Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

[metalman]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

The gentlemen doth protest too much, me thinks...

one gigantic protest... against what?

fred. ej. someone... please!

just say...

'oh, luke you are soooo right! you are right. you are the man. you are the one. you are luke skywalker! saving us from itulip's slow ponderous analysis'!

pls! someone! tell him he's right or we'll find him curled up in the corner babbling and spitting and snapping at dogs, eyes rolled back in his head, in a puddle, slapping his own face, tearing his greasy hair, licking the walls.

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

The gentlemen doth protest too much, me thinks...

Yeah, right. A fine and forthright acknowledgment of the points being made. This is called "position creep", where "acknowledgments" are emitted only sporadically. If we were borrowing ideas from authors without attribution, that would be an entirely different story, right? From iTulip contributors' they are discreet slips of paper that go into the anonymous suggestions box? :rolleyes:

[Sapiens]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

I don't pretend to the sum of all knowledge to "define inflation". That is rather something which iTulip has engaged in - for years. And I note that defining inflation specifically in terms of resource depletion has been conspicuously absent from their definitions, until "very recently". Now we suddenly are in an environment where references to it are acknowledged as "great finds".

The gentlemen doth protest too much, me thinks...

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

Lukester, if I may ask: How do you define inflation?

Being that I have seen metioned for example,"price inflation,", monetary inflation, also "statistical inflation", and what not.

I don't pretend to the sum of all knowledge to "define inflation". That is rather something which iTulip has engaged in - for years. And I note that defining inflation specifically in terms of resource depletion has been conspicuously absent from their definitions, until "very recently". Now we suddenly are in an environment where references to it are acknowledged as "great finds".

[Sapiens]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

If you are recalling scrupulously, do you actually recall anyone here having made any mention of inflation as potentially springing up from commodities before I asked Fred to clarify the point this past January? I don't. I remember, because I was combing through the archives for any reference to it, from editors, or contributors. I recall instead, a thread right around new years, where I tabled the idea that "commodities cause inflation" and an entire chorus of iTulip stalwarts chimed in saying the idea was ridiculous, that only BANKS could cause it.

I have to dig that thread up for your review. NOWHERE, in that thread, do iTulip's editors chime in with ANY clarification that inflation indeed can spring directly from commodity shortages, or supply demand imbalances. Are you on the same page with me here? The entire thread belabored the point, with every last one agreeing against my view, that inflation was ONLY FOR THE BANKS TO ISSUE. And iTulip editors did not make a peep.

Lukester, if I may ask: How do you define inflation?

Being that I have seen metioned for example,"price inflation,", monetary inflation, also "statistical inflation", and what not.

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

What are you talking about? Nowhere have we ever said that oil price increases are all due only to inflation? Have we forgotten to take our meds?

can't take yes for an answer, luke? don't be a sore winner.

JK - with the above for an acknowledgement ("have we forgotten to take our meds?") your assessment is merely evidencing what it chooses to overlook. Fred is posting a "great find!" as though this is the first time an iTuliper brought these pithy insights to their attention. Did you ever notice him offering a "great find!" when I made note of it? No? The reason it was not, is because on the first occasion an acknowledgement of this point was only extracted from Fred most grudgingly. It was considered a "belabored point" then, evidence of terribly bad manners for having even insisted on the clarification to that extent, but now it is considered a "great find".

What a Cinderella of a concept this has been.

If you are recalling scrupulously, do you actually recall anyone here having made any mention of inflation as potentially springing up from commodities before I asked Fred to clarify the point this past January? I don't. I remember, because I was combing through the archives for any reference to it, from editors, or contributors. I recall instead, a thread right around new years, where I tabled the idea that "commodities cause inflation" and an entire chorus of iTulip stalwarts chimed in saying the idea was ridiculous, that only BANKS could cause it.

I have to dig that thread up for your review. NOWHERE, in that thread, do iTulip's editors chime in with ANY clarification that inflation indeed can spring directly from commodity shortages, or supply demand imbalances. That was six months ago. Are you on the same page with me here? The entire thread belabored the point, with every last one agreeing against my view, that inflation was ONLY FOR THE BANKS TO ISSUE. And iTulip editors did not make a peep.

It is this kind of "selective recall" that calls to mind more a "circling of the wagons" than any "frank acknowledgment". Now I'm reading "have we forgotten to take our meds?", emitted with such a thick layer of self-assured patronising I could spread it with a knife, like Velveeta. How do we spell :

S E L E C T I V E ... R E C A L L ??

Thanks for your frank assessment JK. "have we forgotten to take our meds?" Takes a little bit of chutzpah, in my view.

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

moved down

[FRED]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

can't take yes for an answer, luke? don't be a sore winner.

No one will brow beat us into a position we are not able to arrive at independently through our own process and in our own time. Most understand and respect our process, others do not.

[jk]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

Yes, it's good to read a further endorsement of this notion (five months after it was submitted for iTulip's fairly reluctant initial endorsement). Looks like the majority of readers only "accept" such "strange theories" once it's been fully vetted and explicitly endorsed by iTulip. A year ago, this thesis would have garnered (actually, it did garner) a lot of guffaws around here ... I keep remarking on how many people only venture into "new and unfamiliar notions" such as inflation de-facto springing directly from the commodities themselves, before iTulip "feeds" the concept to them. Then everyone incorporates it into their accepted outlook - not before.

POSTED 01/12/08

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...24290#poststop

Here is Ken Rogoff from Harvard's Economics Department, Allen Sinai from Decision Economics, (and the Washington Post for good measure) all routinely referring to the "inflationary impact" of oil price shocks. But if you wander over to iTulip ... all one reads (embedded in many arguments) is the assumption that to the wise and discerning "oil has gone nowhere" in price, in terms of gold.

All memory has been erased, that as recently as 2006 around here, gold was not even being referred to as money at all. Back then some people around here were patiently explaining to unsophisticated newbies that gold had stopped effectively being money after Nixon closed the gold window, and anyone falling into the credulous misapprehension that gold was money would come to a bad end.
Of course, commodities rises have been paced by gold's rise, MORE or LESS. But no-one offers a murmur of disagreement on THE THESIS. The THESIS says, gold's rise alongside commodities nullifies any possibility of any "extra" source of inflation coming out of some "real" commodity price action. Any inflation surrounding commodity price action is coming from "general inflation" of assets across the board, from the "classic" sources of inflation - i.e. monopoly money. End of story.

We had another thread on these pages which discussed how inflation might really spring partially out of the real world cost inputs of "making stuff", but everyone got really dug down into their positions, "classically academic" about it. There was complete unanimity - dry, classically derived, academic unanimity - that inflationary impulses ONLY ever emanate from central banks. ... Seemed there were a lot of people very invested in this "exclusive cause" thesis ...

We might consent to remember that it's not just these two economists below who point out routinely that there are historically real inflationary outputs coming OUT OF sustained and sharply rising commodity (notably energy) prices. iTulipers can step out into the broad "blue pill world" where everyone else is operating under what iTuliper's presume is the flat holographic unreality, and notice there are more than a few economists who routinely refer to the "inflationary inputs from energy" feeding into economies at a global level.

Meanwhile, I have never read once any other iTuliper question the THESIS that "energy and commodity prices have not risen in any significant sense because they are flat against gold" - ALL are singing from one hym book - but we must note, startlingly, that these economists seem to be singing from a different hymn book entirely.

can't take yes for an answer, luke? don't be a sore winner.

[FRED]

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

Yes, it's good to read a further endorsement of this notion (five months after it was submitted for iTulip's fairly reluctant initial endorsement). Looks like the majority of readers only "accept" such "strange theories" once it's been fully vetted and explicitly endorsed by iTulip. A year ago, this thesis would have garnered (actually, it did garner) a lot of guffaws around here ... I keep remarking on how many people only venture into "new and unfamiliar notions" such as inflation de-facto springing directly from the commodities themselves, before iTulip "feeds" the concept to them. Then everyone incorporates it into their accepted outlook - not before.

POSTED 01/12/08

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...24290#poststop

Here is Ken Rogoff from Harvard's Economics Department, Allen Sinai from Decision Economics, (and the Washington Post for good measure) all routinely referring to the "inflationary impact" of oil price shocks. But if you wander over to iTulip ... all one reads (embedded in many arguments) is the assumption that to the wise and discerning "oil has gone nowhere" in price, in terms of gold.

All memory has been erased, that as recently as 2006 around here, gold was not even being referred to as money at all. Back then some people around here were patiently explaining to unsophisticated newbies that gold had stopped effectively being money after Nixon closed the gold window, and anyone falling into the credulous misapprehension that gold was money would come to a bad end.
Of course, commodities rises have been paced by gold's rise, MORE or LESS. But no-one offers a murmur of disagreement on THE THESIS. The THESIS says, gold's rise alongside commodities nullifies any possibility of any "extra" source of inflation coming out of some "real" commodity price action. Any inflation surrounding commodity price action is coming from "general inflation" of assets across the board, from the "classic" sources of inflation - i.e. monopoly money. End of story.

We had another thread on these pages which discussed how inflation might really spring partially out of the real world cost inputs of "making stuff", but everyone got really dug down into their positions, "classically academic" about it. There was complete unanimity - dry, classically derived, academic unanimity - that inflationary impulses ONLY ever emanate from central banks. ... Seemed there were a lot of people very invested in this "exclusive cause" thesis ...

We might consent to remember that it's not just these two economists below who point out routinely that there are historically real inflationary outputs coming OUT OF sustained and sharply rising commodity (notably energy) prices. iTulipers can step out into the broad "blue pill world" where everyone else is operating under what iTuliper's presume is the flat holographic unreality, and notice there are more than a few economists who routinely refer to the "inflationary inputs from energy" feeding into economies at a global level.

Meanwhile, I have never read once any other iTuliper question the THESIS that "energy and commodity prices have not risen in any significant sense because they are flat against gold" - ALL are singing from one hym book - but we must note, startlingly, that these economists seem to be singing from a different hymn book entirely.

What are you talking about? Nowhere have we ever said that oil price increases are all due only to inflation? We have been lectured for years by deflationistas that no inflation spiral is possible without wage inflation?

Have we forgotten to take our meds?

Re: Peak Cheap Oil Ends Globalization

We were told years ago that without wage inflation we can't have an inflation spiral. We said: "Bullshit." Hat tip to zmas28 for the video find!

Yes, it's good to read a further endorsement of this notion (five months after it was submitted for iTulip's fairly reluctant initial endorsement). Looks like the majority of readers only "accept" such "strange theories" once it's been fully vetted and explicitly endorsed by iTulip. A year ago, this thesis would have garnered (actually, it did garner) a lot of guffaws around here ... I keep remarking on how many people only venture into "new and unfamiliar notions" such as inflation de-facto springing directly from the commodities themselves, before iTulip "feeds" the concept to them. Then everyone incorporates it into their accepted outlook - not before.

POSTED 01/12/08

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...24290#poststop

Here is Ken Rogoff from Harvard's Economics Department, Allen Sinai from Decision Economics, (and the Washington Post for good measure) all routinely referring to the "inflationary impact" of oil price shocks. But if you wander over to iTulip ... all one reads (embedded in many arguments) is the assumption that to the wise and discerning "oil has gone nowhere" in price, in terms of gold.

All memory has been erased, that as recently as 2006 around here, gold was not even being referred to as money at all. Back then some people around here were patiently explaining to unsophisticated newbies that gold had stopped effectively being money after Nixon closed the gold window, and anyone falling into the credulous misapprehension that gold was money would come to a bad end.
Of course, commodities rises have been paced by gold's rise, MORE or LESS. But no-one offers a murmur of disagreement on THE THESIS. The THESIS says, gold's rise alongside commodities nullifies any possibility of any "extra" source of inflation coming out of some "real" commodity price action. Any inflation surrounding commodity price action is coming from "general inflation" of assets across the board, from the "classic" sources of inflation - i.e. monopoly money. End of story.

We had another thread on these pages which discussed how inflation might really spring partially out of the real world cost inputs of "making stuff", but everyone got really dug down into their positions, "classically academic" about it. There was complete unanimity - dry, classically derived, academic unanimity - that inflationary impulses ONLY ever emanate from central banks. ... Seemed there were a lot of people very invested in this "exclusive cause" thesis ...

We might consent to remember that it's not just these two economists below who point out routinely that there are historically real inflationary outputs coming OUT OF sustained and sharply rising commodity (notably energy) prices. iTulipers can step out into the broad "blue pill world" where everyone else is operating under what iTuliper's presume is the flat holographic unreality, and notice there are more than a few economists who routinely refer to the "inflationary inputs from energy" feeding into economies at a global level.

Meanwhile, I have never read once any other iTuliper question the THESIS that "energy and commodity prices have not risen in any significant sense because they are flat against gold" - ALL are singing from one hym book - but we must note, startlingly, that these economists seem to be singing from a different hymn book entirely.

[FRED]

We were told years ago that without wage inflation we can't have an inflation spiral. We said: "Bullshit." Today...

Hat tip to zmas28 for the video find!