[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theory standpoint ?

[Robert Lindauer]

On Sep 4, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>> I'd say your scenario contradicts itself since you say below:
>> ...

>> Well, how much is it?
>>
>> Anyway, at two years at 5% inflation, from $49, you get $54, not $56
>> and the prices are not $56.
>
> Inflation is not the change in the international value of the dollar.

In what drug-induced hallucination did you hear that it was?  I just 
corrected your "new math".

> The dollar has dropped in value by about 40% over the last two years,
> compared to other currencies.

Duh, I wonder why THAT might be.

>  That is not reflected in our CPI because
> only a small percent of our overall economic activity is priced on
> foreign currencies. So, no, you are the one that is wrong.

Economics are for people able to read with comprehension.  I believe 
they still have adult literacy courses in most states, although for you 
to attend one you'd probably have a lot of pride to swallow about them 
being socialist drains on our economy.

> The Vietnamese reserve you speak of is actually a proven inorganic oil
> source.

Great.

> The Vietnamese resources would not exist under your malthusian paradigm
> of limited resources. According to the biotic oil 'experts', oil
> doesn't exist that deep, and doesn't exist under the continental
> basalt. The biotic theory is that it is a sedimentary deposit of
> biological material. If so, it can only exist above the continental
> basaltic bedrock. Once again, it is you who are wrong.

Sure, if you completely ignore what I said - which is again - that 
unless the core of the earth is filled surprisingly with easy-to-get-to 
oil in unlimited supply, the peak oil problem is a question of time not 
a question of whether.  That is, by the way, what I said, whatever you 
might imagine I said during one of your psychotic episodes.


>> This leaves the harder to get to ones dwindling down to the
>> impossible to get to ones and finally to the no more left scenario.
>
> And as each is exploited, new technologies will be developed that will
> be able to get at them easier and cheaper. At the same time, energy
> conserving technologies will enter the market and help reduce demand
> per dollar of GDP.


Including renewable clean energy sources, like alcohol.

>> The alternative - that the core of the earth is filled with nothing
>> but fossil fuels and we'll be able to run on unleaded gasoline for
> the
>> next 100 years at our current rate of consumptive growth is absurd.
>
> On the contrary, the Athabascan oil tar sands of Alberta has enough oil
> for centuries of consumption.

....

> the Athabascan sands
> could supply about ten years of total global oil consumption. With
> advances in technology, the sands could potentially supply 50 years or
> more of global oil needs. The Orinoco tar sands have similar capacity.
> The Athabascan deposits equal 1/3 of all global reserves.

Okay, so as I SAID, at our current rate of CONSUMPTIVE GROWTH, the idea 
that there's 100 years of easy-to-get oil is ridiculous even with your 
incredible unproved oil reserve.

Also, you contradicted yourself again.  I let you figure out how.

>> Consequently the obvious conclusion for those with half-a-brain-left
>> is that it's just a matter of time - 10 years, 2 years, 50 years, 100
>
>> years.  In any case, the US economy in particular will have to
>> undergo
>> a major change in order to survive the removal of our primary energy
>> source and it's the kind of thing it's better to prepare for earlier
>> rather than later lest we find ourselves fossil fuels one day.
>
> On the contrary, the market will signal when the need occurs.

Like, uh, now.

> As with
> articles previously cited by Hal, it is clear that the oil oligopolists
> won't pass up expensive prices tomorrow for cheap prices today.
> Instead, they will drive up current day prices by delaying exploitation
> of unused reserves or other means of expanding production beyond
> current capacity. In a market of rising demand, simply delaying
> expansion of production drives up prices automatically to send the
> price signals that will trigger consumer conservation. Your abject lack
> of faith in the market explains a lot why you are not a libertarian.

Faith in "the market" is less forthcoming than faith in God since at 
least for God reasons (however absurd to some) can be adduced for 
belief.  Faith in a third-order metapoesis to provide good and 
well-being for the majority of people in a predatory adversarial 
setting is exactly like believing that Ivan Boesky wouldn't sell junk 
bonds to retirees without full disclosure or accepting his word that he 
won't do it again.

But that's not the reason I'm not a Libertarian.  I actually do believe 
that -if- there were a free market people would be able and inclined to 
defend themselves from predatory forces in the market and that it would 
consequently and miraculously work itself out serendipitously (in 
particular what we currently call "the market" just wouldn't exist - no 
stock market, no money market, no commodities market, etc., there'd 
just be the farmer's market on wednesday and sundays).  What I don't 
believe is that there is or could be a poltically-caused free market.  
Really free markets are natural outgrowths of human interaction wherein 
one person has something that someone else wants and is willing to 
trade to their mutual benefit.  They are not subsidized by 401k plans, 
taxation, social engineering and zoning restrictions.

-----Begin RANT---------

The -real- reason I'm not a Libertarian is that the Libertarian 
Leadership is full of esteemed politicians like yourself, unable to get 
a vote that matters to save their lives because on top of cow-towing to 
they that should be their opponents on every issue that might actually 
promote freedom and justice in this country, they've got the combined 
political savvy of the ferrets whose freedom to climb up someone's @ss 
they so desperately want to preserve.  For starters, they should stop 
running Druids in primarily Christian/Catholic/Jewish areas, stop 
backing the NAMBLA crowd and perhaps cut their fingernails occasionally 
between D&D rounds (no offense meant to the D&D crowd or people with 
long fingernails or Druids for associating them with Libertarian scum, 
they've leached on to your coolness, rock on dudes and dudettes, but 
face facts the Libertarians are not suddenly going to make Druidism the 
state religion NOR turn D&D into the national game and suddenly make 
women appear naked at your doors in abundance).

-------End RANT----------

If Libertarians were -real- they'd call for the simple dissolution of 
the IRS and national standing armed forces and be working with the rest 
of the progressives to put an end to the current despotic regime of 
war-profiteering criminal federalists instead of applauding and 
saluting every time Bush leaves a steamer on Condoleeza's chest.

Robbie Lindauer