Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

[rjwjr]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Not that I think the sky is falling, but you have to "buy" it at some point. There is a limited supply of oil & minerals.

There may be a limited supply of oil, but there is not a limited supply of energy creating resources. Ethanol may not be as efficient as petroleum based fuels in powering our cars, but I don't know that you can make an argument that corn is in limited supply, nor wind, nor solar. They are not today's best options, but once oil runs out or becomes too expensive, we move on to what's next...and not all of those choices are limited.

[metalman]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Sorry, no.

1] I agree with metalman that the free-market will best decide these issues.

2] "Necessity, who is the mother of invention." Plato
I also believe that smart, greedy, and/or lucky people will find alternatives when needed. For example, your idea of mining other planets for materials/metals sounds like a cool solution (once the economics are right).

3] Issues such as these are so complex and dependent on so many factors that I just can't worry about them. For the same reasons (complexity, many factors) I also worry that we could take actions that may be wrong, harmful, or have uninteded negative consequences. With issues of the scope and complexity of these, I'm more of a "let the chips fall where they may then make the best of it" guy.

not only am i saying the market is best, we have no choice. there is no austerity program except price. china is not going to negotiate with the west to use less nickel, oil, copper, etc. anymore than they're willing to go along with the cap and trade scam. we'll all keep using them up, prices will rise, substitutes will be developed/used where possible and we all use less of everything else. how much whale oil do you use? used to be the only oil used for heating and lighting. candles and gas for lighting? not anymore.

[jtabeb]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

There may be a limited supply of oil, but there is not a limited supply of energy creating resources. Ethanol may not be as efficient as petroleum based fuels in powering our cars, but I don't know that you can make an argument that corn is in limited supply, nor wind, nor solar. They are not today's best options, but once oil runs out or becomes too expensive, we move on to what's next...and not all of those choices are limited.

Understand "BOOTSTRAPPING" and I think your opinion would change about 180 Degs. You have to be ABLE to get THERE (Alt-E) from HERE (Petro Fuels).

[flintlock]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

[quote=jtabeb;96473]

I would point out, Again, that if you see no value or purpose in space exploration, this should change your mind. If for no other reason than it represents the ONLY untapped material resources that will be required to sustain our technological development.

Is potential tapping minerals on the moon a stated purpose of NASA? I've never heard of this but it does make sense, and is about the only reason I can see for the continued existence of NASA.:rolleyes:

As for minerals running out, I have no position on this because frankly, who the hell can you believe anymore to shoot straight on what really is and is not still in the ground. I don't doubt we'll have shortages in at least some of those minerals. Enough to cause real problems. But short of some "new world order" , how to you force conservation. Typically pricing is about the only thing that works. That's the catch with globalism, somebody will always fail to play by the rules to gain an unfair competitive advantage. In the past China was seen as the big culprit who wouldn't play by the rules. Now that they are emerging and becoming a major player and entering the world market as a legit power, I'm sure the next country in line will copy China and pollute, rape the land, or whatever dirty trick it takes to get ahead. You can't blame them, they want a piece of the pie too.

Only thing I could see working is an agreement only to trade with partners that play by the rules. But if that was possible I think we'd already be doing it. I'm doubtful anything besides the market will decide the fate of mineral use in the world. So if you believe this stuff, buy minerals. .

[goadam1]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Magic indeed. Because there is no central force within Exxon mobile making decisions - they just magically happen.

Also, Hubbard et al predicted domestic peak oil in the 70s - completely correctly - and worldwide peak in the early 21st century - yet to be determined. So you are either ignorant or purposely misleading. You also neglect to mention the tragedy of the commons - pointed out to you earlier - as well as the many well understood failures of market forces. Taking the time learning about behavioral and information economics would shatter the neat simplicity of your worldview though, so you might want to keep away from that stuff.

The commons are being flooded with cheap money. "You get a sheep, you get a sheep, everyone gets a sheep." How about 8k for your old car? How about a one hundred million new developing world folk with new credit cards?

[VIT]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Of course Exxon is making decisions, as are the multitude of other entities out there. The "magic" in the free market is the way price signals in a free market operate to allocate resources so much more efficiently and effectively than central planners.

No doubt. But who can say this is the ultimate best strategy of a mankind. What if the market will lead us to "bacterias in a bottle" example with exponential grow and collapse. If this is the solution market will make, do you still like it.

I think this is what all of these talks are really about.

[rjwjr]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Understand "BOOTSTRAPPING" and I think your opinion would change about 180 Degs. You have to be ABLE to get THERE (Alt-E) from HERE (Petro Fuels).

Sorry, but I'm missing the point about the relevance of bootstrapping.

As to your second comment, I'm not advocating a "there". We all know the "here", but not a single one of us can accurately predict the "there". That is why there can be no central planning authority that makes the best decisions all of the time and that's why the invisible hand of the free market is the best possible decision maker on issues such as these. That is, until such time that accurately foretelling the future evolves from a carnival side show or late night infomercial to a proven and repeatable science/skill. Come to think of it, I'd take a tea leaf reader over a central planning government employee if those were the only two choices.

[charliebrown]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

i think what jtab means by bootstrapping is that
we need say 20+ yrs to make all the new energy stuff (wind, solar, geo, nuke, biomass, advance batteries etc) a viable alternative as far as price and quantity. We dont have 20 yrs of cheap oil left. So we're going to have a painful gap.

A more dire interpretation of jtab is that we wont have enough fossil energy left to develop alt-e.

[Guest]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Easy for Jtabeb to say. He's the biggest gas guzzler of all of us, flying around in air force jets. And he doesn't even pay for the fuel!

[jtabeb]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Easy for Jtabeb to say. He's the biggest gas guzzler of all of us, flying around in air force jets. And he doesn't even pay for the fuel!

Yes I do pay for it (some), I still pay taxes. But then again, I also pay part of my own salary if you think about it. Hmmm.

[Guest]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

Ok, let me get your position clear here.

You get to fly F-16's where the government picks up the tab, but you are troubled and distressed by the fact that some (a few) of your own tax dollars eventually go to paying for a fraction of the fuel? Plus you get a $250K per year training flight instructor job offer from the Saudi Airforce into the bargain, all tax free, but you are troubled that some (a few) of your tax dollars are paying for the fuel you burn today????? :eek:

Jtabeb is truly an exemplary scrooge. Wants to get his jollies riding from the ground up to 50,000 feet in an 85 degree ascent in about one minute thirty seconds, while grumbling about the 0.05% of his tax dollars going to pay for the ride. Man that is some nice work if you can get it. Meanwhile the rest of us peasants stuck here on the ground with the feet of clay are following the contrail of your flight path, and scratching our heads ... :rolleyes:

Yes I do pay for it (some), I still pay taxes. But then again, I also pay part of my own salary if you think about it. Hmmm.

[leegs]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

I have to agree with the various comments stating that the market is the only sensible way to manage the alleged austerity, with one big caveat.

One of the main points of the article is that we are 'running out' of these minerals due to the pending scarcity of cheap energy. The energy is the key. One course of government intervention that IMO would have helped tremendously would have been higher taxes on oil, as has been the case in Europe for a long time. This would have motivation conservation as well as development of alt-e, and perhaps would have dampened consumption in general of e.g. these soon-to-be scarce metals and minerals.

[The Dude]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

This was also posted at The Oil Drum. Lots of good comments, some of which, like this one, punch holes in various aspects of the paper, but the author's point is that energy will place overall limits on what can be had long term.

Gallium is extracted as a by product of the Bayer Process (bauxite to alumina) yes.....but the vast majority of Bayer Process plants in the world do not have the extraction kit. The Ga is just allowed to go into the red mud ponds. If we want more Ga to use, all we've got to do is add $50 million worth of kit to the side of the Bayer Process plants that already exist. ($50 million in mining terms is a very small sum of money BTW)

Of course we could have electric mining machinery powered by thin film solar like CIGS - of which gallium is the G - still waiting to see that happen with any tech du jour. Would make for stunning PR even on a pilot scale, no?

[BlackVoid]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

[/size][/font]who is 'us' and who is 'we' who gonna do this 'managed austerity' gambit? usa pols?

ha, ha.

pols around the world?

That is exactly what they are doing right now. I do not know if it is deliberate or not, but they are:
- making things worse instead of better,
- ensuring the depression will be longer and deeper.

[rjwjr]

Re: Why this time - it really is different,[ the commodity supercycle ]

One course of government intervention that IMO would have helped tremendously would have been higher taxes on oil, as has been the case in Europe for a long time.

Europe has it wrong. Wouldn't it be more "American" if we can find a way to tax the oil our children and granchildren will use instead? :eek: