Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices

[Waistline2]

In a message dated 5/17/2004 9:53:39 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course, Mark Jones is ultimately correct.  At some point natural conditions will drive up the price of hydrocarbons.  The only question is about timing.   Comment   And a broken clock is right at least two times - twice, a day. In my several readings of Comrade Jones thesis on fossil fuel, his attention is not so much on the price form of oil but rather the fossil fuel basis of the energy infrastructure or grid and hitting the immutable thermodynamic barrier.   To state that "Mark Jones was right" begs the question "what was he right about?"  To state that he was wrong begs the same question.   What is implied in the "Mark Jones was right" thesis is that the current spike - upward tick, in oil prices is directly related to humanity reaching a point in our evolution where the supply of petroleum begins an irreversible decline.  The consequence of this irreversible decline (reaching the top of the bell curve) - today, is the current spike in the price of petroleum.   When the issue surfaced 3-6 months before the war with Iraq, several contributors pointed out that the immediate consequence of war would be to cut off the flow of oil from Iraq and buttress - if not raise, the price of oil. Comrade DMS presented a wealth of data pertaining to the fall in the value of oil, the technological revolution in oil extraction and production, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and data outlining the glut of oil in the market. I personally agreed with the data and economic conclusions he put forward.   Mr. Jones thesis is that humanity has hit the thermodynamic barrier in a fundamental way to alter the class struggle. He specifically speaks of a crisis of capitalism that results from hitting the thermodynamic barrier and the possibility of this occurrence overshadowing the traditional Marxist process to the "class struggle" based in the revolution in the mode of production.   In philosophic terms he pretty clearly states that the fundamental contradiction within (internal to) industrial production and/on the basis of the bourgeois property relations is moving in a real time direction where the thermodynamic barrier will shift the fundamental tension to external collision between the energy infrastructure (grid) and the industrial infrastructure wherein all value, commodities and profits is produced.     Mr. Jones point of view is called apocalyptic because he very clearly states that no form of alternative energy source can solve the fundamental problem of energy grid faced by homo-homo-sapien because alternative forms of energy require an initial fossil fuel energy grid for construction, as in the case of solar energy. Further, fuel cell energy source and the entire conception of the Hydrogen economy are flawed because they require an even greater initial and continuous supply of fossil fuel for operations and we therefore face the question of producing a perpetual motion machine or an energy producing machine that can produced more energy than is used for its production and running. Finally, this increased need for fossil fuel to produce fuel cell power packs, computers and all of what we call "high tech" instruments by definition creates a greater deadly entropic discharge and we are thus trapped by history . . . or rather the law of thermodynamics and specifically the law of entropy.   This deadly entropic discharge is more than simply environmental destruction but as a base law means in the transformation process more energy is lost to the environment than is embedded in the creation of goods and services. Thus we face a lose lose situation. Not only do we twice lose but we find ourselves in an impossible situation because the commodities are in fact consumed - used up.   To state that "Mark Jones was right" still begs the question, "right about what?"   Is the current uptick in the price of oil the result of mankind hitting the thermodynamic barrier? That is the question if Mr. Jones thesis is "right."   Mr. Jones thesis is best summarized in Jeremy Rifkin's book, "The Hydrogen Economy" - with the notable exception to the apocalyptic projection that humanity is trapped by the law of thermodynamics because a perpetual motion machine is impossible.     Mr. Jones thesis is met with resistance because it neglects the elementary conception of Marxists political economy. Jeremy Rifkin does an excellent job in describing the evolution of the oil industry as step child to the automobiles role in the formation of the industrial system on the basis of bourgeois property.  What he and Comrade Jones either fail to understand and neglect is the meaning of bourgeois property as a system of reproduction requiring an energy grid for the purpose of producing profits.   One must at least ask to what purpose and end is the current energy grid used? One must do an analysis of the automobile as a form of private transportation that sits at the center piece of industrial capitalism to understand how the current energy infrastructure is configured and deployed. Mr. Rifkin states that automotive production consumes 20% of the oil on earth but this is not true. Automotive production is infinitely more than simply producing vehicles. What is involved in the automobile as a way of life is the entire structure and configuration of our society; from the drive thru hamburger joint, to advertisements, to showrooms, to the configuration of our interstate system to the type of fast food we eat. Televisions and radios are in cars as well as glass, steel, plastics, rubber, leather and all kinds of fabrics.   Automotive production is slowing. Watch us "discover" more oil.   The question remains, is the uptick in the price of oil the result of hitting the thermodynamic barrier?     Melvin P.