Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » The Great Recession 2005-2010
The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373624] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:40
Crowley  
Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............

http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/

The Great Recession 2005-2010

THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373634 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:57
hummingbird  
On 15 Mar 2006 14:40:36 -0800, "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
>
>http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
>
>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>
>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................

There's an interesting link to an interview with a Jap banker:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200602170164.ht ml

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373636 ] Do, 16 März 2006 07:05
Kevin Hollingsworth  
It'll get worse read about Olduvai and then wake up to the nightmare to
come!
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:cqdh129tmib1q7gvrpialdimi42m3ahoql [at] 4ax.com...
> On 15 Mar 2006 14:40:36 -0800, "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
>>
>>http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
>>
>>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>>
>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>
> There's an interesting link to an interview with a Jap banker:
> http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200602170164.ht ml
>
> --
> Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
> ...Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373638 ] Do, 16 März 2006 08:13
Paul Hyett  
In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Crowley
<crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote :
>Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
>
>http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
>
>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>
>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>
Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373639 ] Do, 16 März 2006 08:30
Chris X  
"Paul Hyett" <pah [at] nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IqLcoTEiARGEFwJC [at] activist.demon.co.uk...
> In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Crowley
> <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote :
>>Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
>>
>>http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
>>
>>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>>
>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>>
> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?

It'll be our salvation.
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373644 ] Do, 16 März 2006 11:26
Crowley  
Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc on Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Crowley
> <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote :
> >Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
> >
> >http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
> >
> >The Great Recession 2005-2010
> >
> >THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
> >personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
> >setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
> >downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
> >
> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?

Don't be so naive Paul. It's too late to "avoid" it. The UK, US,
Ireland and others have had a credit fuelled spending boom resulting in
huge asset bubbles, record levels of debt, and massive global
imbalances.

That boom is now ending, credit is drying up and debts have to be
repaid. You can't buck the market. There's a credit crunch on the way
and recession (depression ?) can't be 'avoided' now whether we like it
or not ............

Personal debt harder to get

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=3D32030 8

15th March 2006: 08:00
By Jonathan Boyd

Increasing bad debt provisions are forcing lenders to reassess lending
rules and look to ensure acquisition strategies do not lead to bigger
books of bad debt, says consultant Datamonitor.

It estimates average UK personal debt is up 20% overall since mid-2004.


Average unsecured debt per adult stands at =A34,021, up 33.5% since
2001, leaving many consumers struggling.

The industry meanwhile is suffering from the increasing load that bad
debt provisions incur, with Bank of England data suggesting unsecured
debt write-offs jumped by 27.6% to =A33.7bn in the first three quarters
of 2005 compared with the same period one year earlier.

Datamonitor says interviews with lenders suggest they will turn away
increasing numbers of customers through stricter lending criteria,
while some are focusing on cross-selling to their existing customer
base.

Either way, consumers with less than stellar credit records "may find
it more difficult to get access to cheap credit," Datamonitor states.
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373645 ] Do, 16 März 2006 12:37
hummingbird  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:05:08 GMT, "Kevin Hollingsworth"
<kevin.h0llingsworth [at] ntlworld.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:cqdh129tmib1q7gvrpialdimi42m3ahoql [at] 4ax.com...
>> On 15 Mar 2006 14:40:36 -0800, "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>Are we heading for economic meltdown ? ............
>>>
>>>http://greatrecession.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>>>
>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>>
>> There's an interesting link to an interview with a Jap banker:
>> http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200602170164.ht ml


>It'll get worse read about Olduvai and then wake up to the nightmare to
>come!
>http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

My current guess is that Peak Oil will start to bite c2010-2012.
After that all bets are off!

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373646 ] Do, 16 März 2006 12:44
mmaker  
Crowley wrote:
> Don't be so naive Paul. It's too late to "avoid" it. The UK, US,
> Ireland and others have had a credit fuelled spending boom resulting in
> huge asset bubbles, record levels of debt, and massive global
> imbalances.

True: every credit binge is followed by a bust, and the greatest credit
binge the world has ever seen is unlikely to just go away without
causing a major recession or even a global depression.

That's precisely why a smart government wouldn't create a credit binge
in the first place, but unfortunately in a democracy easy credit gets
you re-elected and a sensible economic policy doesn't.

The good news is that even if the BoE refuse to raise interest rates to
reduce inflation, the banks are clearly starting to cut back on credit
themselves.

Mark
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373647 ] Do, 16 März 2006 13:01
Crowley  
hummingbird wrote:
> There's an interesting link to an interview with a Jap banker:
> http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200602170164.ht ml

That is a very telling interview. The US (and UK's) access to cheap
credit from Japan (the carry-trade) which has partly fuelled our asset
bubbles and spending booms is coming to an end.

MoneyWeek mag also comments on the imminent end of easy credit from
Japan and the probable dire consequences for the western economies
..................
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/8842/how-stoozing-could-bring- down-the-global-economy.html
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373651 ] Do, 16 März 2006 13:48
M Holmes  
In uk.finance Paul Hyett <pah [at] nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:

>>The Great Recession 2005-2010

>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................

> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?

Nope. The next great bull market will start from a base where large
swathes of debt are eroded and a return of property and land values to
where people can buy without going into a lifetime of hock.

The freeing up of people's salaries to enable them to spend it on
product rather than on debt service and property is what will drive the
next great boom.

FoFP
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373652 ] Do, 16 März 2006 13:54
M Holmes  
In uk.finance mmaker [at] my-deja.com wrote:
> Crowley wrote:

>> Don't be so naive Paul. It's too late to "avoid" it. The UK, US,
>> Ireland and others have had a credit fuelled spending boom resulting in
>> huge asset bubbles, record levels of debt, and massive global
>> imbalances.

> True: every credit binge is followed by a bust, and the greatest credit
> binge the world has ever seen is unlikely to just go away without
> causing a major recession or even a global depression.

Yup, the big difference in this long cycle of credit is that it is the
first that assets have been driven up simultaeneously in multiple
countries. We've never yet experienced what a world debt deflation is
like. We're about to create the conditions for new economics textbooks to
be written.

> That's precisely why a smart government wouldn't create a credit binge
> in the first place

The evidence from previous long cycles is that governments cannot stand
in the way of these things or they themselves will be railroaded aside
for a more compliant government (see the history of the South Seas
Bubble for a classic example). Eventually the prevailing governments
become part of the problem and they themselves are rejected for a
generation in the default and credit repudiation that follows.

> but unfortunately in a democracy easy credit gets
> you re-elected and a sensible economic policy doesn't.

Exactly so.

> The good news is that even if the BoE refuse to raise interest rates to
> reduce inflation, the banks are clearly starting to cut back on credit
> themselves.

The question for those of us who saw this coming and avoided debt is
now:

Is my money safe with these banks?

FoFP
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373653 ] Do, 16 März 2006 17:23
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:6dji12p621njatqtvqvpokbb7ut7rnu8uj [at] 4ax.com...

>
> My current guess is that Peak Oil will start to bite c2010-2012.
> After that all bets are off!


join the long line of people predicting 'peak oil' since the 1890's.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373657 ] Do, 16 März 2006 18:00
Skyes  
"Kevin Hollingsworth" <kevin.h0llingsworth [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:oe7Sf.24$dd2.2 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> It'll get worse read about Olduvai and then wake up to the nightmare to
> come!

http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/chic klicken.html

---
Sam
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373658 ] Do, 16 März 2006 18:02
Skyes  
"Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142504767.221101.111120 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

Doesn't all this 2005-2010 all imply that we are already in a recession?
Which clearly we're not.

---
Sam
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373659 ] Do, 16 März 2006 18:13
hummingbird  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:10 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>
>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:6dji12p621njatqtvqvpokbb7ut7rnu8uj [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>
>> My current guess is that Peak Oil will start to bite c2010-2012.
>> After that all bets are off!
>
>join the long line of people predicting 'peak oil' since the 1890's.

No thanks.
The early folks didn't understand all the issues, although they were
right that P/O would occur; that's a geological fact. There's enough
evidence around today to say with fair certainty that it is imminent.

My position is that we have already entered the 'phase of peak oil'
(ie I don't believe it's a binary event) and it gets worse from here,
although there will be ups/downs until the actual output pa starts to
fall, never to rise again. A serious global recession/depression would
reduce global demand and extend the day of reckoning.

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373660 ] Do, 16 März 2006 18:36
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:dn6j125q88vr0bkq8apjfkjohrki21jmge [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:10 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>
>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:6dji12p621njatqtvqvpokbb7ut7rnu8uj [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> My current guess is that Peak Oil will start to bite c2010-2012.
>>> After that all bets are off!
>>
>>join the long line of people predicting 'peak oil' since the 1890's.
>
> No thanks.
> The early folks didn't understand all the issues, although they were
> right that P/O would occur; that's a geological fact. There's enough
> evidence around today to say with fair certainty that it is imminent.
>

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1726039

massive oil find announced yesterday

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/df46e642-b42a-11da-bd61-0000779e234 0.html

massive oil find announced yesterday

> My position is that we have already entered the 'phase of peak oil'
> (ie I don't believe it's a binary event) and it gets worse from here,

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

"Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves, Alberta's oil sands deposits were
described by Time Magazine as "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure,"
and "could satisfy the world's demand for petroleum for the next century."

> although there will be ups/downs until the actual output pa starts to
> fall, never to rise again. A serious global recession/depression would
> reduce global demand and extend the day of reckoning.
>
...whilst a boom will increase the amount of money that people have to spend
on oil, and make extracting oil from costly sources economic, thus
increasing reserves......and thus also extending "the day of reckoning"....

.....which will never occur, if for no other reason that when the cost of
alternate energy sources drops below that of oil, we will *gradually* stop
using it. A long way to go before that happens though. Without the war in
Iraq the price of oil would probably be at most 1/2 of what it is now,
hardly indicative of 'the day of reckoning' being anywhere near on the
horizon.

As I said, join the queue.
--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373662 ] Do, 16 März 2006 19:40
hummingbird  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:36:34 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>
>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:dn6j125q88vr0bkq8apjfkjohrki21jmge [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:23:10 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
>> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>
>>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6dji12p621njatqtvqvpokbb7ut7rnu8uj [at] 4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My current guess is that Peak Oil will start to bite c2010-2012.
>>>> After that all bets are off!
>>>
>>>join the long line of people predicting 'peak oil' since the 1890's.
>>
>> No thanks.
>> The early folks didn't understand all the issues, although they were
>> right that P/O would occur; that's a geological fact. There's enough
>> evidence around today to say with fair certainty that it is imminent.
>>
>
>http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1726039
>
>massive oil find announced yesterday
>
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/df46e642-b42a-11da-bd61-0000779e234 0.html
>
>massive oil find announced yesterday
>
>> My position is that we have already entered the 'phase of peak oil'
>> (ie I don't believe it's a binary event) and it gets worse from here,
>
>http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp
>
>"Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves, Alberta's oil sands deposits were
>described by Time Magazine as "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure,"
>and "could satisfy the world's demand for petroleum for the next century."
>
>> although there will be ups/downs until the actual output pa starts to
>> fall, never to rise again. A serious global recession/depression would
>> reduce global demand and extend the day of reckoning.
>>
>..whilst a boom will increase the amount of money that people have to spend
>on oil, and make extracting oil from costly sources economic, thus
>increasing reserves......and thus also extending "the day of reckoning"....
>
>....which will never occur, if for no other reason that when the cost of
>alternate energy sources drops below that of oil, we will *gradually* stop
>using it. A long way to go before that happens though. Without the war in
>Iraq the price of oil would probably be at most 1/2 of what it is now,
>hardly indicative of 'the day of reckoning' being anywhere near on the
>horizon.

You don't understand what 'Peak Oil' is.

It is *not* about running out of oil, it is *not* about never finding
a new oil puddle somewhere, it is *not* about Canadian tar sands or
Venezuelan oil shale etc. It *is* about the end of cheap conventional
oil being available in sufficient quantities to meet global demand.

Go and read the many authoritative websites on the subject.
Read what the experts say.
http://www.theoildrum.com is a good start for current information.

>As I said, join the queue.

No, you join the queue of those screaming "there's no need to panic
- we aren't running out of oil". Meanwhile sit back and watch the
price rise... Have you noticed?

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373663 ] Do, 16 März 2006 19:48
Christian Konrad  
"Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................

'"THE DOWNWAVE - Surviving the second great depression" is the most
important book of the Eighties. It is the only source of practical
advice on surviving the Second Great Depression of the Twentieth
Century, a development which has already started and is destined to
affect all areas of your life.

"THE DOWNWAVE" is likely to change all aspects of society as we know
it. From fashion and entertainment to the political and spiritual,
staggering changes lie ahead. The author was the first to warn of the
dramatic events. As the recession becomes a depression, more and more
people are listening to the lone voice of Bob Beckman, the economic
genius whose forecasts have proved unerringly accurate.'
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373664 ] Do, 16 März 2006 19:32
Paul Hyett  
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Chris X
<Chris_x [at] postmaster.co.uk> wrote :
>>>
>>>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>>>
>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>>>
>> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
>
>It'll be our salvation.

How?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373665 ] Do, 16 März 2006 20:02
Chris X  
"Paul Hyett" <pah [at] nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bJ8AGeBI9aGEFwYa [at] activist.demon.co.uk...
> In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Chris X
> <Chris_x [at] postmaster.co.uk> wrote :
>>>>
>>>>The Great Recession 2005-2010
>>>>
>>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>>>>
>>> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
>>
>>It'll be our salvation.
>
> How?

Think about it.
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373668 ] Do, 16 März 2006 21:10
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:uqbj12p18t50369hgue4rehls0eurjevn5 [at] 4ax.com...

>
> You don't understand what 'Peak Oil' is.
>
> It is *not* about running out of oil, it is *not* about never finding
> a new oil puddle somewhere, it is *not* about Canadian tar sands or
> Venezuelan oil shale etc. It *is* about the end of cheap conventional
> oil being available in sufficient quantities to meet global demand.
>


Define 'cheap'. $10? $20? $50? $100? (at $100 and more alterantives start to
look v interesting. But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,
petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above that
sort of price.

Or suppose its more expensive than 'cheap' but less expensive than 'dear'.
Is that OK?

If you want to start talking about crisis points, you need to do better than
sloppy definitions such as 'cheap'.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373669 ] Do, 16 März 2006 21:12
Tumbleweed  
"Daytona" <me [at] privacy.net> wrote in message
news:97cj12t917h2je4qiol90kegnvva5pkqp7 [at] 4ax.com...
> "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................
>
> '"THE DOWNWAVE - Surviving the second great depression" is the most
> important book of the Eighties. It is the only source of practical
> advice on surviving the Second Great Depression of the Twentieth
> Century, a development which has already started and is destined to
> affect all areas of your life.
>
> "THE DOWNWAVE" is likely to change all aspects of society as we know
> it. From fashion and entertainment to the political and spiritual,
> staggering changes lie ahead. The author was the first to warn of the
> dramatic events. As the recession becomes a depression, more and more
> people are listening to the lone voice of Bob Beckman, the economic
> genius whose forecasts have proved unerringly accurate.'

Ummmm...you may not have noticed but the 80's has passed as has the 20th
century.
I havent heard Bob B on the radio for ages either. Is he still going?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373677 ] Do, 16 März 2006 23:41
hummingbird  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:10:53 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:uqbj12p18t50369hgue4rehls0eurjevn5 [at] 4ax.com...
>
>>
>> You don't understand what 'Peak Oil' is.
>>
>> It is *not* about running out of oil, it is *not* about never finding
>> a new oil puddle somewhere, it is *not* about Canadian tar sands or
>> Venezuelan oil shale etc. It *is* about the end of cheap conventional
>> oil being available in sufficient quantities to meet global demand.
>>
>
>
>Define 'cheap'.

You misunderstand what is meant by 'cheap conventional oil'...

It's not a term that I introduced. Experts use it to mean oil which
is cheap to harvest and 'cheap to get from the well to the pump',
relative to other oils which are more expensive to harvest. This
usually refers to the second half of oil in an oil well or other oil
sources like tar sands and shale - all of which cost much more and
often have a much poorer EROEI than conventional oil.

You also need to look at the price over time. Conventional oil went
down to ~$9pb once, now it's at ~$60pb and will rise as conventional
oil output slows and the world is forced to harvest more heavy oil.

The end of cheap conventional oil is what Peak Oil is all about.
If you don't like the term, I suggest you write to a thousand oil
geologists and other experts and complain to them.

>$10? $20? $50? $100? (at $100 and more alterantives start to
>look v interesting.

What alternatives are they then?
Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
There are a range of alternatives which can replace small quantities
of oil for some uses but most alts have limitations and downsides -
eg Canadian tar sands have a poor EROEI compared to conventional oil
and processing uses lots of gas and produces environmental damage.

>But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,

Who's going to do that then? Govt? Forget it.
Even if you did remove fuel tax it will cause consumption to increase,
exactly what you do *not* want when supply is becoming constrained.

>petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
>interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above that
>sort of price.

No, environmental regs increasingly prevent coal coming back.
And you can't have a mini-power station in the boot of your car.

>Or suppose its more expensive than 'cheap' but less expensive than 'dear'.
>Is that OK?
>
>If you want to start talking about crisis points, you need to do better than
>sloppy definitions such as 'cheap'.

I think I've explained "cheap" above.
Have you done some reading about Peak Oil yet? You'll be an expert
tomorrow!

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373678 ] Do, 16 März 2006 23:47
Mabon Dane  
House prices up
Unemployment up
Borrowing up
Recession in manufactoring up
Service industries holding
Interest rates holding
Bills e.g. council tax up
Wages holding

The market is being held together by house prices. It is a bubble like
the South Sea Bubble. It will burst but I am not sure when.

Mabon Dane
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373679 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 00:17
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:4ioj12lja5thtg6lf3iuvd2tnvgrtq5tu5 [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:10:53 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:uqbj12p18t50369hgue4rehls0eurjevn5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>> You don't understand what 'Peak Oil' is.
>>>
>>> It is *not* about running out of oil, it is *not* about never finding
>>> a new oil puddle somewhere, it is *not* about Canadian tar sands or
>>> Venezuelan oil shale etc. It *is* about the end of cheap conventional
>>> oil being available in sufficient quantities to meet global demand.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Define 'cheap'.
>
> You misunderstand what is meant by 'cheap conventional oil'...

I dont 'misunderstand', I have no idea what you mean, since cheap is a
meaningless term.

>
> It's not a term that I introduced. Experts use it to mean oil which
> is cheap to harvest and 'cheap to get from the well to the pump',
> relative to other oils which are more expensive to harvest. This
> usually refers to the second half of oil in an oil well or other oil
> sources like tar sands and shale - all of which cost much more and
> often have a much poorer EROEI than conventional oil.

So what. The thing that matters is, is it affordable, by which I'll at least
start to define the term, "does it have a significant impact upon the
economy". relative to the oil crisis of the 80's, oil is now only 1/3 or so
as significant as it was then, (significant in terms of GDP, expenditure
etc). BTW, tar sands just cost more to extract, but they are still economic
to extract
>
> You also need to look at the price over time. Conventional oil went
> down to ~$9pb once, now it's at ~$60pb and will rise as conventional
> oil output slows and the world is forced to harvest more heavy oil.
>
> The end of cheap conventional oil is what Peak Oil is all about.
> If you don't like the term, I suggest you write to a thousand oil
> geologists and other experts and complain to them.
>
>>$10? $20? $50? $100? (at $100 and more alterantives start to
>>look v interesting.
>
> What alternatives are they then?
> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.

Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
alternative.
Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.

> There are a range of alternatives which can replace small quantities
> of oil for some uses but most alts have limitations and downsides -
> eg Canadian tar sands have a poor EROEI compared to conventional oil
> and processing uses lots of gas and produces environmental damage.

irrelevant, we are discussing if its affordable. 'poor' is relative to
'almost no cost', what counts is, it it better than 1? Which tar sands are,
by a long shot, thast why the economy of Alberta is booming. And
environmental damafge is a cost issue rather than a static thing...can we
extract it, accounting for and rectifying the damage, at an economic cost?

>
>>But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,
>
> Who's going to do that then? Govt? Forget it.

You forgot they didnt go ahead with a planned rise due to public pressure.

> Even if you did remove fuel tax it will cause consumption to increase,
> exactly what you do *not* want when supply is becoming constrained.

Not if the tax was reduced on a sliding scale so that the end price to the
consumer didnt fall or rose slower than otherwise. If the price of oil
doubled, that would only add about 25% or less to the price of petrol in
this country (depends on the tax regime)

>
>>petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
>>interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above
>>that
>>sort of price.
>
> No, environmental regs increasingly prevent coal coming back.

Check up on 'clean coal'.

> And you can't have a mini-power station in the boot of your car.

Check up on fuel cells, that would count. Its just a matter of cost.

>
>>Or suppose its more expensive than 'cheap' but less expensive than 'dear'.
>>Is that OK?
>>
>>If you want to start talking about crisis points, you need to do better
>>than
>>sloppy definitions such as 'cheap'.
>
> I think I've explained "cheap" above.
> Have you done some reading about Peak Oil yet? You'll be an expert
> tomorrow!
>

AFAICS from your explanation, 'cheap' is defined as the past historical cost
of extracting oil. If all that peak oil means is that oil is more expensive
than it was to extract, so what, unless the price is such that it causes an
economic issue. We survived the 70's oil crisis, which was much more
damaging in rekative terms than even a doubling of the currenbt oil price
would be.

Tw
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373681 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 00:36
hummingbird  
On 16 Mar 2006 14:47:28 -0800, "Mabon Dane" <1dane [at] h2009.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>House prices up
>Unemployment up
>Borrowing up
>Recession in manufactoring up
>Service industries holding
>Interest rates holding
>Bills e.g. council tax up
>Wages holding
>
>The market is being held together by house prices. It is a bubble like
>the South Sea Bubble. It will burst but I am not sure when.

You're forgiven, timing of predictions is always the most difficult
part given governmental powers to defer the inevitable.

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373688 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 08:31
Paul Hyett  
In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Chris X
<Chris_x [at] postmaster.co.uk> wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION
>>>>>
>>>> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
>>>
>>>It'll be our salvation.
>>
>> How?
>
>Think about it.
>
I did, but not being telepathic I have to ask the question.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373689 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 09:21
Miop  
M Holmes wrote:


>
> The question for those of us who saw this coming and avoided debt is
> now:
>
> Is my money safe with these banks?

My question would be, is my land safe with these banks? If there is a
serious money problem, surely only hard assets like rare metals and
land will be worth anything. There needs to be no reason for the bank
to repossess your house - my nightmare scenario is that banks will call
in all their mortgages and leave an awful lot of people homeless.
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373690 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 09:23
Miop  
Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Chris X
> <Chris_x [at] postmaster.co.uk> wrote :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION
> >>>>>
> >>>> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
> >>>
> >>>It'll be our salvation.
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> >Think about it.
> >
> I did, but not being telepathic I have to ask the question.

Matthew Parris yesterday commented (on TV) that Britain was virtually a
banana republic now. A deep depression would be the only thing which
wakes these people [1.] up.

1. People who are so soothed by the comfort of money and possessions
that they have forgotten that it is their duty (as well as their right)
to call their government to account when they behave in a corrupt or
dictatorial fashion).
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373691 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 09:29
Miop  
Sam Smith wrote:
> "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1142504767.221101.111120 [at] p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Doesn't all this 2005-2010 all imply that we are already in a recession?
> Which clearly we're not.
>

It feels to me like we have been in a recession for a very long time
(since 1990) - this has been masked by the pretendy wealth people have
acquired through stupid house price increases and debt. They are now
capitalising that debt over the period of their mortgages. Surely this
must have long-term implications to economic growth (though I can see
that it might still lead to one more round of serious money-borrowing).
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373697 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 13:19
M Holmes  
In uk.finance Daytona <me [at] privacy.net> wrote:
> "Crowley" <crowleyalastair [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION : A wild expansion in government and
>>personal borrowing has fuelled credit growth in the period 1996-2004
>>setting many English-speaking and other Western economies for a serious
>>downturn....the Great Recession 2005-2010....................

> '"THE DOWNWAVE - Surviving the second great depression" is the most
> important book of the Eighties. It is the only source of practical
> advice on surviving the Second Great Depression of the Twentieth
> Century, a development which has already started and is destined to
> affect all areas of your life.

> "THE DOWNWAVE" is likely to change all aspects of society as we know
> it. From fashion and entertainment to the political and spiritual,
> staggering changes lie ahead. The author was the first to warn of the
> dramatic events. As the recession becomes a depression, more and more
> people are listening to the lone voice of Bob Beckman, the economic
> genius whose forecasts have proved unerringly accurate.'

I've read it, though inconveniently I've lost my copy. Didn't Beckman
predict the primary K-wave recession for 1985 and made no prediction for
the date of the secondary deflationary recession?

FoFP
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373698 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 13:27
hummingbird  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:17:58 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:4ioj12lja5thtg6lf3iuvd2tnvgrtq5tu5 [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:10:53 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
>> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:uqbj12p18t50369hgue4rehls0eurjevn5 [at] 4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't understand what 'Peak Oil' is.
>>>>
>>>> It is *not* about running out of oil, it is *not* about never finding
>>>> a new oil puddle somewhere, it is *not* about Canadian tar sands or
>>>> Venezuelan oil shale etc. It *is* about the end of cheap conventional
>>>> oil being available in sufficient quantities to meet global demand.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Define 'cheap'.
>>
>> You misunderstand what is meant by 'cheap conventional oil'...
>
>I dont 'misunderstand', I have no idea what you mean, since cheap is a
>meaningless term.

Well you would understand if you did some reading of the many reports
and websites on the subject of 'cheap conventional oil'.

>> It's not a term that I introduced. Experts use it to mean oil which
>> is cheap to harvest and 'cheap to get from the well to the pump',
>> relative to other oils which are more expensive to harvest. This
>> usually refers to the second half of oil in an oil well or other oil
>> sources like tar sands and shale - all of which cost much more and
>> often have a much poorer EROEI than conventional oil.
>
>So what. The thing that matters is, is it affordable, by which I'll at least
>start to define the term, "does it have a significant impact upon the
>economy".

The cost of energy is an important factor in most production processes
and goods are priced accordingly. If the cost goes up, so does the
price and so does inflation etc. Every £100 extra you spend on energy
is £100 you don't spend on other goods/services. Consider that.

Consider the cost of getting food to the supermarkets if oil were $150
per barrel. Consider the impact on prices given that virtually
everything is delivered by truck. Consider the cost of raw foods given
that farming is heavily mechanised.

>relative to the oil crisis of the 80's, oil is now only 1/3 or so
>as significant as it was then, (significant in terms of GDP, expenditure
>etc). BTW, tar sands just cost more to extract, but they are still economic
>to extract

You ignore the EROEI and high usage of gas to process tar sands, let
alone the environmental damage it causes.

>> You also need to look at the price over time. Conventional oil went
>> down to ~$9pb once, now it's at ~$60pb and will rise as conventional
>> oil output slows and the world is forced to harvest more heavy oil.
>>
>> The end of cheap conventional oil is what Peak Oil is all about.
>> If you don't like the term, I suggest you write to a thousand oil
>> geologists and other experts and complain to them.
>>
>>>$10? $20? $50? $100? (at $100 and more alterantives start to
>>>look v interesting.
>>
>> What alternatives are they then?
>> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
>
>Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
>alternative.
>Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.

Too many to list. Try fuel for aeroplanes. Plastics manufacture.
You really should do some research.

>> There are a range of alternatives which can replace small quantities
>> of oil for some uses but most alts have limitations and downsides -
>> eg Canadian tar sands have a poor EROEI compared to conventional oil
>> and processing uses lots of gas and produces environmental damage.
>
>irrelevant, we are discussing if its affordable.

No, you are.
My debate is about the forthcoming event of Peak Oil.

>'poor' is relative to
>'almost no cost', what counts is, it it better than 1? Which tar sands are,
>by a long shot, thast why the economy of Alberta is booming. And
>environmental damafge is a cost issue rather than a static thing...can we
>extract it, accounting for and rectifying the damage, at an economic cost?

The costs of tar sands production pb is higher than conventional oil.

>>>But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,
>>
>> Who's going to do that then? Govt? Forget it.
>
>You forgot they didnt go ahead with a planned rise due to public pressure.

Trivial. The UK govt collects huge sums from fuel duty.

>> Even if you did remove fuel tax it will cause consumption to increase,
>> exactly what you do *not* want when supply is becoming constrained.
>
>Not if the tax was reduced on a sliding scale so that the end price to the
>consumer didnt fall or rose slower than otherwise. If the price of oil
>doubled, that would only add about 25% or less to the price of petrol in
>this country (depends on the tax regime)

The govt collects fuel taxes to spend on other programmes.
They cannot just be 'switched off'.

>>>petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
>>>interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above
>>>that
>>>sort of price.
>>
>> No, environmental regs increasingly prevent coal coming back.
>
>Check up on 'clean coal'.

Check what up? I know there are technologies being developed but they
still won't replace cheap conventional oil for all its uses.

>> And you can't have a mini-power station in the boot of your car.
>
>Check up on fuel cells, that would count. Its just a matter of cost.

And that hydrogen is a relatively poor EROEI product despite its
end-use environmental benefits.

>>>Or suppose its more expensive than 'cheap' but less expensive than 'dear'.
>>>Is that OK?
>>>
>>>If you want to start talking about crisis points, you need to do better
>>>than
>>>sloppy definitions such as 'cheap'.
>>
>> I think I've explained "cheap" above.
>> Have you done some reading about Peak Oil yet? You'll be an expert
>> tomorrow!
>>
>
>AFAICS from your explanation, 'cheap' is defined as the past historical cost
>of extracting oil. If all that peak oil means is that oil is more expensive
>than it was to extract, so what, unless the price is such that it causes an
>economic issue.

Which it will. Get used to it.

>We survived the 70's oil crisis, which was much more
>damaging in rekative terms than even a doubling of the currenbt oil price
>would be.

I'd be far happier if you did some research on the subject instead of
coming out with classic economist solutions.

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373707 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 18:13
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:tgtj12pnbg323lah48c93bdb481iblgv0m [at] 4ax.com...
> On 16 Mar 2006 14:47:28 -0800, "Mabon Dane" <1dane [at] h2009.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>House prices up
>>Unemployment up
>>Borrowing up
>>Recession in manufactoring up
>>Service industries holding
>>Interest rates holding
>>Bills e.g. council tax up
>>Wages holding
>>
>>The market is being held together by house prices. It is a bubble like
>>the South Sea Bubble. It will burst but I am not sure when.
>
> You're forgiven, timing of predictions is always the most difficult
> part given governmental powers to defer the inevitable.

"Forecasting is difficult, especially of the future"

Mark Twain I believe.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373709 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 19:00
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:kk9l121hm6kn2d03o33tm9v4k4kvstuvjf [at] 4ax.com...
>>> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
>>
>>Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
>>alternative.
>>Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.
>
> Too many to list. Try fuel for aeroplanes. Plastics manufacture.
> You really should do some research.

Fuel for aeroplanes can be made from coal (the Germans did it in WW2!)
Plastics can be made from organic materials.
As I said, its a matter of price.

>
> My debate is about the forthcoming event of Peak Oil.

More scaremongering. For example, the site I looked at makes a great play of
the fact that US domestic oil production peaked in 1970, as was predicted.
However it doesnt mention that this is because cheaper oil was available
elsewhere, not because the US ran out of oil.

>
>>'poor' is relative to
>>'almost no cost', what counts is, it it better than 1? Which tar sands
>>are,
>>by a long shot, thast why the economy of Alberta is booming. And
>>environmental damafge is a cost issue rather than a static thing...can we
>>extract it, accounting for and rectifying the damage, at an economic cost?
>
> The costs of tar sands production pb is higher than conventional oil.
>
>>>>But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,
>>>
>>> Who's going to do that then? Govt? Forget it.
>>
>>You forgot they didnt go ahead with a planned rise due to public pressure.
>
> Trivial. The UK govt collects huge sums from fuel duty.

Not trivial, because your point was that the govt wouldnt alter its policy
on tax. It did.

>
>>> Even if you did remove fuel tax it will cause consumption to increase,
>>> exactly what you do *not* want when supply is becoming constrained.
>>
>>Not if the tax was reduced on a sliding scale so that the end price to the
>>consumer didnt fall or rose slower than otherwise. If the price of oil
>>doubled, that would only add about 25% or less to the price of petrol in
>>this country (depends on the tax regime)
>
> The govt collects fuel taxes to spend on other programmes.
> They cannot just be 'switched off'.

They dont need to be switched off. At the moment as the price of oil
increases, the tax take on petrol also increases. The tax take could be held
constant whilst the price of petrol rose.

>
>>>>petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
>>>>interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above
>>>>that
>>>>sort of price.
>>>
>>> No, environmental regs increasingly prevent coal coming back.
>>
>>Check up on 'clean coal'.
>
> Check what up? I know there are technologies being developed but they
> still won't replace cheap conventional oil for all its uses.

They may replace more expensive oil though, its all a matter of price/cost.
At a certain oil price, they *will* replace it.

>
>>> And you can't have a mini-power station in the boot of your car.
>>
>>Check up on fuel cells, that would count. Its just a matter of cost.
>
> And that hydrogen is a relatively poor EROEI product despite its
> end-use environmental benefits.

I was just pointing out that you *can* have a "mini-power station in the
boot of your car".
Other alteratives include more efficient engines (double mpg= halving price
of petrol), change of habits to use less petrol, etc.

>
>>>
>>
>>AFAICS from your explanation, 'cheap' is defined as the past historical
>>cost
>>of extracting oil. If all that peak oil means is that oil is more
>>expensive
>>than it was to extract, so what, unless the price is such that it causes
>>an
>>economic issue.
>
> Which it will. Get used to it.

No need to, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, if the US moved
away from SUVs, they could easily double mpg, which would be roughly
equivalent to halving the price of oil. They could probably go to triple mpg
just by using European-type cars and not the huge monsters they have today
(compared to ours). They will do that at a particular pain point re the
price of oil. At other pain points, other alteratives will come into play,
all mitigating against the rise (conservation, new more efficient
technology, renewables, nuclear).
Currently we waste vast amounts of energy (=oil) because we dont have much
incentive not to do so but even with todays technology it wouldnt be much of
a stretch to halve or more oil use, without doing anything radical.

>
>>We survived the 70's oil crisis, which was much more
>>damaging in rekative terms than even a doubling of the currenbt oil price
>>would be.
>
> I'd be far happier if you did some research on the subject instead of
> coming out with classic economist solutions.

I have. In fact, at your urging I serached and found many sites, mostly
based on the predictiosn of hubbert, and then I found this site which
rubished his predictions. Now, I believe its a right wing site, and is
coming from a particular POV with point to make, but it has specific numbers
and details which you'd have to disprove even after shooting the messenger;
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

Certainly it seems to me to do a better job of outlining the facts than the
peak oil sites I read, which essentially seem to be 'hubbert got it right in
1970 therefore everything he says must be right'.


--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373719 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 23:18
Chris X  
"Maria" <info [at] tajarts.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142583829.857195.67520 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>> In uk.politics.misc on Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Chris X
>> <Chris_x [at] postmaster.co.uk> wrote :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>THE SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Surely that is something to avoid, rather than glory in?
>> >>>
>> >>>It'll be our salvation.
>> >>
>> >> How?
>> >
>> >Think about it.
>> >
>> I did, but not being telepathic I have to ask the question.
>
> Matthew Parris yesterday commented (on TV) that Britain was virtually a
> banana republic now. A deep depression would be the only thing which
> wakes these people [1.] up.
>
> 1. People who are so soothed by the comfort of money and possessions
> that they have forgotten that it is their duty (as well as their right)
> to call their government to account when they behave in a corrupt or
> dictatorial fashion).

(Applause !) for Maria !
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373730 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 13:45
hummingbird  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:00:40 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:kk9l121hm6kn2d03o33tm9v4k4kvstuvjf [at] 4ax.com...
>>>> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
>>>
>>>Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
>>>alternative.
>>>Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.
>>
>> Too many to list. Try fuel for aeroplanes. Plastics manufacture.
>> You really should do some research.
>
>Fuel for aeroplanes can be made from coal (the Germans did it in WW2!)
>Plastics can be made from organic materials.
>As I said, its a matter of price.

Rotfl.

>> My debate is about the forthcoming event of Peak Oil.
>
>More scaremongering. For example, the site I looked at makes a great play of
>the fact that US domestic oil production peaked in 1970, as was predicted.
>However it doesnt mention that this is because cheaper oil was available
>elsewhere, not because the US ran out of oil.

You have fallen into the trap of mixing up 'peak oil' with 'running
out of oil'. They are two very different things which happen at
different times.

US oil production did peak c1970 as predicted by Hubbert.
It has never regained its earlier output levels and never will.

Oil will not run out for 25-30 years but peak oil is fairly imminent
(IMV we have already entered the phase of p/o and this will be a
rocky ride) which will cause the price to rise as production and
processing costs rise.

This will create a number of economic problems - eg: higher inflation,
higher interest rates, lower growth, lower investment, more home
repossessions (possible collapse in housing market), recession, higher
unemployment, potential social unrest and break down in law/order if
it gets bad.

Energy wars are also on the cards but I will not predict how fast
and how bad it could get. I don't share some of the worst case
scenarios predicted - eg a huge global die-off.

>>>'poor' is relative to
>>>'almost no cost', what counts is, it it better than 1? Which tar sands
>>>are,
>>>by a long shot, thast why the economy of Alberta is booming. And
>>>environmental damafge is a cost issue rather than a static thing...can we
>>>extract it, accounting for and rectifying the damage, at an economic cost?
>>
>> The costs of tar sands production pb is higher than conventional oil.
>>
>>>>>But even at $100, if you took the tax off at the pumps,
>>>>
>>>> Who's going to do that then? Govt? Forget it.
>>>
>>>You forgot they didnt go ahead with a planned rise due to public pressure.
>>
>> Trivial. The UK govt collects huge sums from fuel duty.
>
>Not trivial, because your point was that the govt wouldnt alter its policy
>on tax. It did.

I never made that point. Tinkering around the edges is not really
equivalent to altering policy.

>>>> Even if you did remove fuel tax it will cause consumption to increase,
>>>> exactly what you do *not* want when supply is becoming constrained.
>>>
>>>Not if the tax was reduced on a sliding scale so that the end price to the
>>>consumer didnt fall or rose slower than otherwise. If the price of oil
>>>doubled, that would only add about 25% or less to the price of petrol in
>>>this country (depends on the tax regime)
>>
>> The govt collects fuel taxes to spend on other programmes.
>> They cannot just be 'switched off'.
>
>They dont need to be switched off. At the moment as the price of oil
>increases, the tax take on petrol also increases. The tax take could be held
>constant whilst the price of petrol rose.

See above consequences of higher oil prices.

>>>>>petrol would be cheaper than now and the alternatives wouldnt look
>>>>>interesting any more. And for power generation, coal comes back, above
>>>>>that
>>>>>sort of price.
>>>>
>>>> No, environmental regs increasingly prevent coal coming back.
>>>
>>>Check up on 'clean coal'.
>>
>> Check what up? I know there are technologies being developed but they
>> still won't replace cheap conventional oil for all its uses.
>
>They may replace more expensive oil though, its all a matter of price/cost.
>At a certain oil price, they *will* replace it.

You seem to ignore that current economics are based upon cheap
oil/energy. If a new source of energy becomes available but is much
more expensive, that will affect prices and inflation etc. See above.

As I said earlier: for every extra £100 you spend on energy, that's
£100 less you have to spend on other goods/services. Multiply that by
Britain's population, then by the global population and you have the
makings of full blown global economic dislocation.

>>>> And you can't have a mini-power station in the boot of your car.
>>>
>>>Check up on fuel cells, that would count. Its just a matter of cost.
>>
>> And that hydrogen is a relatively poor EROEI product despite its
>> end-use environmental benefits.
>
>I was just pointing out that you *can* have a "mini-power station in the
>boot of your car".

No you can't. If hydrogen ever becomes widespread, you will tank up
with the stuff, it won't be produced in your car boot!

>Other alteratives include more efficient engines (double mpg= halving price
>of petrol), change of habits to use less petrol, etc.

There are many actions which can be taken to help reduce the crises
but nothing will make it go away and we are talking here of a crises
which is gathering momentum each year as more and more oil wells
'peak' - ie it's not a temporary crises.

Fact is: there is no known like-for-like replacement of cheap oil
despite what the polyanas say.

>>>AFAICS from your explanation, 'cheap' is defined as the past historical
>>>cost
>>>of extracting oil. If all that peak oil means is that oil is more
>>>expensive
>>>than it was to extract, so what, unless the price is such that it causes
>>>an
>>>economic issue.
>>
>> Which it will. Get used to it.
>
>No need to, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, if the US moved
>away from SUVs, they could easily double mpg, which would be roughly
>equivalent to halving the price of oil. They could probably go to triple mpg
>just by using European-type cars and not the huge monsters they have today
>(compared to ours). They will do that at a particular pain point re the
>price of oil. At other pain points, other alteratives will come into play,
>all mitigating against the rise (conservation, new more efficient
>technology, renewables, nuclear).
>Currently we waste vast amounts of energy (=oil) because we dont have much
>incentive not to do so but even with todays technology it wouldnt be much of
>a stretch to halve or more oil use, without doing anything radical.

You're a pollyana.

>>>We survived the 70's oil crisis, which was much more
>>>damaging in rekative terms than even a doubling of the currenbt oil price
>>>would be.
>>
>> I'd be far happier if you did some research on the subject instead of
>> coming out with classic economist solutions.
>
>I have. In fact, at your urging I serached and found many sites, mostly
>based on the predictiosn of hubbert, and then I found this site which
>rubished his predictions. Now, I believe its a right wing site, and is
>coming from a particular POV with point to make, but it has specific numbers
>and details which you'd have to disprove even after shooting the messenger;
>http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/
>
>Certainly it seems to me to do a better job of outlining the facts than the
>peak oil sites I read, which essentially seem to be 'hubbert got it right in
>1970 therefore everything he says must be right'.

Experts like Campbell and Simmons are getting it right today.

This topic has been debated ad nauseam for three years ...you're a
bit late to join the party.

The first thing to do is to understand oil geology, not to mix up
'peak oil' with 'running out of oil' and understand the effect on
economics of getting oil *from the well to the pump* at rising prices.

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373736 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 19:27
Tumbleweed  
"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:t9un12ld2orbrib50tot60k9ol4c06p6nu [at] 4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:00:40 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>news:kk9l121hm6kn2d03o33tm9v4k4kvstuvjf [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
>>>>
>>>>Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
>>>>alternative.
>>>>Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.
>>>
>>> Too many to list. Try fuel for aeroplanes. Plastics manufacture.
>>> You really should do some research.
>>
>>Fuel for aeroplanes can be made from coal (the Germans did it in WW2!)
>>Plastics can be made from organic materials.
>>As I said, its a matter of price.
>
> Rotfl.

As I said, fuel from coal is old hat, 60+ years ago, re plastics, DuPont
arent laughing, they are already doing it. Oil is just carbon and hydrogen
and a few other elements, and there is *nothing* that is made from oil that
cannot be made from other sources of carbon.

>
> US oil production did peak c1970 as predicted by Hubbert.
> It has never regained its earlier output levels and never will.

at least partly because its cheaper to get it elsewhere. Same reason no one
was looking at the Alberta tar sands until 5 or so years ago. Hubbert got
lots of things wrong as well.Its like the people who point to Soros'
pronouncements as being mystically correct, he has screwed up big time
several times, he just happened to have that one big win, but neither he nor
than Hubbert are omniscient .



--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373737 ] Sa, 18 März 2006 22:32
andrew.mcp  
thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com (Tumbleweed) wrote:

> there is *nothing* that is made from oil that
> cannot be made from other sources of carbon.

But modern economies depend upon the ease with which oil can be (a)
produced and (b) processed. There will always be alternative, like the
very expensive Alberta oil sands, but economies will have to adapt to
much higher energy and materials costs as demand really starts to
outstrip supply. Inevitably that will mean more pressure on the few
variables anyone will have control over... chiefly the cost of labour.
Which puts highly developed nations at a significant disadvantage.

It's easy to get caught up in a disaster movie scenario, but as current
gas pricing indicates, it's not what's left that matters, it's how fast
you can get it to where it's needed.

Andrew McP
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373744 ] So, 19 März 2006 09:12
hummingbird  
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:27:30 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:t9un12ld2orbrib50tot60k9ol4c06p6nu [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:00:40 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
>> <thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kk9l121hm6kn2d03o33tm9v4k4kvstuvjf [at] 4ax.com...
>>>>>> Get this: there is no direct replacement to oil for many current uses.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course there are. The only thing at issue is the price of the
>>>>>alternative.
>>>>>Name one use of oil that *cannot* be replaced by an alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Too many to list. Try fuel for aeroplanes. Plastics manufacture.
>>>> You really should do some research.
>>>
>>>Fuel for aeroplanes can be made from coal (the Germans did it in WW2!)
>>>Plastics can be made from organic materials.
>>>As I said, its a matter of price.
>>
>> Rotfl.
>
>As I said, fuel from coal is old hat, 60+ years ago, re plastics, DuPont
>arent laughing, they are already doing it. Oil is just carbon and hydrogen
>and a few other elements, and there is *nothing* that is made from oil that
>cannot be made from other sources of carbon.
>
>>
>> US oil production did peak c1970 as predicted by Hubbert.
>> It has never regained its earlier output levels and never will.
>
>at least partly because its cheaper to get it elsewhere. Same reason no one
>was looking at the Alberta tar sands until 5 or so years ago. Hubbert got
>lots of things wrong as well.Its like the people who point to Soros'
>pronouncements as being mystically correct, he has screwed up big time
>several times, he just happened to have that one big win, but neither he nor
>than Hubbert are omniscient .

Sooooo would a fair summary of your position be that:
.....
'Peak Oil' is an overblown nonsense and the predicted economic
& social problems will not arise because there is a plentiful supply
of other oil sources and alternative energy freely available, albeit
at slightly higher prices. The experts have got it wrong.
.....

You may want to read this recent post on ukpm from Daniel Lavigne:
Message-ID: <7v1Tf.18131$ng.737887 [at] news20.bellglobal.com>

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Re: The Great Recession 2005-2010 [message #373752 ] So, 19 März 2006 13:34
hummingbird  
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:13:07 -0000, "Tumbleweed"
<thisaccountneverread [at] yahoo.com>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...

>"hummingbird" <OPRBMDQMZNLV [at] spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:tgtj12pnbg323lah48c93bdb481iblgv0m [at] 4ax.com...
>> On 16 Mar 2006 14:47:28 -0800, "Mabon Dane" <1dane [at] h2009.com>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>>House prices up
>>>Unemployment up
>>>Borrowing up
>>>Recession in manufactoring up
>>>Service industries holding
>>>Interest rates holding
>>>Bills e.g. council tax up
>>>Wages holding
>>>
>>>The market is being held together by house prices. It is a bubble like
>>>the South Sea Bubble. It will burst but I am not sure when.
>>
>> You're forgiven, timing of predictions is always the most difficult
>> part given governmental powers to defer the inevitable.
>
>"Forecasting is difficult, especially of the future"

Quite so.

>Mark Twain I believe.

What a clever bloke he was ;-)

--
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
....Will Durant
Vorheriges Thema:Company Car Mileage - Advice Please
Nächstes Thema:"Reminiscences of a Stock Operator!"
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 02:42:40 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06672 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum - Links ::.

Powered