May 15, 2014

Oil limits

This model “works” fairly well, as long as the economy is growing fast enough–population continues to grow and resource extraction continues to grow as planned. In a finite world, we know that this model cannot work forever. At some point, we can expect to start reaching limits.

What do these limits look like? I would argue that in the case of resource extraction, these limits look like increasingly high cost of extraction.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Oil Limits Reduce GDP Growth; Unwinding QE a Problem

Elsewhere, this is 4uouoi4. — slipbox

You should also read “Quantitative Easing (QE)” (the first three, short paragraphs on WikiPedia summarize it neatly.)

My opinion: We need to start seriously talking about a STEADY STATE ECONOMY. What would that look like? How would it work? How do we get to that? Seriously. We simply CANNOT have a growing and expanding economy forever on a finite planet with finite room and finite resources. What part of “finite” don’t you understand?

ɕ

Dec 26, 2014

Energy return on energy invested

Eventually, the civilization hit a period of stagflation, typically lasting 50 or 60 years, as the population hit the carrying capacity of the land, and as additional workers did not add proportionately more output. When this happened, the wages of common workers tended to stagnate or decrease, resulting in increased wage disparity. The price of food tended to spike. To counter these problems, the amount of government services rose, as did the amount of debt.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Diminishing Returns, Energy Return on Energy Invested, and Collapse

Elsewhere, this is 4uoudi2. — slipbox

ɕ

Jan 4, 2015

Oil limits and the economy

While the press treats these issues as separate stories, they are in fact very closely connected, related to the fact that we are reaching limits in many different directions simultaneously. The economy is the coordinating system that ties together all available resources, as well as the users of these resources. It does this almost magically, by figuring out what prices are needed to keep the system in balance—how much materials of which types are needed, given what consumers can afford to pay.

~ Gail Tverberg, from Oil Limits and the Economy: One Story, Not Two

Elsewhere, this is 4uouoi2. — slipbox

ɕ

Jan 5, 2015

Where the jobs are

While America continues to create market-dominating companies like Apple or Google, the number of American jobs they provide doesn’t compare with market-dominating American companies of the past like General Electric or Ford.

The reason why is simple: While much of the design and management happens in America, most of the physical products are manufactured in low-wage economies like China. Those factories that remain in America are highly automated, so that our manufacturing employment plummets even as our manufacturing output continues to rise. America still makes a lot of stuff, it’s just not made by people.

~ Doug Muder, from Where the Jobs Are and Why

Elsewhere, this is 4uwewe2. — slipbox

ɕ

Jan 11, 2015

You don’t have a job, you have a hobby

That’s the only test that counts. It’s not how hard you work, it’s what happens if you stop. If quitting means real hardship for you or your family, you have a job. If you keep at it even though you could spend the rest of your life skipping rocks at your house by the lake, you have a hobby.

I’ve got nothing against hobbies. The Weekly Sift is a hobby. One way to describe the Marxist vision of Utopia is that we’d all be hobbyists, and the world’s work would get done by people who just wanted the satisfaction of doing it. (That vision even works sometimes: Wikipedia, open source software, and so on.)

~ Doug Muder from, Rich People Don’t Have Jobs

Elsewhere, this is 4uweri1. — slipbox

ɕ

Jan 16, 2015

Debt: This time is different

Many seem to believe that if we worked our way out of debt problems in the past, we can do the same thing again. The same assets may have new owners, but everything will work together in the long run. Businesses will continue operating, and people will continue to have jobs. We may have to adjust monetary policy, or perhaps regulation of financial institutions, but that is about all.

I think this is where the story goes wrong. The situation we have now is very different, and far worse, than what happened in the past.

~ Gail Tverberg, from Debt

Elsewhere, this is 4uoude1. — slipbox

ɕ

Jan 17, 2015

What if secretaries became programmers

But why do women make less? Is it for reasons we can all live with, or is the pay gap an injustice that needs fixing? Several reasons are frequently offered, together with explanations why we can live with those reasons. (Never forget that those are two separate conversations. Even if the whole pay gap could be boiled down to something as simple as “Girls don’t like math”, we’d still need to discuss whether that’s a problem we can or should fix.)

~ Doug Muder, from 77 cents, part II

Elsewhere, this is 4uwece1. — slipbox

VERY interesting gender/salary math.

ɕ

Feb 9, 2015

Why the austerity fraud matters

But this week a controversy broke out in economics, and it actually deserves your attention. A paper that has had a major influence on public policy around the world turns out to be wrong. And not just wrong in a subtle way that only geniuses can see, or even wrong in an everybody’s-human way that you look at and say, “Oh yeah, I’ve done that.” This one was wrong in three different ways that make you (or at least me) say, “That can’t be an accident.”

~ Doug Muder from, Why the Austerity Fraud Matters

Elsewhere, this is 4uwewy1. — slipbox

Really, you should read this. Foundations have moved.

ɕ

Feb 24, 2015

Monopoly’s role in inequality

Here’s the point: Maybe you couldn’t watch Jon Stewart for a week, but the problem had nothing to do with either you or Jon Stewart. He wasn’t asking for a raise; you weren’t balking at the price of watching the Daily Show. But both you and Jon were irrelevant when two giant middlemen had a power struggle.

~ Doug Muder from, Monopoly’s Role in Inequality

Elsewhere, this is 4uwemo1. — slipbox

ɕ

Mar 21, 2015

Low oil prices

I would argue that falling commodity prices are bad news. It likely means that the debt bubble which has been holding up the world economy for a very long time–since World War II, at least–is failing to expand sufficiently. If the debt bubble collapses, we will be in huge difficulty.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Low Oil Prices

Elsewhere, this is 4uoulo1. — slipbox

ɕ

May 11, 2015

Our oil predicament

A person might think that oil prices would be fairly stable. Prices would set themselves at a level that would be high enough for the majority of producers, so that in total producers would provide enough–but not too much–oil for the world economy. The prices would be fairly affordable for consumers. And economies around the world would grow robustly with these oil supplies, plus other energy supplies. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work that way recently. Let me explain at least a few of the issues involved.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Eight Pieces of Our Oil Price Predicament

Elsewhere, this is 4uouei1. — slipbox

ɕ

May 23, 2015

Oil price slide

… demand doesn’t pick up quickly as prices drop. We are dealing with a world that has a huge amount of debt. China in particular has been on a debt binge that cannot continue at the same pace. A reduction in China’s debt, or even slower growth in its debt, reduces growth in the demand for oil, and thus its price. The same situation holds for other countries that are now saturated with debt, and trying to come closer to balancing their budgets.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Oil Price Slide – No Good Way Out

Elsewhere, this is 4uouoi3. — slipbox

I have now discussed this a few times, and a common objection raised is that she is over-complicating a simple case of supply-and-demand. To which I say: What part of our enormous, intertwined, legacy, critical to everything from food to medicine to transportation to energy production, global dependency on petroleum is simple?

ɕ

Jun 10, 2015

Today, the situation is different

There has been much written about past debt bubbles and collapses. The situation we are facing today is different. In the past, the world economy was growing, even if a particular area was reaching limits, such as too much population relative to agricultural land. Even if a local area collapsed, the rest of the world could go on without them. Now, the world economy is much more networked, so a collapse in one area affects other areas as well. There is much more danger of a widespread collapse.

~ Gail Tverberg from, The Problem of Debt as We Reach Oil Limits | Our Finite World

Elsewhere, this is 4uoute1. — slipbox

ɕ

Aug 22, 2016

Overly simple energy-economy models give misleading answers

It is not intuitive, but complexity-related issues create a situation in which economies need to grow, or they will collapse. See my post, The Physics of Energy and the Economy. The popular idea that we extract 50% of a resource before peak, and 50% after peak will be found not to be true–much of the second 50% will stay in the ground.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Overly Simple Energy-Economy Models Give Misleading Answers | Our Finite World

Elsewhere, this is 4uouoe1. — slipbox

ɕ

May 5, 2017

The “wind and solar will save us” delusion

There has been a misunderstanding regarding the nature of our energy problem. Many people believe that we will “run out” of fossil fuels, or that the price of oil and other fuels will rise very high. In fact, our problem seems to be one of affordability: energy prices don’t rise high enough to cover the rising cost of producing electricity and other energy products. Adding wind and solar tends to make the problem of low commodity prices worse.

~ Gail Tverberg from, The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

Elsewhere, this is 4uoute2. — slipbox

Presented without comment.

ɕ

Jan 10, 2018

The Great Depression was an energy crisis

When I put together a chart of per capita energy consumption since 1820 for a post back in 2012, there was a strange “flat spot” in the period between 1920 and 1940. When we look at the underlying data, we see that coal production was starting to decline in some of the major coal producing parts of the world at that time. From the point of view of people living at the time, the situation might have looked very much like peak energy consumption, at least on a per capita basis.

~ Gail Tverberg from, The Depression of the 1930s Was an Energy Crisis

Elsewhere, this is 4uoute3. — slipbox

One of my rules-of-thumb is to thoroughly read everything written my Gail Tverberg.

Years ago, I found a web site called The Oil Drum which was a collecton of superlative thinkers all writing about things related to petroleum. Actually, it still IS a superlative collection, because they’ve left it up as-is to be an archive.

ɕ

Mar 15, 2018

Chain reaction

The catch is that we are too close to the “edge” to be testing an increase in interest rates. Economies, below a certain “stall speed,” cannot repay debt with interest, and cannot hope to provide entrepreneurs with an adequate return on investment. Our low rate of growth is already close to this stall speed.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Raising Interest Rates Is Like Starting a Fission Chain Reaction

Elsewhere, this is 4uoura1. — slipbox

There’s a graph early on in this article that is, frankly, alarming.

ɕ

May 26, 2018

Supply-and-demand is a model

The reason for the strange behavior of energy prices near limits is because the system is very interconnected. It is a self-organized system that gradually changes over time. New customers are added over time. These customers are often also wage-earners. They decide what to buy based on their own wages, and based on other considerations, such as the prices of competing products and whether inexpensive financing is available.

~ Gail Tverberg from, How the Economy Works as It Reaches Energy Limits — An Introduction for Actuaries and Others

Elsewhere, this is 4uouho1. — slipbox

Supply-and-demand is a model. There’s nothing wrong with the model. Does the model still fit reality as we approach the limits of how much energy our economy can consume? (tl;dr: it does not.)

ɕ

Aug 30, 2018

A global, self-organizing what now?

Today’s indications seem to suggest that an even more major recession than the Great Recession may strike in the not too distant future. Why should this be the case? Am I imagining problems where none exist? The next ten sections provide an introduction to how the world’s self-organizing economy seems to operate.

~ Gail Tverberg from, The world’s weird self-organizing economy | Our Finite World

Elsewhere, this is 4uoute4. — slipbox

“Ten sections.” “Introduction.” Some thinking and integration of ideas will be required.

ɕ

Nov 7, 2020

Barely noticeable

The authors note that a core resource of the digital economy is the data produced by users of services like Facebook and Google, which can then be used to train machine learning algorithms to do valuable things like precisely targeting advertisements or more accurately processing natural language. The current market treats data as capital: the “natural exhaust from consumption to be collected by firms” for use in training their AI-driven golden gooses. Lanier and company suggest an alternative: data as labor. Put simply, if a major platform monopoly wants your data to help build a multi-billion dollar empire, they must pay you for it. Offering a free service in return is not enough.

~ Cal Newport from, On Seriously Rethinking the Digital Economy – Cal Newport

Elsewhere, this is 4ucabo30. — slipbox

Well, that would change everything.

Imagine I changed the sidewalk in front of my house to have plates that moved slightly as one walks across it. I’ve rigged the plates to absorb some of the motion created during walking to generate electricity to offset my electric bill. Let’s assume further that the movement of the plates is barely noticeable. Perhaps something seems a bit “off” when you walk past my house, but nothing bad happens to you; you don’t fall and you don’t get tired, but you do work just a little harder when walking past my house.

What happens when we scale up that “harmless” little modification to include everyone, walking everywhere?

ɕ

Nov 19, 2020

Epidemiology and economics

It is increasingly clear that neither of these assumptions is correct. Despite the claims of epidemiologists, our best efforts have never been able to reduce the number of newly reported COVID-19 cases for the world as a whole for any significant period of time. In fact, the latest week seems to be the highest week so far.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Reaching the End of Early Stimulus – What’s Ahead?

Elsewhere, this is 4uoure1. — slipbox

It’s not meant as a doom-and-gloom quote. The article goes on to talk about how our economies really work and what’s really going on.

I’ve a tag for Tverberg for a reason. You should read everything she’s ever written—which would be hard because you’d have to also wade through the amazing, museum-piece that is The Oil Drum. I use that site as a litmus test for anyone who ever mentions “energy”—”Have you heard of The Oil Drum site?” If they have, then I’m really listening.

ɕ

May 8, 2021

That escalated quickly

At a 2.3% growth rate in energy, within 1000 years, assuming all energy is consumed on Earth, the temperature of Earth’s surface will have to become equal to Sun’s surface temperature.

~ Paras Chopra from, Can an economy keep on growing?

Elsewhere, this is 4uieca1. — slipbox

Wait. wat?

It’s often really helpful to look at things from a different perspective. (Granted, “from the surface of the sun,” is not a perspective I would like to see from.) This little article is a fun read. It’s got a bunch of small, clear statements, some vertiginous graphs, a few videos—which, mind you, I didn’t look at all… caveat emptor there. Reading it would be like playing hopscotch where someone hid an alligator in the last square. As the Talking Heads put it, “Well? How did I get here? (chorus) Letting the days go by!”

ɕ

May 17, 2021

It’s all about energy

The economy runs on energy, far more than it operates on growing debt. Our energy problems don’t appear to be fixable in the near term, such as six months or a year. Instead, the economy seems to be headed for a collapse of its debt bubble. Eventually, we may see a reset of the world financial system leading to fewer interchangeable currencies, far less international trade and falling production of goods and services. Some governments may collapse.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Headed for a Collapsing Debt Bubble

Elsewhere, this is 4uouhe1. — slipbox

I’ve been reading, and tagging here on my blog, Tverberg’s commentary for years. I don’t link to these things because I fancy myself Chicken Little. Rather, I link because she has really interesting and insightful things to say about energy.

ɕ

Apr 22, 2022

Brittle and prone to failure

Together, these approaches comprise “complexity.” They tend to make the economic system less resilient. At least temporarily, they pass fewer of the higher costs of energy products through to current citizens. As a result, the economy can temporarily withstand a higher price of energy. But the system tends to become brittle and prone to failure.

~ Gail Tverberg from, Spike in energy prices suggests that sharp changes are ahead

Elsewhere, this is 4uousi1. — slipbox

I don’t know whether to say you’ll be better, or worse, off—but I absolutely recommend reading everything Tverberg has ever written. I’ve a number, (nowhere near all of her stuff however,) of things quoted here on the blog; All those posts are tagged Gail Tverberg. History shows many examples, over thousands of years of recorded history, where economies, (empires, civilizations, and the people,) grew slowly and ended precipitously. There’s yet to be an example of a gradual decline. The open question is for how much longer—possibly very very much longer—can humanity continue to incline? (And to be clear, I don’t have an educated opinion about that question.)

ɕ

Aug 6, 2022

Dynamic societies

What’s often left out of those criticisms of dynamism is what a dynamic society actually means that’s truly positive, and that is when you have a society where people are thinking up new things and starting them, you get the benefits of those ideas all the way downstream: better jobs, more better jobs, jobs that people are happier with, and the like.

~ Ryan Streeter from, Embracing Dynamism: My Long-read Q&A with Ryan Streeter | American Enterprise Institute – AEI

Elsewhere, this is 4uaeeo1. — slipbox

This long-read goes deep into society, economics, and even politics. It’s a little different than things I generally post. The particular point quoted above feels like a non-zero-sum-game feature of trade among individuals. In a good trade, everyone separately agrees that they are better off after the trade. There’s net increase in “better off”—however we manage to measure that, be it in dollars, or smiles. (Aside: Coercion of any sort disqualifies a trade from being “good” in my estimation.)

ɕ

Sep 7, 2022

*Throws down controller*

That’s the thing about aggregation: one can understand how it works, and yet be powerless to resist its incentives. It seems foolhardy to think that this might be true for economics and not true for ideas, even — especially! — if we are sure they are correct.

~ Ben Thompson from, The Current Thing – Stratechery by Ben Thompson

Elsewhere, this is 4usate3. — slipbox

Sometimes I read things on the Internet and I want to throw my keyboard (my title is a reference to 1980s console games where one might get furious, and rage-quit by throwing the game’s controller.) Partly, my urge to rage-quit is from exasperation that Thompson keeps cranking out these great articles (and his podcasts Dithering and Exponent and this other thing he did that is awesome but you wouldn’t understand because I can’t explain it well) while I’m over here plinking away writing snarky blog posts when I should be earning a living.

But also because of the point of the article which is found in my pull-quote of the entire final paragraph.

ɕ

Oct 30, 2022

Cyclical?

In some fields our knowledge and discoveries are seamlessly passed down across generations. In others, it’s fleeting. Knowledge in some fields is cumulative. In other fields it’s cyclical (at best).

There are occasional periods when society learns that debt can be dangerous, greed backfires, and more money won’t solve all your problems. But it quickly forgets and moves on. Again and again. Generation after generation.

I think there are a few reasons this happens, and what it means we have to accept.

~ Morgan Housel, from Cumulative vs. Cyclical Knowledge

Elsewhere, this is 4ucobo13. — slipbox

I spend significant time worrying about how to learn from all the experiences I have. Worrying, of course, is not good. When I stop and honestly assess however, I realize that I do a really good job closing loops and bringing what I’ve learned forward into my ongoing work and life.

And then I read pieces like this. If humanity keeps making these cyclical reset-lurches, forgetting hard-won and important lessons, does that bode well for my ability to keep learning and improving? Or is the problem the inter-personal, or inter-generational learning?

ɕ

Elsewhere, this is 4a123. — slipbox