Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Next Bubble story: Who was first?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: iTulip beats TIME on Harper's beating the Onion's Next Bubble story

    Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
    With respect bart ... how can you have a "true great DOOM" during a 20 year transition of Peak Cheap Oil where energy prices ratchet inexorably to $500 a barrel and 5000 nuclear energy plants to replace it are a financial and logistical impossibility ... "Panglossian" forecasting run amok. Can you explain this miraculous conjunction? :p
    Yes, I indeed missed the article was a tongue in cheek send-up of Harry Dent, and Time Magazine's hack reviewer. With regard to Time Magazine's flabby journalistic investigation of the underlying issue, I'm 100% with iTulip. However my post really was raised as a question - Harry Dent's forecast has some uncanny similarities to iTulip's forecast that at some point we really will have another soaring bubble within a segment of the stock market. Given this overlapping of their views of the near future, iTulip's send-up of Harry Dent navigates through a fair bit of ambiguity right there.

    No matter. What threw me off was FRED's summarily deleting my first post. Just for your information, what he saw fit to summarily delete is pasted verbatim into my second attempt to re-post it (post # 2 in this thread). Can someone explain to me, what is so egregiously unacceptable in that short question to merit deletion? The question is maybe a little argumentative, and it indeed misses the point of FRED's editorial comment, which was written primarily with humor in mind. But can anyone construe my post above as being so specious or "disruptive" that it merits summary deletion due to "editorial discretion"?

    Yes, it was deleted. I posted it once. Saw it sit there for ten minutes, and then saw it "disappear".

    Now I'd like to point out, that apparently no-one else here has ever had any of their posts summarily deleted from this website. You don't therefore have any visceral experience of being "muzzled", and I note that I've been there several times before. Does anyone recall the actual content of the one or two entire threads which FRED has seen fit to delete in the past? It seems to me, their content got right down to some nitty gritty debates - things like "why telecommuting won't significantly mitigate peak cheap oil", and so forth.

    These are real questions, and observations with a fair bit of truth in them. These are not questions which merit entire threads being erased, merely because they openly call into question the validity of editorial opinions here. Now we see that "editorial oversight" thingy getting rolled out again to delete a comment which was posed in the form of a serious question:

    How can you have another stock market boom, even if just an "alt-energy bubble", when oil prices climb to $500 per barrel?

    This is a central tenet of Janszen's predictions, such that he made it the core of his Harper's article. My post asks, "please substantiate how you see any kind of next boom, or next bubble, in a world where the price of energy gets so prohibitive it summarily shuts a great deal of economic activity down?

    This is hardly what you'd describe as a "specious question". It's also hardly material which justifies a website editor summarily "disappearing" the post to begin with. I know the post was deleted. I posted it, and saw it sit there on this thread for ten minutes. Then it disappeared. All the guffaws and ribbing going on around here turn a studiedly blind eye to this point. You can smile complacently, but as long as you turn a blind eye to that you countenance a certain degree of complacency.

    I recall a post of Janszen's where he seriously suggested that tele-commuting would mitigate peak cheap oil - and no-one here had a murmur of objection, or thought of pointing out that other than in OECD countries, most nations economies are not anywhere remotely near the prospect of telecommuting because their economic niche has nothing to do with service industries. Such comments speak from an entrenched America-centric, or OECD-centric viewpoint. And it bears noting, that such observations ALSO meet the most woolly-minded complacency around here. A few people, me among them, read such suggestions as merely partisan attempts to debunk any portrayal of Peak Cheap Oil as an intensely traumatic event.

    I see such a comment as a tell-tale of stubbornly "Panglossian" mind-set, particularly as it's so manifestly irrational when projected out upon a world which is 2/3rds industrialising, rather than based on any "telecommuter" economic paradigm. Yet despite the many overwhelmingly cogent arguments as to why telecommuting represents little real response to Peak Cheap Oil at the global leve, we can actually witness the open and challenging argument of such issues with Janszen result in entire "disappeared threads", and none of the jolly contributors here today had a murmur of comment to make about that. :rolleyes:

    You've just been advised - we had another "sighting of a disappeared post" here today, only on even more questionable grounds, as my post above phrased a simple question of substance, and was utterly innocuous. And while everyone's got their two cents to chip in here on the overlooked humor quotient, no-one appears to have a word to say about the practice of "disappearing" posts which ever pose awkward questions to the editor in chief. Hmm. Any comments on whether post # 2 on this thread merited being erased to begin with? Or are you all just a gaggle of captive geese in a pen, within this community?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: iTulip beats TIME on Harper's beating the Onion's Next Bubble story

      Posted it to the wrong forum originally and deleted the thread by accident trying to move it. Hadn't noticed anyone had posted any comments to the it. Sorry about that!

      You bucking for a change of custom title from "Global Guerrilla Stocks Master" to "Chief Doommeister"?
      Ed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

        I frankly have not much interest in what my "custom title" is, as these affectations appear to be largely window dressing around here to engender a "celebration of community" - and that "celebration of community" on occasion leaves me merely regarding it all with a healthy dose of cynicism, especially when entire disappeared threads become the only response to tough questions.

        "Telecommuting will mitigate Peak Cheap Oil" does not constitute any kind of real or robust investigation of the mechanisms of energy demand destruction. Consequently, commonly expressed mirth about "Panglossianism" vs. "Doom-Mongers" appears to me to be specious nonsense which skates over some very large approaching issues.

        As far as I can tell, some fairly complacent frivolity rules the day, on the criticality of the energy question.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: iTulip beats TIME on Harper's beating the Onion's Next Bubble story

          Originally posted by bart View Post
          I actually got some respect? I'm agog... and you know how painful that can be...

          As far as my prediction, I suspect your algorithms do not take the proper doses of gloom, despair, polysorbate 60, chemtrails, banksters, Mary Poppins, garlic and hobgloblins into account.
          A pox on Pangloss too.


          As far as the miracles, I defer to Arthur Clarke who was a far, far better man than I'll ever be:
          "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
          -- Arthur C. Clarke



          (and for anyone who thinks my comments are serious, they're intended as dark humor, sarcasm, silliness, etc.)
          I love this thread. My compliments to all who participated.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

            Originally posted by Lukester View Post
            As far as I can tell, some fairly complacent frivolity rules the day, on the criticality of the energy question.
            As far as I can tell, all are agreed that energy issues are critical. If you have a solution or suggestion, post away on a related thread.

            If humor or blowing off steam or silliness or sarcasm or similar disappears, then the chances of pulling through the various crises to come goes down. Constant seriousness is not good for humanity or one's overall attitude.
            http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

              Originally posted by bart View Post
              As far as I can tell, all are agreed that energy issues are critical. If you have a solution or suggestion, post away on a related thread.

              If humor or blowing off steam or silliness or sarcasm or similar disappears, then the chances of pulling through the various crises to come goes down. Constant seriousness is not good for humanity or one's overall attitude.
              luke hasn't noticed... this site is called itulip. if it ever stops with the parody and irreverence it's just another contarian econ and finance site.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                Originally posted by bart View Post
                If you have a solution or suggestion, post away on a related thread. If humor or blowing off steam or silliness or sarcasm or similar disappears, then the chances of pulling through the various crises to come goes down.
                Bart - any lessons offered to me on the subject of humor are redundant. I contribute more of it here than most people. As to your point about "offering constructive suggestions or solutions", this is meaningless. When the mere acceptance of Peak Cheap Oil was being discussed around here 18 months ago, the constant rejoinder was "yes, but what do you propose to do about it - and if you have no suggestion on that, then why talk about it". It has been pointed out, numerous times, that this is a specious objection - the point is, one need not have miraculous solutions to the problem in order to merely post to raise awareness of it.

                You know, as well as I, that 18 months ago, a full awareness of this issue was manifestly not present among the majority of posters here, nor was the editorial staff fully on board (or you can translate that as "explicit") in their endorsement of the idea that this issue was imminent, critical, and underestimated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we still all bogged down struggling to get past the "conceptual difficulty" of recognizing abiogenetic oil as quack science? :rolleyes: Where were you, or Metalman, when it came time to speak up on the quackery of abiogenetic oil welling up from the core of the earth? Were you too busy deferring to Tet's sensibilities to find it politic to speak up?

                I doubt very much anyone is calling out of control oil prices an "overblown issue" today. As noted, I for one do not lack a sense of humor. What I do call to your attention, is that when editorials appear suggesting that "telecommuting will play a large part in mitigating the severity of Peak Cheap Oil", everyone around here sits around meekly and either swallows it whole, or offers up only tame answers, because the person making this statement is Janszen and you don't feel it incumbent upon yourself to speak of any objection, or perhaps you simply missed those observations entirely? Then, when threads where some lowly iTulip member challenges the merit of such observations too insistently are deemed merely irksome, the thread is crudely "deleted", as though that were a fitting rejoinder to the issue, and people like you sit around calmly and regard it as business as usual.

                Subsequent to such oversights, you wish to admonish me for lacking a sense of humor?

                If someone put a muzzle on you occasionally when your questions become too insistent, and you saw all those whom you consider your "comrades in search of truth" sit around complacently in response, what lingering reservation would you have about their full independence of mind thereafter? Mayb it's just group-think we need to chalk it all up to, eh? You, and everyone else who feels entirely comfortable sitting around complacently when you see entire threads full of vibrant issues "deleted" in mid-discussion, don't need to lecture me on any part of this question. Disappeared threads or posts, are an evidence of "insecurity" on an argument. If iTulip has overwhelmingly strong arguments to rebut insistent questioners, they'd have no need to delete entire threads, and I doubt very much that point is lost on you, in the privacy of your own thoughts.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                  Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                  Subsequent to such oversights, you wish to admonish me for lacking a sense of humor?
                  why?

                  Lukester; With respect EJ - this conjunction of implications makes no sense to me - how can you have a "true great boom" during a 20 year transition of Peak Cheap Oil where energy prices ratchet inexorably to $500 a barrel and 5000 nuclear energy plants to replace it are a financial and logistical impossibility? This would appear an example of "Panglossian" forecasting run amok. Can you explain this miraculous conjunction?
                  the thread's making fun of time and dent, silly.

                  Lukester;
                  1. Well FRED, after having summarily deleted my first attempt to post this question
                  FRED; Posted it to the wrong forum originally and deleted the thread by accident trying to move it. Hadn't noticed anyone had posted any comments to the it. Sorry about that!
                  no one else is saying their posts are getting deleted. hey, maybe it was really just an accident not a scheme?

                  Lukester; I recall a post of Janszen's where he seriously suggested that tele-commuting would mitigate peak cheap oil - and no-one here had a murmur of objection, or thought of pointing out that other than in OECD countries, most nations economies are not anywhere remotely near the prospect of telecommuting because their economic niche has nothing to do with service industries. Such comments speak from an entrenched America-centric, or OECD-centric viewpoint. And it bears noting, that such observations ALSO meet the most woolly-minded complacency around here. A few people, me among them, read such suggestions as merely partisan attempts to debunk any portrayal of Peak Cheap Oil as an intensely traumatic event.
                  a pedantic post on a humorous thread. try dieoff.org or doomers.us.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                    Metalman - perennial groupie par excellence. What's the matter with you Metalguy. Has iTulip become your surrogate mommie?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                      Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                      Metalman - perennial groupie par excellence. What's the matter with you Metalguy. Has iTulip become your surrogate mommie?
                      aaaaaah. a short reply. a breath of fresh air... more like a breath mint.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                        Bart - any lessons offered to me on the subject of humor are redundant. I contribute more of it here than most people. As to your point about "offering constructive suggestions or solutions", this is meaningless. When the mere acceptance of Peak Cheap Oil was being discussed around here 18 months ago, the constant rejoinder was "yes, but what do you propose to do about it - and if you have no suggestion on that, then why talk about it". It has been pointed out, numerous times, that this is a specious objection - the point is, one need not have miraculous solutions to the problem in order to merely post to raise awareness of it.
                        Granted, but its my take that awareness of it is quite high and has been for some time.

                        And perhaps I'm wrong since I read far from all threads, but my impression is that you have posted a lot less humorously over the last 6 months or so than during prior times. I frankly can't recall more than one or two in the last 6 or so months.



                        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                        You know, as well as I, that 18 months ago, a full awareness of this issue was manifestly not present among the majority of posters here, nor was the editorial staff fully on board (or you can translate that as "explicit") in their endorsement of the idea that this issue was imminent, critical, and underestimated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we still all bogged down struggling to get past the "conceptual difficulty" of recognizing abiogenetic oil as quack science? :rolleyes: Where were you, or Metalman, when it came time to speak up on the quackery of abiogenetic oil welling up from the core of the earth? Were you too busy deferring to Tet's sensibilities to find it politic to speak up?
                        If I would have seen that the abiotic theory was gaining any real ground, I would have posted even though I'm far from expert in the area.

                        Also, my opinions are on my blog and site. I'm also on 7 other boards, maintain a site with thousands of charts and hundreds of pages, have done many articles with unique and factual takes about what's actually going on including busting the Fed & Treasury for manipulation/control of stock and bond markets, busted the ECB for gold control/manipulation, invented the concept of the long term hard/tangible vs. paper assets and showed how it has held true for over 200 years, let alone being the first person to reconstruct M3 and am still maintaining it on a weekly basis... and I could go on for quite a while, and not even include the 20 or so private charts that both work so well for my trading and are so "tinfoil hat" enabled that no one would believe them.

                        Hell, I posted my original SecLend research about 18 months ago showing and proving (I thought) the primary tool that the Fed uses to manage TBill & TBond rates and how it works, along with applicable public quotes from FOMC minutes etc... and got either yawns or disbelief or just got blown off. A similar thing occurred with my posts and articles about TIOs and repos, etc.

                        How much do you think I can & should do, and how much free time do you think I have?


                        As far as the comment about Tet, I won't even respond. Your comment is tacky to say the least.


                        Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                        I doubt very much anyone is calling out of control oil prices an "overblown issue" today. As noted, I for one do not lack a sense of humor. What I do call to your attention, is that when editorials appear suggesting that "telecommuting will play a large part in mitigating the severity of Peak Cheap Oil", everyone around here sits around meekly and either swallows it whole, or offers up only tame answers, because the person making this statement is Janszen and you don't feel it incumbent upon yourself to speak of any objection, or perhaps you simply missed those observations entirely? Then, when threads where some lowly iTulip member challenges the merit of such observations too insistently are deemed merely irksome, the thread is crudely "deleted", as though that were a fitting rejoinder to the issue, and people like you sit around calmly and regard it as business as usual.
                        Just because I or many don't respond to things like EJ's telecommuting concept doesn't mean anything. In general, I seldom bother agreeing with something that's that relatively obvious and I suspect I'm speaking for many. Telecommuting is indeed one of the many items that are part of an overall solution - assuming that the culture doesn't truly crash or some psycho doesn't push that ultimate button.

                        EJ does have a good head on his shoulders and I agree with him far far more than I disagree, and it does little good in my opinion to continually bring up areas where I disagree since in the broad scheme of things it makes little difference. And I do "tweak" him once in a while on his "jocks vs. geeks" view, and then there's the MZM vs. M3 thread where we disagreed too (although that was mild). EJ does not buy into the full John Williams CPI correction either, and that's a very large disagreement between us. But the important thing is that he doesn't at all buy into the CPI being anywhere near accurate, and that's the key area - not whether the real CPI is off by 5% or 8%.

                        And part of the reason I come here is for alternate views and opinions too. I'm far from always right and I also virtually never post my full opinions either. I prefer to let the data and charts do the talking.
                        If someone doesn't understand some chart or charts of mine and doesn't ask about them... well, that says a great deal about them and very little about my charts.

                        Finster & I have "abused" each other for years about log vs. linear charts and we both understand the plusses and minuses, and can understand either... but a few go into how "wanting" some of my linear or spaghetti charts are, while completely ignoring that it says a lot about their fixed ideas or refusal to actually look at the actual purpose and intent of the charts, that they're free and that as I noted above, I don't have any more hours in a day than they do.
                        Last edited by bart; 07-18-08, 07:34 PM.
                        http://www.NowAndTheFuture.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                          Originally posted by Lukester View Post
                          I frankly have not much interest in what my "custom title" is, as these affectations appear to be largely window dressing around here to engender a "celebration of community" - and that "celebration of community" on occasion leaves me merely regarding it all with a healthy dose of cynicism, especially when entire disappeared threads become the only response to tough questions.

                          "Telecommuting will mitigate Peak Cheap Oil" does not constitute any kind of real or robust investigation of the mechanisms of energy demand destruction. Consequently, commonly expressed mirth about "Panglossianism" vs. "Doom-Mongers" appears to me to be specious nonsense which skates over some very large approaching issues.

                          As far as I can tell, some fairly complacent frivolity rules the day, on the criticality of the energy question.
                          Must be that Polysorbate 60 you warned us about . I recommend you take two Twinkies and call FRED in the morning...:rolleyes:
                          Last edited by GRG55; 07-18-08, 08:44 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                            lukester, i sometimes find your posts overly long and repetitive, but i think you did us all a service in pounding away on the peak oil issue in the face of resistance and/or indifference. if, however, you really want to discuss e.g. the important future role of telecommuting or the lack thereof, i suggest you start a new thread on that topic instead of inserting it into a frivolous thread. but don't give up. your ideas and criticisms are worth examining.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                              Notice to FRED on good housekeeping :

                              I just noticed some devious little gnome tucked away in the plumbing of the iTulip administration has once more planted a little turd on the director of EURO PACIFIC CAPITAL?

                              Here, let's see what this funny little fella is up to now:

                              Peter Mega's best friend is a brilliant CEO of an upstanding brokerage.

                              Peter Mega's best friend has made many illustrious appearances on the mainstream media and argues many positions very similar to iTulip's own.

                              Peter Mega's best friend is a "comrade in arms" to all those decrying monetary debasement, with many in the iTulip community agreeable to his viewpoints.

                              Peter Mega's best friend is a high net worth individual with lots of disposable income with which to sue other communities for frivolous defamation.

                              Peter Mega's best friend is notable for his irascible temperament. :rolleyes:

                              Peter Mega's best friend despite being a stockbroker, and hence the object of ridicule sometimes in communities such as this one, is essentially "on the same side" as iTulip, and merits somewhat better than this puerile display of website programmer mischief.

                              etceteras.

                              Seems we have another little "Peter Mega's best friendty" ( a.k.a. P.E.T.E.R. __ S.C.H.I.F.F.T.Y. ) gremlin at work?

                              __________

                              While you are at it FREDster, why don't you just rewrite my moniker to that of a general member of the public here, as the sport you engage in with our names is somewhat one-sided? As you'll no doubt recognize, true sport is even-handed, where both sides can respond to equal effect, so your discretionary ability to toy with poster's names will eventually tempt you into an arbitrary exercise of that prerogative. I'd like to opt out if you please. Reverting back to general member of the public will do just fine, thank you. Also, given the little "indiscretion" pointed out above, this would be a wonderfully "mischief-free" place to start? ;)
                              Last edited by Contemptuous; 07-19-08, 12:21 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Next Bubble story: Who was first?

                                Who says there has to be a next bubble? Or maybe the link is a disinformation compaign making people believe that they have a "choice" to decrease consumption and debt by downsizing or as EJ says "down-shifting" rather than facing the fact that they/we are dead broke.

                                http://www.storyofstuff.com/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X