When SHTF

[balz]

BTW, I just LOVE that FOFOA blog! (What is FOFOA for, BTW?)

I understand what you say... and what he says. But what worries me if that what we will live will be completely different from any other crisis in the past. The periods of deflation didn't last long because the increasing population and cheap energy NEEDED that money.

With Peak Oil, we will experience a decline in human population, maybe one third to two third, depending if one is optimistic or pessimistic. That would be very different from anything that occured in the past.

Wouldn't that decline in population cause massive deflation?

Back in the late 90s thru around 2002, there were two secret bloggers, supposedly big bank insiders, whistleblowers, essentially, who were blogging about insider stuff and what really went on. They called themselves "Another" and "Friend of Another" (FOA). Then they just disappeared, stopped blogging, and to the best of my knowledge no one knows where they went. Then came Friend of "FOA", who picked up where they left off, and he calls himself that, FOFOA.

Dunno about you dude, but i"m not gonna live to see that happen, and PM s are timeless, will always have value, even if things inflate or deflate a bit.

Thanks for the explanation. This guy sure knows what he is talking about. Precious material there. My only point is that he does not take into account the looming energy crisis that will bring the human population down in his equation.

I've yet found someone who take this into account when debating inflation vs. deflation.

[Mossy]

Humans are bred for hardship. We kill ourselves off by over eating and not reproducing when times are good, and breed like crazy when times are hard.

If you have worked in several locations, you might notice that easy work results in lot's of interpersonal stress while work that is hard or dangerous reduces interpersonal stress. People just have to have /some/ hardship in their lives.

[68Camaro]

Thanks for the explanation. This guy sure knows what he is talking about. Precious material there. My only point is that he does not take into account the looming energy crisis that will bring the human population down in his equation.

I've yet found someone who take this into account when debating inflation vs. deflation.

To my mind you're talking about a situation that is decades away, at a minimum. We may be "at" Peak Oil (or not), but I don't think we're "past" Peak Oil (if you consider "oil" as fossil fuels in general, including coal and oil shale). I think we can run along at more or less this rate for a few more decades, to a point where populations are slated to start declining in India and China, even if they may still be rising in other parts. Regardless of if you agree with that, I think most of us have a time-scale shorter than that to worry about, but by all means, please send him a note (reply to his blog) and see if you can get a reaction out of him on this point. I would love to hear what he has to say on the topic.

[Mossy]

We are already seeing massive deflation - especially in real estate - when measured against true money (gold).

Agreed, and not just real estate. However, gold is not used in general commerce, yet.

[balz]

Thanks for the explanation. This guy sure knows what he is talking about. Precious material there. My only point is that he does not take into account the looming energy crisis that will bring the human population down in his equation.

I've yet found someone who take this into account when debating inflation vs. deflation.

To my mind you're talking about a situation that is decades away, at a minimum. We may be "at" Peak Oil (or not), but I don't think we're "past" Peak Oil (if you consider "oil" as fossil fuels in general, including coal and oil shale). I think we can run along at more or less this rate for a few more decades, to a point where populations are slated to start declining in India and China, even if they may still be rising in other parts. Regardless of if you agree with that, I think most of us have a time-scale shorter than that to worry about, but by all means, please send him a note (reply to his blog) and see if you can get a reaction out of him on this point. I would love to hear what he has to say on the topic.

I sent an email to him. We'll see what happen.

I don't think we're decades from Peak Oil. It's already here: oil production has peaked. We are on the bumpy plateau, which, you are right, can continue for a decade at most IMO.

I just don't see how human population decline can work with hyperinflation. Maybe I am missing the whole point.

[Mossy]

I just don't see how human population decline can work with hyperinflation. Maybe I am missing the whole point.

Malthusian reasoning, which usually does not take human ingenuity into consideration.

[balz]

I just don't see how human population decline can work with hyperinflation. Maybe I am missing the whole point.

Malthusian reasoning, which usually does not take human ingenuity into consideration.

Human ingenuity can do nothing against the Laws of Thermodynamics and the fact that only cheap oil made human population go from 2 to 7 billion...

[Mossy]

Fission powered freighters and fusion power plants on land. Politics blocks them, not lack of technical know how.

[balz]

Fission powered freighters and fusion power plants on land. Politics blocks them, not lack of technical know how.

That wouldn't even solver 25% of our problems.

For every calory of food there is 10 calories of oil, not even talking about actually cooking it.

Think about this.

And think about the fact that uranium is getting more and more difficult to find.

Not a solution. Not by a long shot IMO.

[68Camaro]

I personally don't think we're fossil fuel limited, much less energy limited, for at least 20-50 years (and arguably several hundred years), if there is enough will to go after what we know exists. The known oil shale reserves in the US dwarf the oil content of the middle east. (I know there is controversy about means to get to it, but it is there.) And there is more. So I think the energy can gets kicked down the road a few more years. It might tighten up, but I don't think I'm going to live to see it be the primary problem. Not sure my daughter is either.

[Treetop]

Fission powered freighters and fusion power plants on land. Politics blocks them, not lack of technical know how.

That wouldn't even solver 25% of our problems.

For every calory of food there is 10 calories of oil, not even talking about actually cooking it.

Think about this.

And think about the fact that uranium is getting more and more difficult to find.

Not a solution. Not by a long shot IMO.

we dont need oil for food production in any way shape or form. It doesnt even make production of food per area go up. Its a corporate myth. Only thing it does is let fewer people do the work. If more people get back to the fields we could easily increase food production on the same lands, minus a relearnin/learning curve....

So unless you mean older people dieing from being to cold or hot in winter or summer we dont need cheap energy to have this level of humans in any way shape or form. Or possibly civil unrest killing people off....

Ive tried to tell people who believe as you do this before so based on that Im doubting I will convince you. Its a deeply embedded myth. In fact with food forrest style models we could grow many multiples more food. There are also easy enough ways we could let the oceans fish life return while still getting our fill. I get the feeling there is a deep agenda to keep this from happening though....

[Treetop]

in fact adding to what I said above, lets pretend oil never ran out and we continued to use synthetic fertilizers.... THAT would cause the food crisis people expect. Salts are slowly building in our fields... this alone will eventually (already happening in some areas) lower yields and halt them entirely. Salt tolerant crops are being bred but will only delay the inevitable....

[Mossy]

And think about the fact that uranium is getting more and more difficult to find.

"Breeder reactors". Also, how much uranium is used for fusion? (Problem is "hot" fusion calls for material that can be used for very large explosions, and cold fusion has not been cracked, in spite of crackpot claims.)

Meeting even 25% of our energy needs would free up a lot of petro, but that's ignoring coal liquification and oil sands.

[Treetop]

I cant stand uranium myself. I think it is extremely short sighted and ignorant fuel source... We have many other options imo. what about diverting a portion of the mississippi and putting in 1000s of hydroelectric dams? No or little effect on the river itself water temps or wild life. Im sure it would be fine with 10 percent less water... A huge project sure but I like ideas like that myself...

Anyway... I live in an area where uranium was first discovered and we mined most of ours as a country. According to local mining ops (who are fighting environmental issues) we have enough of it for many thousands of years. Honestly I hope we never mine it myself, and not jsut because I live here. I think we have better options. I also dont think something is cheaper that its wastes need managed for thousands of years....

thought I would throw that out there. who knows maybe it is just local miners puffing out their chest bt that is the word locally.