Yet…

“There is no evidence that oil producers are rational actors anymore than they are irrational actors. They are both.”

How is that not a construct on your part? What evidence do you have for it?

“What I know is that they are neither wholly rational nor irrational. They are both. “

*How* do you know? What has persuaded you so? Aside from disagreeing with their behavior?

“(I)ncorrect use of the possessive apostrophe is not the mark of illiteracy, no matter how many times you claim as such in ad nauseum fashion on the internet.”

This would be more persuasive if you spelled “ad nauseam” correctly.

“Equally, your misunderstandings of energy and Jevons Paradox…”

What empirical evidence do you have for my alleged misunderstandings (aside that you disagree)? I've presented a link to the empirical evidence I use — where's yours?

“I suggest you run along now.”

I'll give your kind offer all due consideration.

Whether it's the 19th Century, the 20th Century or the 21st Century the record is now becoming more clear: society will nearly always misinterpret writings or assertions about large scale problems or trends, or resource depletion, (or even just “pressures”) as rigid doomerism. Once misunderstood as such, even the most thoughtful expositions and musings can then be more summarily dismissed.

It was done against Jevons in the 19th C, and it's still being done against Jevons.

Consider for example how Paul Erlich's views about food, water, poverty are now treated many decades later. With more than 20% of humanity in extreme poverty, living in mega-slums, surrounding by industrial waste, and barely able to get enough water–Erlich and the Club of Rome “have been proven to be spectacularly wrong!”

G

I agree with you on the phenomenon of reserve growth. But it works both ways. Price has to rise much, much higher from here in order to bring on economical reserves. Generally speaking.

More broadly, I see no reason why the oil market has to forever remain prices to ration near term supply and demand. Hotelling spoke to this issue in the early 1930's.

At some point it will be undertood to be the act of a rational oil producer to limit production at all times, in order to smooth out the depletion of those reserves and to better redeploy the capital from their sale and export.

G

Of course, then there's countries like Sweden who are almost strangely alone in their ability to plan for the future.

I'd like someone to explain Sweden.

G

First, your construct about OPEC behavior is your construct. Not mine. My answer was quite clear: you cannot back out in a math-like equation OPEC behavior and peak flow rates. This is a mistaken appeal to rationality. There is no evidence that oil producers are rational actors anymore than they are irrational actors. They are both.

My rebuttal to this false construct of yours is neither this tedious laundry list you have put together where you assert that I claim to know more than OPEC (yet another false construct of yours). Quite the contrary. What I know is that they are neither wholly rational nor irrational. They are both.

BTW, incorrect use of the possessive apostrophe is not the mark of illiteracy, no matter how many times you claim as such in ad nauseum fashion on the internet. Equally, your misunderstandings of energy and Jevons Paradox are not to be confused with deep, revolutionary insight. They are just misunderstandings, and tight, sarcastic prose won't change that either.

I suggest you run along now.

Yet…

“There is no evidence that oil producers are rational actors anymore than they are irrational actors. They are both.”

How is that not a construct on your part? What evidence do you have for it?

“What I know is that they are neither wholly rational nor irrational. They are both. “

*How* do you know? What has persuaded you so? Aside from disagreeing with their behavior?

“(I)ncorrect use of the possessive apostrophe is not the mark of illiteracy, no matter how many times you claim as such in ad nauseum fashion on the internet.”

This would be more persuasive if you spelled “ad nausam” correctly.

“Equally, your misunderstandings of energy and Jevons Paradox…”

What empirical evidence do you have for my alleged misunderstandings (aside that you disagree)? I've presented a link to the empirical evidence I use — where's yours?

“I suggest you run along now.”

I'll give your kind offer all due consideration.

Whether it's the 19th Century, the 20th Century or the 21st Century the record is now becoming more clear: society will nearly always misinterpret writings or assertions about large scale problems or trends, or resource depletion, (or even just “pressures”) as rigid doomerism. Once misunderstood as such, even the most thoughtful expositions and musings can then be more summarily dismissed.

It was done against Jevons in the 19th C, and it's still being done against Jevons.

Consider for example how Paul Erlich's views about food, water, poverty are now treated many decades later. With more than 20% of humanity in extreme poverty, living in mega-slums, surrounding by industrial waste, and barely able to get enough water–Erlich and the Club of Rome “have been proven to be spectacularly wrong!”

G

I agree with you on the phenomenon of reserve growth. But it works both ways. Price has to rise much, much higher from here in order to bring on economical reserves. Generally speaking.

More broadly, I see no reason why the oil market has to forever remain prices to ration near term supply and demand. Hotelling spoke to this issue in the early 1930's.

At some point it will be undertood to be the act of a rational oil producer to limit production at all times, in order to smooth out the depletion of those reserves and to better redeploy the capital from their sale and export.

G

Of course, then there's countries like Sweden who are almost strangely alone in their ability to plan for the future.

I'd like someone to explain Sweden.

G

First, your construct about OPEC behavior is your construct. Not mine. My answer was quite clear: you cannot back out in a math-like equation OPEC behavior and peak flow rates. This is a mistaken appeal to rationality. There is no evidence that oil producers are rational actors anymore than they are irrational actors. They are both.

My rebuttal to this false construct of yours is neither this tedious laundry list you have put together where you assert that I claim to know more than OPEC (yet another false construct of yours). Quite the contrary. What I know is that they are neither wholly rational nor irrational. They are both.

BTW, incorrect use of the possessive apostrophe is not the mark of illiteracy, no matter how many times you claim as such in ad nauseum fashion on the internet. Equally, your misunderstandings of energy and Jevons Paradox are not to be confused with deep, revolutionary insight. They are just misunderstandings, and tight, sarcastic prose won't change that either.

I suggest you run along now.