afaik it runs entirely against his life’s work to end the tsuris of local politics, is that there is the technological possibility of global chaos which is more efficient without any governance at all (or a world government that is not relevant in most matters). The elite think that local politics is the bane of economies-of-scale and human progress. This is why they frame everything in terms of leadership. Brzezinski fears the rise of local politics, that arise out of the failure of the USA leadership (he is correct that in terms of the current bad globalism fiat system, then as goes the USA, so goes the world). The elite are nearly sure that this global chaos will be worse than a new world government, and thus they are confident that only they have the solution for mankind’s maximal trend.

    They are totally ignorant of entropy apparently. They may catch the global socialism at its peak into a world governance, but it certainly won’t be prosperous– rather a living hell.  This is why there are talks about population reduction (Catherine Austin Fitts, former HUD under-secretary, wrote recently that this is real). That Brzezinski mentions Russia, which is in a horrendous demographic decline because the women are no longer fertile (too much birth control pill use from early age), shows that he doesn’t have a clue about the importance of increasing possibilities (declining populations are death sentence for an economy).

    These centralized managers are reaching the end of their reign.  The end won’t be pretty, as the global socialism will first land in their lap (and they will at the end realize they were managing a monster).  Come out of their system.

    Rather we have the technology in-mind to enable self-organizing systems that function more like ant colonies where every individual is free to optimize her/her opportunity cost.

    I am going for it.  I will let you know when I have Copute into the wild running programs.  I am working on a social network first, in order to build a base from which to finish and then popularize the language.

    Oh and I agree with you from the other thread you linked, that they will try to control the internet and they will lose. If they shut it off, they will incite mass unrest, it will get turned back on by the masses, and they would turn off their data mining and be blind. Rather I think they will go for population reduction via war and disease if they feel threatened.  As I said, we live in interesting times.  Get with the power of referential transparency. The information network will beat any weapons the elite have.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 11, 2010 - 1:24pm

    Reply to #18

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]

    The point of Copute is to make referential transparency a more granular choice (since programs, aka mashups of functions, must contain some functions which are not referentially transparent) and integrate referential transparency into most popular syntax of the C++, JavaScript, Java, C# genre. Haskell is a great step forward and I have made a significant suggestion for the main weakness of Haskell (other than its academic, unfamiliar syntax), which was accepted by one of the Haskell creators:

    [/quote]

    What about Scala? http://www.scala-lang.org/

    In the fairy tale world of mathematics and computer science, referential transparency may be God, but in practice, it is still bound to very real and very hard limits such as memory space, processing resources, you name it. For us humans, this translates to food, shelter, etc. Have you accounted for those in your equations?

    I think that computers are a useful tool, but I don’t delude myself in thinking that they, or any other technology, needs to exist to save the world.

    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 11, 2010 - 8:02pm

    Reply to #21
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    [quote=shelbymoore3]…What amazed me was that when I came to this realization from studying the facts and science, was to see that the Revelation in the Bible, predicted [Moderator’s note: Discussion of religion is not allowed on the forums.  Biblical prophecy falls into this category.]…

    [Moderator’s note:  Discussion of religion and religious dogma is not allowed on the forums.  See the forum rules.  This is not because we are necessarily hostile to these ideas, or are pushing an agenda of a-religiosity.  Rather, we have found that the debates which arise are insoluble, and tend to explode into shouting matches.  Never have we seen a question of religious dogma (or the meaning of a religious text) successfully resolved on this computer forum.  Therefore we have decided, especially since these issues are–at best–peripheral to the 3E’s, that we are simply not equipped to sucessfully host discussion of these ideas.][/quote]

    guardia, I will simply say that Scala is not focused on referential transparency, but rather on modularity although some of their modularity constructs aid in referential transparency approaches, afaik their focus is not on getting the compiler to trace referential transparency:

    http://www.scala-lang.org/sites/default/files/odersky/popl06.pdf

    Unfortunately I will not be able to explain to more you regarding your point about Scala, because I refuse to contribute to blogs/forums which censor information.

    The facts of what I wrote about which was censored, are no less mathematically verifiable than net energy (I wonder if the moderator even followed the link to see the math), so then I can say that some people have religion based in peak energy and flag their posts as religious. Peak oil leads to shouting matches too, and is never resolved (we don’t even have the data, because oil is monopolized and nationalized).

    It is simply ridiculous and an example of the tsuris of politics.

    I am gone and my respect for Chris is shattered.

    To the moderator, I wish you no ill will, but I simply refuse to participate in an arbitrary definition of  “religious”. Everything is based on faith, even science (and I have proved it mathematically…if you haven’t heard of Shannon-Nyquist and its requirement for infinite samples to avoid aliasing error because you can’t know the Nyquist limit in absolute, it is impossible, just go look at the basis of space-time, even Einstein knew this…).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 12, 2010 - 12:49am

    #22

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 263

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    shelbymoore3-

    My, how unnecessarily condescending.  I suppose those who run the site are supposed to feel bad or guilty that these forums don’t meet your exacting standards as a soapbox for your agenda?  That takes some chutzpah considering many here were already being extremely patient with you as you continued to attempt to hijack the thread as a platform for yourself and your opinions.  If you’re going to leave, feel free to take the absurd guilt trips with you.

    Sheesh.

    – Nickbert

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 12, 2010 - 5:13am

    Reply to #22
    shelbymoore3

    shelbymoore3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2010

    Posts: 0

    This blog should be "a-political", "a-religious" is arbitrary

    Nickbert,

    I wasn’t condescending, I said I have no ill will, but I refuse to contribute to sites that do not stand for reason, and rather encourage for politics.

    For example, if you were capable of debating the facts I have been presenting in this thread, why didn’t you speak up? Instead you flag my post and come here to whine about the facts that I did present. The moderator has thus encouraged the political mayo to suffocate the rational and polite debate we were having before you.

    You just did not want any readers to see that 3 separate events in the 1900s, had already been predicted 2000+ years ago (verified by carbon dating) with accuracy to the year, which afaik has a mathematical probability which is astronomical, meaning it is mathematically irrefutable that the already fulfilled prediction was impossible without a prior knowledge. Science is about asserting a theory and measuring data to verify it.  What I wrote about was exactly employing the scientific method.  When the moderator censors the scientific method, then I am flabbergast.

    Again I have no ill will towards any one, but I will not waste my time posting to blogs that filter the scientific method, just because they don’t like the subject matter that the scientific method has been applied to.  Instead of being “a-religious” (which is actually impossible to define, since even peak oil  is a religion), I would prefer to post to sites which stand for reason, and thus are “a-political”.  Important distinction.

    Whereas you sir, are afaics being condescending and political. I do hope you stop that. Again I am finished here, but I wasn’t going to let you make an ad hominem attack like that without a reply.

     

    And Nickbert, if you think I need this forum as a soapbox, just remember this domain, coolpage.com.  It had million users in 2001, and it will soon rise again to compete with facebook. I don’t need the small traffic of this blog. I was simply trying to help Chris and the interested members be aware of the discoveries I had made. Sheesh on you too.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Oct 12, 2010 - 7:28am

    #23

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 263

    Re: Prediction: Things Will Unravel Faster Than You Think

    shelbymoore3-

    Sigh…. before you go too far on this line of argument, I’m not the one who flagged your post.  In fact I have yet to flag ANY post that wasn’t outright marketing spam.  So pull your head out of wherever it’s stuck and drop the “righteous indignation” routine because you’re talking to the wrong party. 

    The reason I spoke up was because you were behaving like a child having a tantrum after being told he can’t go down the playground slide head first.  And this last post of yours is no different.  The moderator’s message was very clear and explains the rationale behind the rule in a considerate and non-offensive manner, but you decided to make it personal.  Saying “I have no ill will” after slamming the site and its host doesn’t get you off the hook… that’s like spitting on someone’s shoes and saying “no hard feelings”, and it’s clear your comment was meant to hurt or be condescending.  The fact is I didn’t really care one way or another about your theories (other than much of it was irrelevant to the blog topic), and the only reason I bothered responding to your post was your insulting tone.  Don’t you think it’s silly to lash out because you didn’t bother to read the forum rules?  A more rational action would have been to simply go elsewhere and/or perhaps leave a message or email with the site moderators as to why you believe their policy is in error. 

    Oh, and “AFAIC” there’s a difference between being condescending and calling out bad behavior. 

    Toodles!

    – Nickbert

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments