That oil is a finite resource is
not a question; I hope. because if we were to argue it is not, then that is a
doosy per se. so what is the problem here, that oil will peak in 2006, 2010,
or 2015 etc. is Hubbert's an imprecise forecast method. this is just like
saying the bubble will burst but I do not know when give or take five
years.
________________________
dms: Or it's like predicting that
the stock market is going to fall, or that it's going to rain. Make the
prediction every day and eventually, maybe, you'll be right, but only half as
right as a stopped clock which is right twice a day, with exactly the same
lack of meaning.
The point is not the predictive
accuracy for yes, oil is indeed finite. The point is whether or not the
current actions of the bourgeois order, of capital, are determined by the
finite capacity of a "natural" resource, or by those contradictions
inherent to a system where the means of production are organized as a property
form requiring the aggrandizement of wage labor.
In simpler language-- is
the determinant of the current situation based on the falling rate of
profit in the oil industry based on the growth of constant capital, or is the
determinant some quickly approaching depletion of the "natural"
supply?
_______________________________________
so what next, that production will
peak and that bringing in new capacity to past levels will cost more per unit
of output. and that oil price and control is relevant since oil is a principal
commodity in all production. it is precisely the point at which cheap oil
production evaporates when alternative energy sources are too costly to smooth
the transition from one mode of energy dependency to another in the process if
you like of capital accumulation.
it is not like as if we were going
to wake up tomorrow and find that oil is gone. it is like when it becomes
more expensive to draw oil out of the ground, going for control of high
reserves of cheaply mined Arab oil (1 dollar per barrel) makes for a hell
business, both in itself and insofar as you strangle others with it. that is
why Iraq and the gulf where cost of production is cheap is the big prize for
US bourgeoisie
________________________________
dms: There have been three
OPEC price spikes since 1973. None of them had anything to do with
increased costs of production. In fact, the latest one 1999 was in fact
triggered by overproduction, itself a result of the declining cost of
production below the 1949 post WW2 low. You can look it up.
Further, the historic trend for
finding and lifting costs for US petroleum majors has been downward since
1973, with an upturn around 1996-97 as more US effort went into deepwater
drilling. The recent trend has resumed its downward costs.
You are right. We sure
aren't going to wake up and find the oil gone. And the bourgeoisie and
the markets do NOT react to predicted 30 year scarcities. Capital
does not allow that. It's all about fear and greed for capital, today's
fear and greed, today's cash. Markets have no memory and less
imagination. If it were otherwise, there would never be
overproduction, or bubbles, or the repitition of the same old same old
scams.
______________________
. that is why Mark Jones was not
only right.. his little peace on the castration of Japanese capital was one
good piece of Leninist analysis, but he like I fall into the trap of becoming
natural scientist when we are not.
the point is not about natural
science however, it is about the process during decline.
________________________
dms:
Don't know if I read that piece,
but yes OPEC 1 in particular sure smacked the Japanese around, and OPEC 2 had
some impact, but moreso in the 1986 price break, leading to the Plaza
Accords, and the gutting of the USSR>
______________________________________________________________________
And now for the another, perhaps,
bigger issue:
The scarcity argument, and Mark
Jones' argument was/is NOT about cost--the depletionist argument, which Jones
embraced, is about an absolute zero of petroleum/hydrocarbon
availability. That supposed Marxists can endorse this assertion without
considering its meaning for all of Marx's work and critique, including
that most important critique, the necessity of proletarian revolution, is
mind-boggling. The depletionist argument is that the end is near,
repenting won't help, and the future looks a lot like George Miller's Mad
Max series of films ( love that motto of primitive
accumulation..."Who run Bartertown?"). Socialism is no solution, except
maybe to ration the misery, the devolution, on a more equitable basis.
Gee, thanks. And no thanks.
I have heard socialists quote
depletionists, and quote without criticism, that the "carrying capacity" of
the earth is only 2 billion people-- and these same socialists never go
to the next step and suggest what we should do with the 4 billion extras, or
how much energy it is going to cost to cull the oversized herd of bipedalists
we call humanity. This manifestation of short attention span
pseudo radicalism leaves the answer and the power firmly in the grip of
those who control the means of production. Actions have
consequences. Accepting the depletionist argument as the governing
force of petro-capitalism is an action resulting in an ideology of and for
extermination.
And that ain't right. Jones
or no Jones.
dms
