I agree. But, c'mon, it's not like that's saying much.

If it weren't for diseases, we'd not know about penicillin?

Jiggs.

Just curious, what is it you do you for a living? Feel free to respond broadly.

I do financial advising and have passed the cfa exams, so I'm not just full of bull****.

Peak turnip will produce only: Thank god, good riddance.

I most certainly did respond. Link the post in question, and we'll review.

You lawl about the idea that we might be enduring a shortfall of consumption... Meanwhile:

Growth under 2.5% since 2009, only a little bit more than half what we've come to expect. ... But no, there's no bottleneck of global oil production or anything. We're just using less... because biofuels... no wait, nuclear.... no wait... because better gas mileage... Or something.

I see you're still demanding that exact final score before you'll take the right side. Ah well, keep relying on IEA predictions instead. Their track record has been brilliant.

LOL!!!!

Ok great. So we're back to mediocre growth now means peak oil. Kind of sad that you've dedicated your life to this.


"Exact Final Score". Lol. I'm asking for an order of magnitude final score. Because sometimes you say things like the above where PEAK OIL!!! seems to just mean medicore-to-ok (and not good/great/amazing) growth. And sometimes you seem to mean that society as we know it will end. That's quite the range you've got there.

Now? Back to? When did I deviate from the message? ... All symptoms stem from the same diagnosis. .... Much like a terminal illness, this age of net energy depletion gets worse with time, though there are good days and bad. At some point, you'll find that undeniable. ... But because you have no concept of the health of the world outside your gated community, you have a grand time denying there's any kind of problem.

Boiling frog syndrome, indeed.

Sometimes a cancer patient has no appetite... Sometimes he faints in the shower.... Other times, he's puking up blood and feeling horrific pain inside. ... Unfortunately, he still has cancer, and it has to be dealt with. ... You don't get to pretend he's been misdiagnosed because his appetite was all that ailed him in the beginning.

If you have a different diagnosis for why our growth is halved, Europe's barely has a pulse, China's is dropping precipitously, and Japan's is negative, please do share it. We'd love to hear. Perhaps you can jump on Brian's awesome "super cycle" theory. ... If not, we'll go ahead and assume - despite all your protesting - you agree the patient has cancer.

Lol, more analogies and nothing concrete. At least Jiggs from 2020 won't have to worry about people quoting 2015 Jiggs.

OK then... You don't have any other explanation...

glad you finally (tacitly) admitted it, ... whereby the patient is the global economy... and cancer is ongoing net energy depletion.

lol, Nice try.

We've covered a bunch of this **** before, and I already laid out the parameters for continuing to talk with you.

OK, well then I guess stop talking to me.

You were offered an opportunity to provide an alternate narrative, and were unable to. Straddle the fence all you like, but I'm gonna go ahead, by default, and presume you don't disagree.

I'll keep that in mind the next time you pretend net energy doesn't matter, or that unconventional oil is a vague term.

I honestly have no idea how much I disagree with you or not.* I don't think its unrealistic to expect oil/energy to be a drag on the economy for the next 2-3 decades (I don't think its unrealistic to expect it won't be either).

I just know its not civilization ending like you sometimes imply (like when you mentioned someone wouldn't have internet access if it wasn't for the free moniez from the Government keeping society from collapsing).

* I mean, I know some parts of your logic are completely wrong. But that doesn't mean your conclusions are necessarily wrong.

It's interesting that you put half your fence sitting platform in parathesis. Let's just say there is where we fundamentally disagree. It IS unrealistic to expect it won't be. I've shown why. You've countered with nothing but straw men, including pretending I "just don't understand" economics. Irony.

[/quote]

Pretty sure the figure of Americans who couldn't afford the internet in 2013 was something like 26 million. Who knows where it's at today. But again, just because you're not feeling it yet behind your gated community doesn't mean I was wrong.

You keep attempting this. OK, what part?

Wait... I thought I provided no conclusions? Which is it?

Dude, I'm not American and I don't live in a gated community.

I've already outlined many parts of your flawed logic. Why go in circles again unless you're going to provide something new?

No comment on the 26+ million who can't afford the internet in response to your arrogant attempt at ridicule, I guess. Point missed, as usual.

No, you haven't. Still waiting.

What part?

World Rig Counts Declining

Four years of weekly rig counts shows how dramatic the rig count has dropped. The US total rig count stood at 1920 as late as the first week in December and has dropped 728 rigs to 1192, a drop of 38%. From that same date oil rigs have dropped 41.5% and gas rigs have dropped 22%.

Lol peak oil barrel.com

It's almost as if a decline in prices caused a decline in production.

Should the number of americans without internet really be used as a measure of the effects of peak oil? If so, do you expect that number to rise significantly in 2014 and in the next years?

The internet comment comes from where Jiggs let slip his real doomsday beliefs:

What I'd like him to clarify is what he said afterwards, which I understood as "peak oil is coming for your internet":
It's worrying me because I like my internet. Also, my building has a gate.

I think he's just trying to walk his doomsday prediction back to a more 'reasonable' and generic 'there will be economic pain' prediction.

Not sure what you're trying to say here, as you're increasingly revealing yourself to be a fairly horrible writer. What internet comment are you referring to? I can assure you my challenge put to you was my own, and came from no where but the entirety of all the sources I use, including government reports (which you routinely deepthroat) and the those from the IEA. Not one specific site or comment.

Just to be clear, you ducked out of responding to that inquiry as well. Noted. And a good choice. One can only imagine how laughable your "no problem" essay of a world without $16 trillion in bailouts would be. Afterall, to people like you, the great correction of inflated global assets of 07-08 have nothing to do with shrinking net energy. So, surely we'd all be fine if our masters didn't intervene. And even if not, it all would have had "nothing to do with" oil volatility.

Look at you, still fixated on a prediction of that exact final score before you'll ever admit the sharps have their money in the right place. Hamster, meet wheel. Unfortunately, you have a stake in this prop, whether you laid a wager or not, and whether you like it or not.

When you're done focusing on your petty impressions of me, is there anything we can agree upon when it comes to the hard limits of complex societies? Or are you unable to concede a thing, and does "economics" somehow mean there's an escape hatch for absolutely everything?

It is exceedingly interesting to notice the similarities between the denial of peak oil and the denial of climate change. In the end, you both create gridlock by stalling and pretending there's no consensus ... or that we're "arrogant" to think we know everything, and thus, should do nothing.

You, in particular, REFUSE to move forward until I spell out my visions for some dystopian future. Odd. Further, it really screams of a person trying to glean further understanding of a dynamic he still doesn't quite understand.

Suffice to say, global net oil depletion will result in (and already is resulting in) different outcomes for different people, depending on endless variables. No one can predict how this will play out if we maintain the BAU approach that trolls like you prefer. ... Still, global tensions continue to mount, and those could accelerate the fallout (no pun intended) in very short order. But make no mistake: The vast majority of global tensions are a function of the rapidly dwindling value that a barrel of oil has for the global economy (i.e., shrinking net energy).

Peak is here. Extremely expensive North American production growth (literally the only thing maintaining global liquids stasis) is now stunted and all indication are that it will begin production decline within the next 18-24 months, and maybe as soon as this summer. One can easily guess what affects the reversal of U.S. production growth will have on the global economy. Or you can remain mired in denial and sit there. After all, this ship can't sink, right?

lol and production will go UP if prices go up again. Just ****ing amazing jiggs. This hurts your case.

No, it won't... and I've already shown why 3 or 4 times.

Follow the thread more closely, or GTFO.