PDA

View Full Version : Peak Oil Truth's and Lies



Laura
06-25-08, 11:08 PM
This is one guys thoughts on peak oil truths, lies, and consequences. I found it to be a very interesting read.

http://theseuncertaintimes.blogspot.com/

Brooks Gracie
06-27-08, 08:52 PM
I love itulip, and value greatly its contribution to informed readers. But though I am a lowly parasite, tax lawyer and CPA, I also have a great love for long-term history and the economic consequences that flow from historical decisions made by empires, countries, and kings.
<O:p</O:p
Let’s talk about what we, the shareholders of ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:place>USA</ST1:place></st1:country-region>, Inc. are good at. Well, we do pretty well at innovation, but it generally gets co-opted pretty quickly, and we make our economic rents from patent law and its treaties. A lot of this comes from imported brains. We are very good at financial innovation, but that feature is now a bug. We are no longer a “transparent” financial haven.
<O:p</O:p
What are we good at? Well, we are the world’s best, most equipped, and deadliest army ever invented.
<O:p</O:p
My position is that the economics of violence have not been sufficiently been examined by economists, in fact, this is a totally ignored field in the textbooks that guide our economics students. It makes a difference. The rule of law, and property rights are worthless without enforcement. Who is going to enforce the capitalist rules that govern the world’s economy? If not us, then who else?
<O:p</O:p
What are the economic rents that we can derive from being the world’s “security” or “enforcer?” It might be much higher than we are take into account. For example, why is the dollar still being considered a “store of value” giving Helicopter Ben’s policies? I look at it as the U<st1:country-region>.S.</st1:country-region> is too big to fail.
<O:p</O:p
I couldn’t understand why a rational self-interested foreign government or its investors would buy our bonds. Now I think I understand. Instead of the Greenspan put, the rest of the world invests in our debt because they are terrified if a somewhat rational society such as ours (yes it has been an arguable point over the last 8 years) will turn inward and allow the rest of the world’s “feudal” countries vie for power, with little resolution and lots of economic damage.
<O:p</O:p
Our country has been reduced from the powerhouse emerging from WWII (when the rest of the world’s factories were rubble—how hard was it to win that fight?), to the “enforcers” of the current status quo.
<O:p</O:p
This is not to be construed to be a negative event for the <st1:country-region><ST1:pU.S.</ST1:place.</st1:country-region> The returns from being the world’s security wing should be lucrative in the short run, if managed effectively. Of course Halliburton and the related fraudulent contracting cut into our collective benefit.
<O:p</O:p
It is interesting that there is so little economic analysis of the benefits that accrue to the military powerhouses of history. <st1:City>Rome</st1:City> was a great empire, until they started out-sourcing their military to the German tribes. But that process took about 300 years before the fall of <st1:City><ST1:pRome</st1:City> came to fruition. At the same time, the Brits managed to last about half that time, or 150 years, until their empire dwindled to irrelevancy during the end of our
First great depression.
<O:p</O:p
Any historical comparisons or thoughts? Oh, BTW, if you are interested in this thread, James Dale Davidson’s “The Great Reckoning” is a good place to start. Timed very badly but still very interesting.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p

metalman
06-27-08, 10:31 PM
I love itulip, and value greatly its contribution to informed readers. But though I am a lowly parasite, tax lawyer and CPA, I also have a great love for long-term history and the economic consequences that flow from historical decisions made by empires, countries, and kings.
<o>:p</o>:p
Let’s talk about what we, the shareholders of ffice:smarttags" />lace>USA:place>, Inc. are good at. Well, we do pretty well at innovation, but it generally gets co-opted pretty quickly, and we make our economic rents from patent law and its treaties. A lot of this comes from imported brains. We are very good at financial innovation, but that feature is now a bug. We are no longer a “transparent” financial haven.
<o>:p</o>:p
What are we good at? Well, we are the world’s best, most equipped, and deadliest army ever invented.
<o>:p</o>:p
My position is that the economics of violence have not been sufficiently been examined by economists, in fact, this is a totally ignored field in the textbooks that guide our economics students. It makes a difference. The rule of law, and property rights are worthless without enforcement. Who is going to enforce the capitalist rules that govern the world’s economy? If not us, then who else?
<o>:p</o>:p
What are the economic rents that we can derive from being the world’s “security” or “enforcer?” It might be much higher than we are take into account. For example, why is the dollar still being considered a “store of value” giving Helicopter Ben’s policies? I look at it as the U<st1:country-region>.S.</st1:country-region> is too big to fail.
<o>:p</o>:p
I couldn’t understand why a rational self-interested foreign government or its investors would buy our bonds. Now I think I understand. Instead of the Greenspan put, the rest of the world invests in our debt because they are terrified if a somewhat rational society such as ours (yes it has been an arguable point over the last 8 years) will turn inward and allow the rest of the world’s “feudal” countries vie for power, with little resolution and lots of economic damage.
<o>:p</o>:p
Our country has been reduced from the powerhouse emerging from WWII (when the rest of the world’s factories were rubble—how hard was it to win that fight?), to the “enforcers” of the current status quo.
<o>:p</o>:p
This is not to be construed to be a negative event for the <st1:country-region><st1>:pU.S.</st1>:place.</st1:country-region> The returns from being the world’s security wing should be lucrative in the short run, if managed effectively. Of course Halliburton and the related fraudulent contracting cut into our collective benefit.
<o>:p</o>:p
It is interesting that there is so little economic analysis of the benefits that accrue to the military powerhouses of history. <st1:city>Rome</st1:city> was a great empire, until they started out-sourcing their military to the German tribes. But that process took about 300 years before the fall of <st1:city><st1>:pRome</st1> came to fruition. At the same time, the Brits managed to last about half that time, or 150 years, until their empire dwindled to irrelevancy during the end of our </st1:city>
First great depression.
<o>:p</o>:p
Any historical comparisons or thoughts? Oh, BTW, if you are interested in this thread, James Dale Davidson’s “The Great Reckoning” is a good place to start. Timed very badly but still very interesting.
<o>:p</o>:p
<o>:p

hey, brooks. good to have you here. suggestion... google search "are you a doomer?" and read the result :)

</o>

c1ue
06-28-08, 04:49 PM
Brooks,

Studying the past does help more clearly frame present events.

However, I would note that Romans and Pax Brittanicans both spent considerable time and effort in improving the regions under sway: Romans via grants of land to soldiers, Britons via building railroads and hospitals and keeping the tribes more or less at peace.

What has the American military done?

Has American foreign policy kept peace between tribes? Built lots of railroads and hospitals?

Or rather has America put in a bunch of military bases, bought up local pontentates, and squished the occassional out of line local ruler?

This sounds more like the Mongol empire. And we know how long that lasted.