Why would anyone want gold standard?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

It's not a simple easy thing to prove because there's no proof for it.

How about proving this?

 

[Sledge]

Already done.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

None of those things are the sorts of things which can be "proved", because they are not scientific claims. Understand??? No, probably not. How on earth is somebody supposed to go about proving that Big Oil and those who depend on it for their (large) incomes, and others with vested interests, are deliberately withholding information? Or that people don't want to talk about it because the fear would make the economic situation even worse? These sorts of things are very believable. I am not claiming that the Empire State Building is made of cheese here - it would be entirely to be expected, given human nature is what it is, that people with a vested interest in not telling people about peak oil will prefer to keep quiet about peak oil or even deliberately mislead people (e.g. the Saudi Government). Your response to this (instead of thinking about it for a couple of seconds and realising that this sort of thing is not the sort of thing one can prove without a police investigation or the benefit of hindsight, and that it is quite likely to be true regardless of any proof) is to say "Prove it!" and think you are clever. You are not clever; you are an idiot.

Sounds like a conspiracy. I bet the Jews are involved.

 

[kevsta]

I sometimes think there's a conspiracy of stupidity here. it would be easily done, what with PMs and all.

its quite sad really that what could be one of the best forums on the net so often degenerates into childish trolling poop within an page or two, as evidenced in this thread.

 

[Almo]

I sometimes think there's a conspiracy of stupidity here.

Funny. Who are you accusing of being in this conspiracy? I would say the gold bugs are the ones in on that one.

 

[kevsta]

Funny. Who are you accusing of being in this conspiracy? I would say the gold bugs are the ones in on that one.

no accusations, it's just a theory

 

[Almo]

no accusations, it's just a theory

 

[timhau]

Not much, Sledge. Especially since the "claim" in question has so far been defined as "Something UE said on page 5."

But you haven't provided evidence for any of it.

 

[WildCat]

If returning to the gold standard solves so many problems, you would think that governments around the world would be lining up to do so. I wonder why they aren't?

Because the Jews are secretly running the show behind the scenes.

 

[psionl0]

Because the Jews are secretly running the show behind the scenes.

This is an ECONOMICS forum not a RELIGIOUS forum. Stop saying that anybody who questions current economic policies hates Jews.

 

[kevsta]

This is an ECONOMICS forum not a RELIGIOUS forum. Stop saying that anybody who questions current economic policies hates Jews.

this appears to be the height of intellect we can expect from a certain duo of posters

 

[OMGturt1es]

Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

This is just silly. Oil is a finite resource. It will necessarily peak. The question isn't "if?"-- the question is "when?" And there's some uncertainty here, but most assessments based on extraction and discovery trends indicate it's either coming right up, or we've just about stumbled on it. These assessments aren't being made by random internet loons, either. Here's an article, for example, published recently by Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6024/1510.short

Simple plots of oil production vs discovery clearly illustrates the obvious, long term, multi-decadal trend:

Short of a revolution in oil reserve discovery and extraction, we're heading toward a crunch-- or moving further into a slowly evolving one. Of course, policy willing, oil sands and shales will be available to boost production, but short of major innovation, these will only offer a future ceiling to rising costs, as oil sands and shales are far more costly to extract than conventional oil. And, frankly, if we have any sense as a species, we'll leave these unconventional oils in the ground; the risks of uncontrolled carbon emissions clearly outweigh the benefits.

 

[OMGturt1es]

tl;dr

I often wonder why, if "Peak Oil" is such a problem, it's not on the front page of the WSJ and NY Times on a daily basis. After all, the survival of our entire civilization depends on us solving this. The only time I ever see anything about it is on the Internet, on various conspiracy and gold bug forums. To a skeptic, like me, that speaks volumes.

Because we're all idiots and we care about stupid things. We want to read about gossip and celebrities. Science and math are hard and boring. It would cut into our mocha time.

Peak oil is a fact, but its timing and severity are uncertain. Policy experts and scientists alike, however, take the issue seriously. It's not their fault that the rest of us are too stupid and shallow to understand and care.

It's very much like climate change. For the risk it poses, it receives minimal press. But it is THE focus among policy experts and scientists. We're just all too stupid to understand the consequences and too selfish to care.

To a scientific skeptic like me, the contents of the Wall Street Journal are worthless compared with the contents of, for example, Geophysical Research Letters. Watching the Wall Street Journal for indications of scientific truth is rather like using potential changes in Venusian temperature as a solar indicator: it's indirect, ill advised, and dubious at best and indicates either extreme desperation or ignorance.

 

[GlennB]

This is just silly. Oil is a finite resource. It will necessarily peak.

Yes, it really is this simple.

Any resource (timber, fish, sheep, money in your bank account, whatever) that is being harvested faster than it's being generated* will see the stock decline. It's called maximum sustainable yield, but (unlike trees or fish) for oil the rate of regeneration of the resource is measured on a geological time scale.

(*Stress generated, not merely discovered)

 

[OMGturt1es]

With all due deference to the posters who preceded me, peak oil is also not quite what this thread covers - though the drift does tend that way, the gold standard seems to have little to do with peak oil. In an attempt to return the topic to its prior focus, please excuse the remainder of this post for having nothing at all to do with oil in any form.

Just read this. My apologies for the last two posts. Perhaps a mod should split this thread accordingly?

Regrading the gold standard, I just find it silly. A bean standard I could understand. Or a lighter standard. Or a bullet standard. These are all things that have inherent value in a post-apocalyptic world. Gold? Not really. But it seems that it's when the economy is taking a dump, and folks are afraid that we're nearing that post-apocalyptic world, that the frightened buy gold. Of course, that's just my general, hazy conceptualization based on basically no real data, so I could very well be wrong.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Let me guess. Big Oil owns them.

ETA: Sorry, never mind. Already covered.

To be fair, big oil has funded dozens of free market think tanks that have almost exclusively been behind the sustained attacks against climate science (e.g., Heartland). This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a known fact. The funding is a matter of public record. The impact these attacks have had on the media's portrayal of climate science is stunningly obviously, as these old, tired "arguments" continue to regularly find their way into major stories, where false balance masquerades as objective reporting.

Whether these free market think tanks have been misleading media about peak oil as well I don't know. I'm not as familiar with that topic. I'm only very well aware of big oil's covert attacks on climate science because I have an active interest in climate science. But, given what I know of big oil's impact on climate reporting, I don't think it's fair to indicate that the suggestion that big oil may beneficially influence the reporting of other topics is necessarily outlandish.

 

[kevsta]

To be fair, big oil has funded dozens of free market think tanks that have almost exclusively been behind the sustained attacks against climate science (e.g., Heartland). This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a known fact. The funding is a matter of public record. The impact these attacks have had on the media's portrayal of climate science is stunningly obviously, as these old, tired "arguments" continue to regularly find their way into major stories, where false balance masquerades as objective reporting.

Whether these free market think tanks have been misleading media about peak oil as well I don't know. I'm not as familiar with that topic. I'm only very well aware of big oil's covert attacks on climate science because I have an active interest in climate science. But, given what I know of big oil's impact on climate reporting, I don't think it's fair to indicate that the suggestion that big oil may beneficially influence the reporting of other topics is necessarily outlandish.

no, prove it. and stop hating on the joos while you're at it

 

[UndercoverElephant]

To be fair, big oil has funded dozens of free market think tanks that have almost exclusively been behind the sustained attacks against climate science (e.g., Heartland). This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a known fact. The funding is a matter of public record. The impact these attacks have had on the media's portrayal of climate science is stunningly obviously, as these old, tired "arguments" continue to regularly find their way into major stories, where false balance masquerades as objective reporting.

Whether these free market think tanks have been misleading media about peak oil as well I don't know. I'm not as familiar with that topic. I'm only very well aware of big oil's covert attacks on climate science because I have an active interest in climate science. But, given what I know of big oil's impact on climate reporting, I don't think it's fair to indicate that the suggestion that big oil may beneficially influence the reporting of other topics is necessarily outlandish.

The biggest liars of all are the governments of OPEC countries. It is they who have the best hard data about how much oil they have left, and they have no intention of sharing it with anybody. Saudi, for example, has claimed to have exactly the same amount of reserves left every year for about the last 30. They still maintain, officially, that they can keep supplying as much oil as anyone requires for decades to come. Anyone actually who believes them is a fool.

 

[OMGturt1es]

The biggest liars of all are the governments of OPEC countries. It is they who have the best hard data about how much oil they have left, and they have no intention of sharing it with anybody. Saudi, for example, has claimed to have exactly the same amount of reserves left every year for about the last 30. They still maintain, officially, that they can keep supplying as much oil as anyone requires for decades to come. Anyone actually who believes them is a fool.

But there is some evidence of this that you could post. Regarding inflated oil reserves, for example, if my memory isn't failing me, a number of documents leaked through wikileaks indicated that the Saudi estimations were likely substantially inflated. Regarding big oil's impact on peak oil reporting, you could first easily demonstrate their impact on climate reporting. You may be able to do the same for peak oil. I don't know.

What I do know is that if someone asks for proof, you should take the challenge just to ensure that you really do know what you know, or at least to better calibrate your error bars. You can't prove any of this 100%, but you can make a strong, inductive argument, and you can hold a conclusion in proportion to the thrust of evidence.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical. I'm telling you to do some digging while not actually doing it myself. What I also know is that if it's about 2 am and you work at 8 am, and your commute is about 1 hour, you're an idiot if you're posting on a forum about peak oil, and you're even a bigger idiot if you decide to start doing serious digging to provide evidence for related arguments.

Oh man. I'm going to really hate myself in about 4 hours.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But there is some evidence of this that you could post. Regarding inflated oil reserves, for example, if my memory isn't failing me, a number of documents leaked through wikileaks indicated that the Saudi estimations were likely substantially inflated. Regarding big oil's impact on peak oil reporting, you could first easily demonstrate their impact on climate reporting. You may be able to do the same for peak oil. I don't know.

What I do know is that if someone asks for proof, you should take the challenge just to ensure that you really do know what you know, or at least to better calibrate your error bars. You can't prove any of this 100%, but you can make a strong, inductive argument, and you can hold a conclusion in proportion to the thrust of evidence.

I'm being somewhat hypocritical. I'm telling you to do some digging while not actually doing it myself. What I also know is that if it's about 2 am and you work at 8 am, and your commute is about 1 hour, you're an idiot if you're posting on a forum about peak oil, and you're even a bigger idiot if you decide to start doing serious digging to provide evidence for related arguments.

Oh man. I'm going to really hate myself in about 4 hours.

Yes, to a certain extent I am just being lazy. I can't be bothered to collect together a dossier of evidence suggesting that Big Oil and OPEC are not being open about the state of global oil reserves. There is evidence out there though - including recent statements by Fatih Birol (the cheif geologist at the IEA) and even a report produced by Shell Oil ("scramble" and "blueprints" are the names of two possible scenarios. The former is what it actually like to happen and the latter is sort of "how we could mitigate this if we actually got round to properly trying, which we aren't going to". "scramble" refers to "desperate scramble for the remaining reserves")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m377Is4tGF0

http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signposts.pdf