Dear Candidate: What if growth was over?

[Oddball]

All of which leads us back to a couple pointed and highly relevant questions, not the least of which are:

So what?

and...

If past prophets of doom have failed to foresee and/or take into account factors such as the lower birth rates experienced by the world's more technologically advanced cultures, what other X factors are out there which they are either ignoring or can't possibly foresee?

and...

How is it that such ivory tower dwelling Chicken Littles of apocalypse always seem to discount and downplay the inventiveness and adaptability of virtually anyone and everyone, who isn't as smart as they hold themselves to be?

 

[JiggsCasey]

All of which leads us back to a couple pointed and highly relevant questions, not the least of which are:

So what?

and...

If past prophets of doom have failed to foresee and/or take into account factors such as the lower birth rates experienced by the world's more technologically advanced cultures, what other X factors are out there which they are either ignoring or can't possibly foresee?

and...

How is it that such ivory tower dwelling Chicken Littles of apocalypse always seem to discount and downplay the inventiveness and adaptability of virtually anyone and everyone, who isn't as smart as they hold themselves to be?

Hope is not a policy, and yet your entire premise throughout this thread is utterly based on the "hope" of technology. Technology which REQUIRES hydrocarbon energy to even perfect, let alone expand on a massive commercial scale.

Meanwhile, demand continues to shoot upward, and the global economy stands on the brink... yet your hope-based platform isn't much closer to getting us off light conventional crude than it was 25 years ago.

You're crowing about 1-yard advances. You're facing 3rd-and-25, and you insist that a draw play will get it done.

I know numbers aren't a strong suit of drill baby drill cons. But this is basic mathematics here. Too many people, not enough resources to sustain them and their gluttonous way of life. Period. ... Exponential function, study it. It's undeniable.

Again, where is the oil? Or, if you prefer, what is the new "technology" and when will it be ready? Because collapse has already begun.

 

[Oddball]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

Even though I know that's a hard concept for the committed Chicken Little merchant of doom to grasp, it is one of the dominant features of the human experience.

 

[8537]

All of which leads us back to a couple pointed and highly relevant questions, not the least of which are:

So what?

So you can't have infinite economic growth in a resource-limited world. But I explained that already...

and...

If past prophets of doom have failed to foresee and/or take into account factors such as the lower birth rates experienced by the world's more technologically advanced cultures, what other X factors are out there which they are either ignoring or can't possibly foresee?

you keep putting Galbraith as some prophet of doom, yet you don't seem to have any evidence of that. Have you found this evidence yet?

And certainly, though you tossed his name around, you don't consider Keynes - the ultimate Bon Vivant - as a prophet of doom?

How is it that such ivory tower dwelling Chicken Littles of apocalypse always seem to discount and downplay the inventiveness and adaptability of virtually anyone and everyone, who isn't as smart as they hold themselves to be?

Who are these ivory tower chicken littles you speak of?

 

[8537]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

That is wrong. There has not been "pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history". In fact, there have been long episodes of stagnation punctuated by periods of dramatic increases in productivity and technology. The Dark Ages, for example, were over a 1000 years of stagnation on the entire European continent. It wasn't until the scientific revolution that the idea of permanent 2-3% growth was even fathomed. Europeans alive in 1600 AD were living a life not much different than people in 600 AD.

 

[Flopper]

Below is a draft of a letter to an imaginary politician up for election later this year:

Dear ______________

You are currently running for office as _____________________ in ____________________. As you know, we are living through economically tough times, and I hear a lot about how the economy can be brought back to stability and prosperity.

However, have you ever considered that economic growth might actually not return? That we might have to build a societal infrastructure based on less?

If so, what would be your plans to mitigate such a situation, to make sure that life can go on for your constituents in a future where "more each year" is no longer possible?

Or alternatively, if you don't have any plans - are you 100 percent certain that growth and prosperity will ever return, and if so, why is it that you see no risk worth looking at?
​

Pretend you're the candidate. How would you answer this question?

The Oil Drum: Campfire | Dear Candidate - What Will You Do if Growth Is Over...?

Follow-up questions:

1. Is there a reason why this kind of letter shouldn't be sent to real people who want our vote?

2a. Would a candidate addressing these issues/questions stand any chance of winning?

2b. If not, might such a candidate, even in a losing effort, influence the election issues and as a result positively impact transition efforts away from growth based economy?

There is no reason to believe that strong economic growth will not return. Why? Because it always has. To believe that now is the apocalyptic moment in history when the US growth stops is not realist. The US is one of the most productive nations on earth, highly innovative, rich in natural resources, with a skilled work force, and access to huge amounts of capital.

The fact is the US economy is growing now with positive job creation and a growth in GDP. Granted growth is slow but we have seen that before following deep recessions and depressions.

I doubt that you will get much a reply to your letter.

 

[JiggsCasey]

There is no reason to believe that strong economic growth will not return. Why? Because it always has.

And there, in a nutshell, is conservative thought.... Nevermind the data, forget the science, ignore current events. ..

 

[JiggsCasey]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

Even though I know that's a hard concept for the committed Chicken Little merchant of doom to grasp, it is one of the dominant features of the human experience.

LOL... there's the 8th time I've asked the question, and the 8th time "nothing to see here", "drill baby drill," faith-based coincitards have chickened out.

Translation: "I don't know where the oil is, because it hasn't been found despite decades of exploration... but God will save us."

 

[Oddball]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

That is wrong. There has not been "pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history". In fact, there have been long episodes of stagnation punctuated by periods of dramatic increases in productivity and technology. The Dark Ages, for example, were over a 1000 years of stagnation on the entire European continent. It wasn't until the scientific revolution that the idea of permanent 2-3% growth was even fathomed. Europeans alive in 1600 AD were living a life not much different than people in 600 AD.

That technological advancement slowed during certain historical periods doesn't refute the overall forward march of technological progress throughout history.

 

[Oddball]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

Even though I know that's a hard concept for the committed Chicken Little merchant of doom to grasp, it is one of the dominant features of the human experience.

LOL... there's the 8th time I've asked the question, and the 8th time "nothing to see here", "drill baby drill," faith-based coincitards have chickened out.

Translation: "I don't know where the oil is, because it hasn't been found despite decades of exploration... but God will save us."

Never said anything about God, Chicken Little.

And if there's no more oil to be found out in the world, why is it that oil companies are willing to spend zillions of dollars to research and drill for it?...Why is it that Chinese are looking into drilling and pumping off the coast of Cuba?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Never said anything about God, Chicken Little.

And if there's no more oil to be found out in the world, why is it that oil companies are willing to spend zillions of dollars to research and drill for it?...Why is it that Chinese are looking into drilling and pumping off the coast of Cuba?

Because they know it's running out?

LOL!!! I guess I'll have to ask a 9th time, considering you just refuse to answer the question, and instead punt to Socratic deflection.

You realize you just compromised your entire premise with the bolded above? You're so stupid, you've just underscored the argument of your enemy. Dumbass.

Spending "zillions" to go ever deeper for it only supports the fact that availability of it is running out. Desperate much?

You simply can not answer the question. Because discoveries of conventional light crude of any significance -- the kinds that maintain global growth -- do not exist. Google your ass off, I challenge you. You won't be able to point to one in excess of 50 billion proven barrels. They haven't been found anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years. That's a problem. But you're too fucking dumb to understand.

Sure, they've found some little kiddie pools here and there, but no olympic-sized pools (to use an anaology) -- the kind we used to find every 4-5 years before 1980. We need to "discover" 4 Saudi Arabias just to maintain stasis by 2020, according to the IEA. So? Where are they?

 

[hipeter924]

There is no reason to believe that strong economic growth will not return. Why? Because it always has.

And there, in a nutshell, is conservative thought.... Nevermind the data, forget the science, ignore current events. ..

No based on the fact the US survived the last global depression (and smaller recessions than this one).

 

[Oddball]

Never said anything about God, Chicken Little.

And if there's no more oil to be found out in the world, why is it that oil companies are willing to spend zillions of dollars to research and drill for it?...Why is it that Chinese are looking into drilling and pumping off the coast of Cuba?

Because they know it's running out?

LOL!!! I guess I'll have to ask a 9th time, considering you just refuse to answer the question, and instead punt to Socratic deflection.

You realize you just compromised your entire premise with the bolded above? You're so stupid, you've just underscored the argument of your enemy. Dumbass.

Spending "zillions" to go ever deeper for it only supports the fact that availability of it is running out. Desperate much?

You simply can not answer the question. Because discoveries of any significance -- the kinds that maintain global growth -- do not exist. They haven't been found anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years. That's a problem. But you're too fucking dumb to understand.

Repeating an idiotic question over and over and over and over again doesn't make them any less idiotic by mere numbers of repetition.

You really don't know jack squat how entrepreneurs think and operate, do you?

Why would anyone with any business sense spend all their money chasing after something that they know isn't there?

 

[Flopper]

There is no reason to believe that strong economic growth will not return. Why? Because it always has.

And there, in a nutshell, is conservative thought.... Nevermind the data, forget the science, ignore current events. ..

Our is economy is cyclic in nature. Every economic expansion is followed by a contraction. Every serve contraction in the economy is accompanied by discouraging economic data as well strong economic fundamentals. A prediction that economic growth will not return is purely subjective. There is no way to support that claim. I don't think you will find any well recognized economist that supports your idea.

 

[8537]

My premise is based upon the FACT of the pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history.

That is wrong. There has not been "pervasive advancement of technology throughout human history". In fact, there have been long episodes of stagnation punctuated by periods of dramatic increases in productivity and technology. The Dark Ages, for example, were over a 1000 years of stagnation on the entire European continent. It wasn't until the scientific revolution that the idea of permanent 2-3% growth was even fathomed. Europeans alive in 1600 AD were living a life not much different than people in 600 AD.

That technological advancement slowed during certain historical periods doesn't refute the overall forward march of technological progress throughout history.

it didn't just slow - it went backwards. Scientific advancement was lost and forgotten. It has not been "pervasive advancement throughout history".

If the fundie rightwingers get their way, we'll enter the next age of backstepping soon enough.

 

[loosecannon]

Never said anything about God, Chicken Little.

And if there's no more oil to be found out in the world, why is it that oil companies are willing to spend zillions of dollars to research and drill for it?...Why is it that Chinese are looking into drilling and pumping off the coast of Cuba?

Because they know it's running out?

LOL!!! I guess I'll have to ask a 9th time, considering you just refuse to answer the question, and instead punt to Socratic deflection.

You realize you just compromised your entire premise with the bolded above? You're so stupid, you've just underscored the argument of your enemy. Dumbass.

Spending "zillions" to go ever deeper for it only supports the fact that availability of it is running out. Desperate much?

You simply can not answer the question. Because discoveries of any significance -- the kinds that maintain global growth -- do not exist. They haven't been found anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years. That's a problem. But you're too fucking dumb to understand.

Repeating an idiotic question over and over and over and over again doesn't make them any less idiotic by mere numbers of repetition.

You really don't know jack squat how entrepreneurs think and operate, do you?

Why would anyone with any business sense spend all their money chasing after something that they know isn't there?

because they will settle for a whole lot less?

 

[loosecannon]

There is no reason to believe that strong economic growth will not return. Why? Because it always has.

And there, in a nutshell, is conservative thought.... Nevermind the data, forget the science, ignore current events. ..

Our is economy is cyclic in nature. Every economic expansion is followed by a contraction. Every serve contraction in the economy is accompanied by discouraging economic data as well strong economic fundamentals. A prediction that economic growth will not return is purely subjective. There is no way to support that claim. I don't think you will find any well recognized economist that supports your idea.

yeah but on the other hand those guys were "shocked" by the credit crisis that 10,000 yahoos on the internet predicted for years.

AND those guys are fully indoctrinated into an ideology in which never ending growth is an article of faith. Their entire education and world view revolves around it.

 

[loosecannon]

You really are dumber than a bag of hammers, to go along with that sullen Chicken Little disposition, aren't you?

1) First off, technology doesn't stand still. Even though I've already stated this obvious fact, it bears repeating.

2) Nobody knows what the next leap in technology will be...That's why it's a technological leap. The doom-and-gloomery of global population cataclysm pimps like Malthus and Ehrlich have always overlooked this basic fact.

3) The more technologically advanced a society, the lower the birth rate...When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results.

4) The arrogance, craziness, insanity and foolhardiness is all at your end, Skippy.

You wish, dildo.

And there has been no example yet of ".When coupled with the increased efficiencies better technology provides, a net lower demand on resources, for a given unit of production, results. " Quite the opposite.

and most of the world hasn't yet figured out the lower birth rate you speak of.

But lastly and mostly you treat the earth as if it was fully expendable simply for the purpose of maxing out human population.

Foolishly immune to the prospect that billions of years of genetic evolution is being irreparably damaged beyond what we and our technology could ever repair.

And this isn't an eco system, it is our life support system.

You act as if we can merely simulate another one if EVERY current trend reverses: population growth, unsustainable consumption, birth rate, technology surpassing instead of always lagging our insatiable demand and lack of discipline.


But then again you are clearly crazy as a LOON.

Once the cheap oil is gone and the cheap nat gas is gone, lights out. Deal with it.

Not only are you dumb as a bag of hammers, you're also exhibiting all three of the classic neuroses of the manic depressive (helplessness, hopelessness, and lack of deservingness) running in overdrive.

Probably best if you keep taking your Paxil and stockpiling canned goods, ammunition and other survival gear in your basement, for the impending doom of modern society.

iow you can't hang.

Noted.

 

[Flopper]

And there, in a nutshell, is conservative thought.... Nevermind the data, forget the science, ignore current events. ..

Our is economy is cyclic in nature. Every economic expansion is followed by a contraction. Every serve contraction in the economy is accompanied by discouraging economic data as well strong economic fundamentals. A prediction that economic growth will not return is purely subjective. There is no way to support that claim. I don't think you will find any well recognized economist that supports your idea.

yeah but on the other hand those guys were "shocked" by the credit crisis that 10,000 yahoos on the internet predicted for years.

AND those guys are fully indoctrinated into an ideology in which never ending growth is an article of faith. Their entire education and world view revolves around it.

Yes, with long economic expansion there are always those that forget the lessons of the past. Nothing in the economic world goes up without eventually coming down. Strong contractions in the economy eventually lead too strong growth. As housing prices fall, profits, and employment plummet, we slowly work out the excesses in the economy. Marginal workers are laid off. Bloated home prices fall to reasonable levels. Less profitable products are dropped. Banks become more responsible lenders. Workers with jobs work harder to keep them. The result is productivity rises. Business becomes lean and mean. Eventually the economy starts moving up. First slowly, then it gains steam and before long we have a major expansion to be followed eventually by another contraction. This process has been repeating itself over and over for hundreds of years and there is no reason to think that this is end.

During the Great Depression we had unemployment 3 times what it is now. Economic growth was almost nonexistent for years. Capping it off we had a war that makes the current military actions look like a cakewalk. Our national debt was twice as bad as it is today. Yet we came out it with an economy that became the envy of the whole world.

 

[KissMy]

The science quoted by the doomers below said we should have been out of oil 100 years ago. Amazing, Its a miracle we survived. God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years.

In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"

The chart below shows new production capacity is outpacing actual production. Demand cannot keep pace with the new supplies of fuels added to capacity. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.

Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Oil Trades Near 1-Month Low After U.S. Supplies Rise to Highest in Decades

The U.S. Energy Department report yesterday showed that total petroleum stockpiles surged to the highest level in at least 20 years.

Growth is possible once Doomocrats are out of office.