I can't let this one go although I really should.

First of all stating that you, Lozen, believe in global warming is just an outright display of ignorance in that it is shallow and nonsensical.

Second of all when you equate scientific evaluation to an act of faith you're not only displaying ignorance you're being downright stupid.

Let me guess, you're one of the dimmer bulbs in the room.

Drinking water is a bad example. Think total water use for municipalities, sovereign nations, etc.

That's the whole point. Because it has enormous adverse effects.

And growth stops. Again, that's the whole point. Growth hinges upon energy consumption. Our entire economic system requires growth in order to function. You seem to be suggesting societies will adjust relatively smoothly as price increases. This doesn't seem to be the case today, as we watch liquidity dry up, QEx rolled out and riots expand.

There is great, great irony here. And, it's not a theory.

Anyhow, it is your choice for what you take seriously, but I understand it just fine. The problem is that supply/demand doesn't govern every aspect of human expansion the same. Most, but not all. Demand for energy is fairly inelastic (certainly over the short term). Energy is what does the actual work. Advanced societies must have ever more of it, or their engine seizes up. Why do we think the oil industry receives such enormous subsidies? Is that normal "supply/demand" at work?

Saying "they'll just use less of it" sounds nice on the surface. But it doesn't really capture what's involved in "using less of it." It only underscores the global net energy depletion equation.

Finance markets being left to their own devices don't solve everything. Policy must be established and the state has to intervene (and prepare) to some degree.

Ive said nothing about the effects of more expensive oil. It could be extremely disruptive or it could be a modestly painful drag on growth. Its not the leading or only factor behind the world's economic problems right now. Spiking oil prices through the 00's was a factor in the run up of debt that is a problem right now, but its not nearly the sole factor or simplistic story you try to lay out. Oil supplies will be the primary problem at some point, so you'll be right some day, but that day is decades off and the effects are far from known.

Im mostly just lol'ng at your previous contention that oil doesnt follow supply and demand, because its loltastic and that's the sort of thing politics unchained is for: laughing at loltastic statements. To start, following laws of supply and demand <> free markets left to their own devices to solve everything with no intervention. Your most recent water example brings the lolz too...YES, of course, if water is more expensive total water usage will be lower for municpalities, nations, etc. Its not even debatable.

I do agree that energy demand is somewhat inelastic in the short-term and that spikes in energy prices are bad for global growth. No doubt.

I am not saying all but it sure seems the the global warming naysayers tend to be religous. I find it shocking that you could believe in something no one can prove yet will not believe in something science has proven. Also I am not saying there is anything wrong in believing in God.

I thought we had an infinite supply. You're telling me we have more???

There's a saying god watches over children and fools. You're a lucky guy.

Which is amusing because religious people presume to know their Lord's workings.

You can not have a system built on infinite growth with finite resources...Well before the day it costs a barrell of oil to produce a barrell of oil systemic failure is eminent.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using 2+2 Forums

I think you guys are overlooking the potentials for Brown's Gas. Oxyhydrogen is the key to our infinite energy future.

Coulda swore the bible says " Judge not lest you be judged" though your average Christian is a hypocrit

Geothermal energy is literally unlimited (it will last as long as the sun).

Wouldn't know I'm not religious.

So is your average non christian.

But initial cost is pricey. Reality is there are many other forms of energy but Big Oil has many governments bought.

Living in Alberta and we shut the Tar Sands down yet allow fracking in in the midwest. Just doesn't seem fair

You couldn't be more wrong. Sorry.

Not sure where I EVER mentioned is was sole nor simplistic. You appear to be arguing with your own straw man. Which continues below...

Decades off? Based on what? Link your assertion.

Because I've already linked to the Pentagon, the EIA, Virgin Group, Chevron data and countless other entities that insist global production decline is set for 2013-2017.

Read what I wrote again. You appear to either not read very well, or are so locked in to your Adam Smith life lessons that you are determined to willfully re-write my position for me. What I said was: It doesn't follow "the same" supply/demand curve as almost all other things. The demand for energy is exceedingly more inelastic, and when it IS actually curtailed due to price increase, the entire system goes into systemic breakdown.

It is ironic that you're finding your straw man loltastic, however.

As for unchained, I only post here because I'm still banned from the main forum.

Curious, where do you think we'd be today without $85B/month in bond purchases the past few years? Why does he Fed funds rate blow up every time there's a crude spike? This all has nothing to do with unsustainable global oil prices?

Yes, it's "decades off."

Still arguing with a made-up position, I see. The entire point (which I wrote a few times now) is the ramifications of that "usage will be lower" assessment.

You, like so many others here, seem to agree that high oil prices would be really bad. Just that they're not that bad yet, and won't be for "decades." All righty.

You just got done suggesting the problem is decades off and the affects are far from known. The problem is here now, has been since at least 2005, and the affects are all around us, from surging grocery prices to incurable unemployment to shrinking global export rates to civil unrest throughout dozens of nations.

It's good that you agree energy "spikes" are bad for global growth. But this is more than a "spike." This is a 12-year trend far ahead of normal inflation.

For someone who adheres so religiously to the laws of "supply/demand," at what point do you actually admit to yourself that this just might already be a supply problem?

yessssssss this is what I was hoping for when I asked to free Jiggs in this forum. A+, tyty.

Hey, no problem.

So then, you don't have anything to support your "decades off - easy game" assertion. Got it.

Loltastic indeed.

I guess some contributors post based on feeling and faith-based economic principles. And others post based on actual data and hard arithmetic.

Jiggs, take a look at the threads in this forum. This isnt the forum for serious debate. Its a place to contain and be entertained by the crazier posters without strict moderation. My post was just to lol at your previous assertion in politics that energy doesnt follow supply and demand because I didnt really post in politics at the time and got so many lolz out of reading it that I wanted an encore

I do think we are decades off from energy price spikes potentially spelling the end of economic growth. Im not your google assistant, but there is plenty of evidence of world GDP growth, energy prices remaining below 2008 levels, and large increases in oil/gas reserves that are profitable at current prices (i.e. not inflation+growth).

If I decide to seriously discuss it I will do so in the main politics forum where serious discussions are supposed to go, not in the forum where we can troll crazy posters to provoke crazy responses.

You continue to be dishonest about what I said.

LOL... I'm not asking you to be my assistant. I'm wondering what you think you have that supports your feel-good story. There was "plenty of evidence" that Iraq had WMD, until you applied any semblance of critical analysis to each claim, ... and we all know how that worked out.

Uh huh. If you could seriously discuss what I'm challenging you with, you would. You wouldn't hide behind your access to the main forum, which I don't have. What you've just openly admitted is that you troll for affect. I'm not calling you a troll. That's what got me banned. I'm acknowledging you're literally calling yourself a troll.

But pretending I'm "crazy" while you're running from supporting your hollow claim just makes you look like a defeated poster with an unsupportable position. Run along then. But I have no doubt if I had access to the main forum, you'd dance away from the question there too.

"I'm right... I'd tell you all the reasons why, but I don't have to because this subforum is beneath me!"

Sound argument.

Jiggs, this thread was 100% started to troll you. Of course Im trolling you for effect.

I realize that. It's what you do.

However, I have no where else to hold "supply/demand fixes everything" schlock accountable. At least you admit you're not a serious poster. Not that that wasn't confirmed by your laughable argument to begin with.

Lololololololololololol no I didn't argue that.

Reading, how does it work?