tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post8467818926211075662..comments2023-07-05T05:16:54.735-05:00Comments on Chuck Masterson’s Actual Blog: Oil is cheap • But everyone’s still poor • And our jobs might vanish • But I’d have funChuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-4793510487741935952016-01-28T13:37:28.136-06:002016-01-28T13:37:28.136-06:00I read the OECD Observer article more fully, and d...I read the OECD Observer article more fully, and discovered that a good portion of it was devoted to tempering what looked like good news with a reality check: The developing countries' middle classes are still pretty poor and vulnerable. 60% of Brazil's big emerging middle class actually has no stable, steady job (they're casual workers). "This middle class is unlike that which became the engine of development in many OECD countries." Also, "While the middle class is rapidly expanding in emerging and developing countries, in rich countries it is shrinking and feels incapable of defending the standards of living that have characterised a middle-class lifestyle for centuries."Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-17499824162660515972016-01-27T16:47:06.803-06:002016-01-27T16:47:06.803-06:00Wealth wasn't a zero-sum game, and it still is...Wealth <i>wasn't</i> a zero-sum game, and it still isn't <i>quite</i>, but it's getting there. And while it's true that there will likely be some oil in use for another 100 years, that oil will be getting steadily more unaffordable in real terms that whole time, because we'll be heading down the other side of the oil peak. The effect is that it'll be used in fewer and fewer places: first fewer automated factories, then fewer consumer flights, then fewer cars, until eventually only well-funded militaries can afford oil. <br /><br />When you say that demand for durable and consumer goods, education, etc. will always exist <i>and thus</i> the global economy will thrive, though, that's a large, unsupported logical leap. I think it's much more likely that only local economies will thrive—like the ones that existed before the economy globalized, in, say, the 1500s— because in a resource-limited world, the massive infrastructure needed for global shipping and interconnectivity (containerships, cargo planes, trucking fleets, fiber-optic networks, communications satellites) will be unmaintainable.<br /><br />There are a lot of different energy sources being touted as substitures for oil, but they all fall short in at least one important way, sometimes several. There's an MIT professor who undertook a long project to do the math and figure out which new energy was going to really do it for us, and he discovered, to his dismay, that none of them could really do it. Check out <a href="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/" rel="nofollow">this sum-up of what he found</a>, and if you want more details on any of them, that blog has them all. So we will slowly adapt and survive, yes, but it won't be adaptation to a different energy source, it'll be adaptation to less total energy.<br /><br />The OECD Observer article you linked shows that the amount of oil wealth some countries have spent (not necessarily their own) has finally started paying off for some of their citizens, for now. The extrapolation they showed looks reasonable only under the assumption that world total wealth continues expanding.<br /><br />Not sure how much we actually disagree here, come to think of it, but at least a little bit on the continued growth of the middle class.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-41482572207437818722016-01-27T07:49:00.752-06:002016-01-27T07:49:00.752-06:00http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid...http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3681/An_emerging_middle_class.html<br /><br />The middle class will continue to grow globally, and shrink here. Wealth is not a zero sum game. The wealth of the world has increased substantially in the last 100 years. The standard of living for almost everyone has increased in some way. Monetary policy doesn't create or destroy it, it is just a tool. The global economy will probably collapse at some point, but it will quickly reboot with new or revamped currencies and monetary policies. Demand for durable goods, consumer goods, education, healthcare, services will always exist, and thus the global economy will thrive. There is plenty of oil to fuel it for at least another 100 years, and if the oil runs out, we will slowly adapt and survive.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02557491400342571293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-19550303946574239382016-01-26T22:16:07.561-06:002016-01-26T22:16:07.561-06:00Right, oil demand will eventually rise back up to ...Right, oil demand will eventually rise back up to the level of production (or more likely the two will meet somewhere in the middle). <br /><br />The middle class may be growing in some places, but each population where it's growing is offset by a population somewhere else that's getting poorer. Real wealth is currently a zero-sum game, or a very slightly positive-sum game, because we're only able to extract from nature a tiny bit more than we need to keep afloat at our current levels of consumption. And we have to count real wealth: money can be as imaginary as you want, but the middle class lifestyle is defined not by amount of money but by the consumer products you're talking about. <br /><br />Those products are not the engine of the global economy, and neither is the money needed to buy them. Both of those things have to come from somewhere. The products have to come from real factories that burn real fuel. The money can come from a deluded government by way of quantitative easing, but that kind of imaginary money can't actually create real wealth, only redistribute it, whether nationwide or worldwide.<br /><br />Things seem bleak here because we've been the beneficiary of a leviathan worldwide redistribution of wealth since WWII, and that time is drawing to a close. Back then we could keep expanding our piece of the pie because the pie was growing bigger and bigger all the time, so everyone else was like, "Eh, let 'em have it. They seem cool and also they have nukes, and we're still getting our chunk." Now the pie has stopped growing but everyone in the world still wants their slice to keep getting bigger, because their populations are growing and all those third-world countries were promised spuriously that first-worldliness would trickle down to them.<br /><br />Our claim to the biggest slice is built on a very elaborate house of cards made of deceitful financial devices, imperial intimidation, and a façade of respectability. Those things are all reaching their expiration date.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-29397164458929926402016-01-26T13:05:01.555-06:002016-01-26T13:05:01.555-06:00Oil demand is momentarily low, but the entire worl...Oil demand is momentarily low, but the entire world continues to industrialize. Oil demand in the long run will remain high. The world also continues to produce an emerging middle class that has an insatiable appetite for some breathing space, which will continue to spur economic demand in all consumer products, the real engine of the burgeoning global economy.<br /><br />Things seem bleak here because we still suffer from a post WWII industrial monopoly hangover and believe the life of the 1950's set a new benchmark, while in reality, it was a nirvana anomaly. We're still full of global win here, but petulant entitlement will mask the true blessings we adamantly don't see.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02557491400342571293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-64195105951471801052016-01-25T23:37:32.998-06:002016-01-25T23:37:32.998-06:00Hm, Windows computer, Firefox... I tried the same ...Hm, Windows computer, Firefox... I tried the same and couldn't reproduce it. I tried messing with the magnification and that didn't turn up a problem. I'll look into this more later. If you know how to take a screenshot, could you email one to me? (If you don't, it's actually pretty simple. Hit the unpopular old PrtSc [Print Screen] button, and then open Paintbrush and hit Ctrl+V, then save it.) I think you have my email address, so I won't post it for spambots to find. Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-65786433519173121092016-01-25T23:20:34.635-06:002016-01-25T23:20:34.635-06:00Oops, I forgot to say that I'm on a Dell Inspi...Oops, I forgot to say that I'm on a Dell Inspiron 15R notebook, using Mozilla Firefox. What else do you need to know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-26389565526413899792016-01-25T23:18:35.344-06:002016-01-25T23:18:35.344-06:00Actually, I see that the typist is not the problem...Actually, I see that the typist is not the problem because everything I typed in my comment has the same problem. Any f before an i or an l simply disappears. Third finger comes through as third inger, and having a fling reads as having a ling. It's quite amusing. It might be an incompatibility with my server or anything else. You'll know better than I. Let me know if I can help in any way. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-63131852452764479612016-01-25T22:53:25.554-06:002016-01-25T22:53:25.554-06:00Irene, fi and fl show up normally on my screen. Co...Irene, fi and fl show up normally on my screen. Could you give me details of your computer and browser, or send me a screenshot that shows it? This blog's a proving ground for my web design stuff, so I'd better make sure I'm not messing something up. All your possible explanations from typing technique are going to have to put their hands down, because I typed this on the Dvorak keyboard, which is completely rearranged from traditional QWERTY. It's almost certainly something to do with typographical ligatures. <br /><br />Grandpa, solar and wind energy companies have skyrocketing stocks because of lots of investment capital, subsidies, and government contracts. I'm not going to count on all those things to last. Seems from here that "the fundamentals are sound", but they were saying that about the housing market too. Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918675492238901083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-23059674237437313152016-01-25T17:16:21.593-06:002016-01-25T17:16:21.593-06:00Astounding.
MomAstounding.<br />MomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-24299806346167581452016-01-25T13:51:03.680-06:002016-01-25T13:51:03.680-06:00Consider looking into finding a job in the
solar ...Consider looking into finding a job in the <br />solar or Wind energy companies. Their stock is skyrocketing and will continue to do so , in my opinion. I have many comments n what you have said. but I will only say, again, 'it's your life you get to decide'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8044648.post-6717959096835092012016-01-25T13:47:49.631-06:002016-01-25T13:47:49.631-06:00It'll take me some time to digest all that, so...It'll take me some time to digest all that, so I'm limiting my comment to wondering why your typed 'fi' and 'fl' come out as 'i' and 'l' although fr, fu, fa, fo, fe, f(space) and Fi come out all right. I suspect typing technique -- i and l are easy to type very quickly after f, while o requires the third finger on the upper level, u is less used in the language and thus perhaps less facile to type, r, a and e are also in the left hand, and Fi requires the shift key in the right hand. OR, am I all wet and there is a perfectly reasonable other explanation for this?!!!! IreneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com