Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The US was the largest net exporter of oil in 1950

by Ralph Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 03:33:17 AM EST

Chalmers Johnson observes that "60 years of enormous military spending is taking a dramatic toll on the rest of the economy."


That is increasingly obvious. But why has the once-reliable US strategy of wasting money ceased to create prosperity? For that matter, how could such a plan ever have succeeded?

To the naive observer, the idea that demand can sustain an economy sounds paradoxical. It is true that, under the assumption that all demand will be satisfied, net demand is equal to net production. But that assumption can only hold when there are abundant natural resources available to the economy in question. Under those happy circumstances, demand for goods and services does indeed have an apparently beneficial effect, in that the rate of utilization of natural resources increases. As those resources flow through the economy, they leave behind a trail of buildings, roads, houses, consumer products and all the other accoutrements of prosperity.

But suppose there are not sufficient natural resources to satisfy demand? At that point the habit of stoking the economic furnace simply by turning up the thermostat fails to work its expected miracle.

Oil, in particular, has supplied the powerful and conveniently deployed energy to create goods and services. The US was a net exporter of oil until some time in the 1960s, due to enormous discoveries of black liquids beneath Texas, Oklahoma and California. The rate of extraction of domestic petroleum was always able to increase to fuel the automobiles, tanks and airplanes necessary to satisfy any level of demand.

But for any mineral resource, the pace of extraction eventually slows, as poorer veins of ore or deeper deposits of oil must be mined. In 1971 the US rate of extraction of domestic petroleum reached a maximum and then began to decline.

At that moment, the era of US prosperity based on unlimited availability of cheap fuel came to an end. Large-scale imports of petroleum began to arrive on our shores from various parts of the world, particularly from the Persian Gulf countries. The US gradually transformed itself from a wealthy producer to a poor but militarily powerful consumer.

In the new era, as long as cheap oil could be pried from the hands of client regimes throughout the world, the US lifestyle could be maintained and expanded. Essentially our economy began to thrive only by theft of other countries' resources. This is of course the colonial model.

Colonial-style exploitation (also known as empire building) as a method of gaining one's living never lasts for very long. For the US, that wondrous period has now decisively come to an end. The old laws of economics no longer function. But the US government does not yet fully comprehend that the rules have changed.

The paradox of reliance on demand to generate prosperity has finally been resolved. Now the US must somehow begin to earn its living rather than simply extracting it from underground deposits of unexploited wealth.

For a country of 300 million human inhabitants spread over a vast continent, and dependent on cheap transportation for its extravagant way of life, that transition must usher in an era of harsh necessity. How well the US will succeed in coping with this scary new age is as yet unknown.


Display:
Yes, painful times ahead. Cheap transportation makes all the difference.

All countries face this problem of resource exhaustion. I doubt any can feel comfortable about sustaining their lifestyles much beyond the next decade and we really need a political class who are honest with the electorates and say that hard times are ahead and pull their peoples together in collective effort.

But elites hate the idea that their provilege will be constrained and so will resist until far too late.

We have hard times before us.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
To the naive observer, the idea that demand can sustain an economy sounds paradoxical. It is true that, under the assumption that all demand will be satisfied, net demand is equal to net production. But that assumption can only hold when there are abundant natural resources available to the economy in question. Under those happy circumstances, demand for goods and services does indeed have an apparently beneficial effect, in that the rate of utilization of natural resources increases. As those resources flow through the economy, they leave behind a trail of buildings, roads, houses, consumer products and all the other accoutrements of prosperity.
This is something I have been wondering about - whether Keynesianism only works in the presence of abundant natural resources.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
.. requires it (or as some Keynesians who had studied with Keynes or actually absorbed many of the lessons of the General Theory called it, Bastard Keynesianism).

Actual General Theory Keynesianism works in general. In actual General Theory Keynesianism, demand creation is a solution to a problem of a full complement of unemployed resources, including labor, and demand creation on its own is not sufficient if any of the routine complement of resources used in production is fully employed.

Labor unemployed when some necessary resources are fully employed is structural unemployment, and addressing structure unemployment requires changing the production structure of the economy.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you do apply a Keynesian stimulus through the (presumably not resource-intensive) service sector?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 02:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... only tool that emerges from the General Theory analysis, even if its the only tool that emerges from the Hydraulic Keynesian model.

For example, Bill Mitchell, of the Centre for Full Employment and Equity in Newcastle, Australia and Randy Wray of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability have been among those developing the theory of the Job Guarantee, which as it turns out tends to be focused on essential services, like ecosystem rehabilitation, that do not have a natural private market.

And, indeed, the pure Green tax is a concept rooted in the General Theory ... the green tax that when collected is recirculated as widely as possible ... either as a social dividend or a proportional payroll tax rebate or both.

If you stimulate the economy at that same time as you increase the relative cost of resource intensive goods and services, and then recirculate the purchasing power drained off by the taxes used to make that change in relative cost, that purchasing power has got to go somewhere.

As long as the increase in the relative cost of resource intensive goods was as far upstream as possible, where it goes will tend to be less resource intensive goods and services.

That creates the new private employment opportunities without which all the education and training programs in the world are pointless, and takes a bit out of structural unemployment.

And then the people still structurally unemployed are guaranteed the right to go to work on activities of actual value but not private market value.

There is, of course, no long run structural unemployment in the marginalist economists fairy tale world, as in the long run all investment in productive capacity will be tailored to the mix of resources available. But nobody ever lives to see the marginalist long run for the macroeconomy ... before every long term tendency of one macroeconomic situation plays itself out, there are new events and innovations and we are back in a novel new short run.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 09:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The coal, though. You have forgotten the coal. Ignoring the small issue of climate change, there's enough coal over here to keep us going for quite some time yet...
by asdf on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM EST
Liquid fuel was essential to the inventions of both the motor car and the aeroplane. Those astonishing new conveyances were not simply the product of increasingly clever human minds. In fact they came into existence as a direct consequence of the emergence of cheap and abundant high-energy liquid fuel, whose crude precursor was first extracted from under the ground of Pennsylvania, circa 1859.

A coal-powered airplane is disturbing to imagine. Even if the probably insuperable challenges of reliable, hot and fast combustion could somehow be solved, the weight of the fuel would surely prevent such a machine from taking to the air.

Likewise, although a coal-powered automobile is not impossible to build, I do not think you would like to drive one. Just imagine the filling station!

by Ralph on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 01:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was then, this is now. You could run the engines on electrical power, or on synthetic hydrocarbons. And ethanol and vegetable oil were around back then, too and will be there in the future.


When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 02:38:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
During takeoff, a passenger jet gulps about 4 litres of kerosene per second. We will not soon scale up the production of coal oil or vegetable oil to quench such a prodigious thirst.

It is true that jet planes can run on synthetic fuel, but the cost suggests those flights will not be an everyday occurrence, certainly not for civilian passengers.

As for electricity, it can definitely be made to turn a propeller. However, an electric jet engine would have to carry large quantities of a non-burning solid or liquid, in order to have something to gasify and eject for thrust.

by Ralph on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 03:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is true that jet planes can run on synthetic fuel, but the cost suggests those flights will not be an everyday occurrence, certainly not for civilian passengers.

How much does a litre of DME cost to manufacture without fossil fuel inputs?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 04:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Modern civil transports are hardly 'jet powered'. They
use high-ratio bypass engines, where most of the thrust
comes from a large propeller in the front that is driven
by a turbine.

Airbus's new military transport uses turboprop engine,
where all of the thrust comes from a turbine-driven
propeller. It has a cruise speed of Mach 0.68, not that
enormously lower than the Mach 0.84 or so used for
passenger aircraft.

So, in theory an electric driven propeller aircraft at
high speed is feasible, as long the electricity is
available. But batteries are even heavier than coal,
and hydrogen tanks are enormous. So that's more the
problem than the jet engine.  
 

by GreatZamfir on Wed Apr 30th, 2008 at 05:29:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... whether directly or stored in modular pumped storage hydro or, as they are experimenting with now, subterranean compressed gas.

And we already have the electric vehicle technology to solve the "last mile" problem that the original motor cars were solving. 50kph (30mph) is a 12km (7.5m) 15 minute radius around a stop on a fixed transport corridor. That is 450km^2 (175m^2). Even at US outer suburban sprawl densities of 1 resident per fifth hectare (half acre), that is in excess of 200,000 people ... with any infill development at all, 250,000 can easily be within 15 minutes of a junction station on a transport corridor via existing technology.

That existing battery technology, existing rail electrification technology, existing US outer suburban densities, existing windpower technology, even existing energy storage technologies for the majority of the US population, given the location of the Appalachian and Rocky Mountain and neighboring ranges wrt the bulk of the US population.

So why would the first hurdle being flying with something other than crude oil? That does not seem to be the marginal transport task being performed with crude oil.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 03:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree in every respect. My coal-driven airplane was just intended as a bit of light comedy.

We could even save a significant amount of fuel now, while electrification proceeds, if we create a network of conventional vans or small buses using GPS routing software and wireless communication. The jitneys could pick up passengers at short notice and carry them to intermediate transportation. After a bus or train ride, the passengers would be grouped by neighborhood into another jitney for dropoff at or near their destinations.

With careful design and quality monitoring, such a system might add only a small increment of time and trouble to the old routines involving private automobiles.

by Ralph on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really. China will hit domestic Peak Coal in a decade or two. Its already a massive coal importer, and barring economic collapse that will expand dramatically as it hits and passes its coal production plateau.

The US is supposed to have "200 years of coal". But that assumes 100% recovery, which never occurs, and 0% growth in both coal's share of total energy consumption and 0% growth in total energy consumption.

If the US, for example, does not want to be facing peak coal at the same time as the impact of the climate crisis is really getting going and crude oil is in the $1,000's per barrel in 2008 dollars, then it has to adopt a policy of scaling back on coal consumption.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... I'm not talking about the Oils at their peak.



I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 11:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it's how we make it, that will be the difference between totalitarianism and a new kind of society, one which will have to put the questions of waste and build-to-last under a microscope.

it's the crossroads, coming right up, courtesy of oil prices.

which way will we go?

my money's on common sense, once the pros and cons are sufficiently weighed and measured. that's why good information is the best weapon against the conditioned ignorance still so prevalent, despite increasing evidence that the window of opportunity is rapidly shutting, and our leaders are continuing to betray us with forked-tonguery.

mother nature's on our side in this, it's a shame we had to push her so beyond her limits of toleration.

so expect many more media disinfo campaigns, as the wealthy clutch onto the tools and toys they have become so accustomed to feeling entitled to.

if only they could see beyond their greed and realise that's what good for everyone would be best for them too!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 08:14:12 AM EST
except nascar and dirt bikers!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM EST
The military waste more fuel than anyone, including nascar and dirt bikers!

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]