Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Comrade Mark J was talking about something with a lot more depth than the price form. ^ CB: Yes, I have been wanting to suggest this for a while in this debate. I don't quite see how that literally and rigorously the 2nd law of thermodynamics is expressed or causes a limit with respect to oil. But the key issue is not price fluctuation, but the catastrophic impact of loss of a basic means of production for this technological regime. by Waistline2 Comment Mark Jones thesis - in my opinion, had very little to do with price fluctuations and riveting his thesis to price fluctuations does not accurately explain his salient points. Comrade Jones put forward a proposition that humanity itself had reached or would shortly reach the event horizon or the nodal point or that point in the bell curve where the absolute decline fossil fuel and energy production runs into the thermodynamic barrier with all its social consequences. Comrade Jones also advanced the proposition that this thermodynamic principle was the underlying unseen law - impulse, that compelled industrial socialism in the Soviet Union to reach its historical limitation (and he throws in the issue of industrial structures for good measure) in 1945. It seems that trying to prove the operation of the law of thermodynamics on the basis of monthly price fluctuation is a losing cause. Fifty years is a very short time in human history - one way or another. Henry C. K. Liu did an excellent reprint of an article he wrote two years ago (the A List) on the price of oil predicting the $40.00 range and the mechanics that would lower the price . . . only for it to further rise. If Mark J. predicted the rise in the price of oil he was most certainly correct along with everyone else on earth. Comrade Mark J was talking about something with a lot more depth than the price form. Melvin P.
Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Yea, the depletion and other ecological matters are potentially political in that they are the fault of capitalism, and they should be a basis for enormous political agitation and education against capitalism as a system. Why would leftists give up a profoundly material argument for the necessity of socialism right now ? Socialism or catastrophe ! would be the slogan. Charles ^^ Re: by Michael Perelman I have to disagree. Such knowledge is not sufficient. It may not be necessary, but understanding how material conditions evolve will certainly give activists a valuable edge. On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:32:35AM -0500, Carrol Cox wrote: In what way does knowledge of the future of oil contribute to achieving political power? And my answer to that question is, it does _not_.
Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Actually, anthropology finds the distinction to be more that humans distinguish themselves from animals by kinship systems, socialiality, especially connections between generations. Hunting and gatherering, the mode of production from the transition to human and for most of human existence,is not characterized by producing one's own means of subsistence, but by _social_ and cultural labor at taking straight away what nature gives , gathering, foraging. Certainly, nobody produces their own raw materials. Humans distinguish themselves from animals many millenia ( like ninety millenia) before the origin of agriculture, or whatever is meant by producing their means of subsistence. Then bees and ants sort of produce their own means of subsistence, too. So, it is not clear that this feature distinguishes humans from all animals. CB by sartesian aren't there enough examples of resource exhaustion for other species (often brought about by man) that has in fact led to their extinction? or is it that man will wipe out other species with his technological progress, but use the same (technological progress) to generate infinite resources for himself? --ravi __ See for example Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick The German Ideology Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as the begin to produce their means of subsistence
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
In a message dated 6/16/2004 12:22:06 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Comrade Mark J was talking about something with a lot more depth than the price form. ^ CB: Yes, I have been wanting to suggest this for a while in this debate. I don't quite see how that literally and rigorously the 2nd law of thermodynamics is expressed or causes a limit with respect to oil. But the key issue is not price fluctuation, but the catastrophic impact of loss of a basic means of production for this technological regime. Comment Comrade Mark Jones state that humanity is trapped in the irresolvable equation that is the laws of thermodynamics that underlay the production of energy. He states . . . and his followers, that humanity has reached the event horizon . . . the nodal point . . . the descending junction on the bell curve where society as we have known it is to be forever framed and governed on the basis of his conception of the energy grid. Comrade Mark does not even allow for partial resolution of the energy grid question and all general resolutions of social problems are partial - by definition, in relationship to a concrete problem. What is pointed to as proof is Marx writing on soil depletion. Well, the soil on earth is not depleted from every standpoint. We are told that technology is incapable of solving the concrete problem of energy grid underlying a mode of production. In my opinion this is absurd thinking. But then again the chicken little's of the world will find something else to prove that our fate as humanity is doomed. Mark Jones thesis does not contain any serious political economy and is an affront to Marxism. The soil on earth is not depleted and there is nothing in the future to say the soil on earth will become depleted or that this is an issue that cannot be resolved by science. There is a point where much of this discussion of the Mark Jones thesis is absurd. Nevertheless, I deeply support the right of the proponents of this thesis to prove their assertion on the level of abstraction. Melvin P.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
erlich vs simon in texas death match, loser leave town... simon's argument that, by definition, there can be no finite resources because it is impossible to know what quantity of a given resource exists squares with historical belief in infinite supply, which was logical throughout much of human history as peoples migrated to uninhabited lands... market theorists hold that shortages of any resource 'fuel' the 'engine' via technological innovation and search for substitute resources, likes of simon conclude there is no reason not to expect that in future resources will continue continue to be available at lower prices than today's... of course, many years before club of rome existed, lenin (perhaps inadvertently) challenged belief in infinite supply of key economic resources - imperialism as inevitable quest for sources of raw materials... ultimately, it may not matter who turns out to be correct re. resource supply, theory of exhaustion as fountain of change is not likely to be tenable, unequal/uneven control distribution of existing quantities is political issue that must be addressed... michael hoover
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
erlich vs simon in texas death re-match, loser leave town... simon's argument that, by definition, there can be no finite resources because it is impossible to know what quantity of a given resource exists squares with historical belief in infinite supply, which was logical throughout much of human history as peoples migrated to uninhabited lands... market theorists hold that shortages of any resource 'fuel' the 'engine' via technological innovation and search for substitute resources, likes of simon conclude there is no reason not to expect that in future resources will continue continue to be available at lower prices than today's... of course, many years before club of rome existed, lenin (perhaps inadvertently) challenged belief in infinite supply of key economic resources - imperialism as inevitable quest for sources of raw materials... ultimately, it may not matter who turns out to be correct re. resource supply, theory of exhaustion as fountain of change is not likely tenable, unequal/uneven control distribution of what is known to exist is political issue that must be addressed... michael hoover
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Michael Hoover wrote: erlich vs simon in texas death match, loser leave town... simon's argument that, by definition, there can be no finite resources because it is impossible to know what quantity of a given resource exists squares with historical belief in infinite supply, which was logical throughout much of human history as peoples migrated to uninhabited lands... aren't there enough examples of resource exhaustion for other species (often brought about by man) that has in fact led to their extinction? or is it that man will wipe out other species with his technological progress, but use the same (technological progress) to generate infinite resources for himself? --ravi
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
ravi wrote: aren't there enough examples of resource exhaustion for other species (often brought about by man) that has in fact led to their extinction? or is it that man will wipe out other species with his technological progress, but use the same (technological progress) to generate infinite resources for himself? A spatial dimension in David Harvey terms has to be taken into account. Great Britain basically experienced deforestation during its early capitalist development but was able to find substitutes in the Americas. Maybe that's why the capitalist class is wasting so much money in these space expeditions to Mars. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
aren't there enough examples of resource exhaustion for other species (often brought about by man) that has in fact led to their extinction? or is it that man will wipe out other species with his technological progress, but use the same (technological progress) to generate infinite resources for himself? --ravi __ See for example Marx, Karl and Engels, Frederick The German Ideology Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as the begin to produce their means of subsistence
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
This is not exactly correct. Timber supplies to Britain from colonial America were always inadequate. Britain depended primarily on the Baltic countries. See, for a brief overview: http://www.fact-index.com/t/ti/timber.html - Original Message - From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Further confirmation of Mark Jones ravi wrote: aren't there enough examples of resource exhaustion for other species (often brought about by man) that has in fact led to their extinction? or is it that man will wipe out other species with his technological progress, but use the same (technological progress) to generate infinite resources for himself? A spatial dimension in David Harvey terms has to be taken into account. Great Britain basically experienced deforestation during its early capitalist development but was able to find substitutes in the Americas. Maybe that's why the capitalist class is wasting so much money in these space expeditions to Mars. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
that's a prediction that's on exactly target. Similarly, I predict that in US 2008, the economy will start looking better again (after whatever disaster hits between now and then). President Kerry will figure out how to get re-elected. JD -Original Message- From: Max B. Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/12/2004 6:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Further confirmation of Mark Jones I beg your pardon, but I predict that the next time there's a supply bottleneck or cartel tightening, people will start talking about Hubbert's Peak again. mbs the big problem is that because no-one can predict the future, it's very easy for superficial observers to confuse a short-term shortage of oil with a long-term running-out of oil (even though real oil prices are lower now than they were during previous oil crises). jd
Further confirmation of Mark Jones
NY Times, June 12, 2004 An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise By ALEX BERENSON or six consecutive years, ChevronTexaco has had good news for anyone worried that the world is running out of oil: the company has found more oil and natural gas than it has produced. Over that time, ChevronTexaco's proven oil and gas reserves have risen 14 percent, more than one billion barrels. But near the bottom of ChevronTexaco's financial filings is a much less promising statistic. For each of those years, ChevronTexaco's wells have produced less oil and gas than the year before. Even as reserves have risen, the company's annual output has fallen by almost 15 percent, and the declines have continued recently despite a company promise to increase production in 2002. ChevronTexaco is not the only big oil company whose production is falling despite rising reserves, though it has the largest gap. As consumers, economists and governments around the world wonder if oil supplies can keep pace with rising demand, production trends at the industry's publicly traded companies are not promising. Collectively, they paint a picture of an industry that has depleted nearly all of the world's easily exploited reserves outside the Middle East and that is now struggling to sustain production, much less increase it. Fears about supply shortfalls and rising demand have already caused prices to climb about 20 percent this year, hovering around $40 a barrel. The four biggest companies own only about 4 percent of the world's reserves, which are mostly government-held, but they offer a unique glimpse of supply trends because they must disclose their reserves and production each year. Historically, proven reserves and output have moved in tandem. Industry experts disagree why the relationship has broken down. Although the reserves are only estimates, federal rules require companies to calculate them conservatively. Some analysts and the companies themselves take a relatively benign view of the production declines, promising that output will soon rise again as big new projects come online around the globe. ChevronTexaco said its production had declined in part because of asset sales and production agreements that allocate it less oil when prices are high, as they are now, than when prices are low, as they were in 1998. The company says it expects production to stay flat through 2005, then begin rising in 2006 as output increases from fields in Chad, Kazakhstan, Venezuela and Angola. But ChevronTexaco has promised to reverse its production declines before. In 2002 the company said that it expected its output to rise more than 20 percent by 2006, a forecast it has now dropped. Royal Dutch/Shell, the world's third-largest oil company, admitted this year that it overstated its oil and gas reserves by 22 percent, the equivalent of 4.5 billion barrels of oil. Regulators and prosecutors in Europe and the United States are investigating Shell, which in March forced out Sir Philip Watts, its chairman. Some analysts say that the debacle at Shell proves that companies sometimes bend the rules to satisfy Wall Street's intense hunger for new reserves. In the 1990's, many public companies used aggressive accounting gimmicks some legal, some not to satisfy investors' demands that they report higher earnings. Oil companies face similar pressures to build reserves. And intentionally or not, some companies may have booked reserves that are not technically or economically viable, said Matt Simmons, a Houston investment banker who has warned of a potential supply crisis. Outsiders have essentially no way to know whether estimates of reserves are accurate, he said. We're going to have another Shell, Mr. Simmons said. They're not the only company that got optimistic on proved reserves. Neither Mr. Simmons nor anyone else is asserting that ChevronTexaco did anything illegal. Once a year, companies announce their reserve replacement ratio, telling investors whether they have found enough new oil and gas during the year to make up for their production. Energy investors scrutinize the reserve replacement ratio more closely than any other measure of corporate performance, said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst with Oppenheimer Company. Every company aims to replace at least 100 percent of its production every year. And for the last decade, the industry's four giants, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco, have met that goal with remarkable consistency, at least until Shell's admission in January. But outsiders cannot tell whether companies are properly estimating their reserves, Mr. Gheit said. The calculations are extremely complicated, and companies do not disclose the raw production and seismic data that would enable an outside analyst to check their estimates. Nor are the reserves subject to third-party audit. Reserves are very important but are extremely difficult to
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Here we go again: I read it in the (New York Times, Newsweek, National Geographic, the National Enquirer, All of the Above); I saw it on TV; I heard (Colin Campbell, Mike Davis, Homer Simpson, All of the Above) say it. Ergo Mark Jones was right. Amazing. In the very midst of the exposure of the natural gas crisis of the 2000, 2001 as market manipulations; in the very midst of the revelation that crude and refined petroleum stocks in the US and the advanced countries are at record levels, thus generating high spot prices, allowing companies to book inventory valuation based profits; despite the fact that natural gas prices soared as a response too price reductions after the bringing to market of new supplies; despite the fact that Shell's reserve reductions, like its reserve inflation, were accounting adjustments and accounting tricks; despite the fact that gasoline price increases have been shown to be the product of similar market manipulations, based in part of fixed asset reductions and production restrictions-- despite all that the sky is falling; chicken little is right; and so was Hobbes because the future is nasty brutish and short, so close out your positions and take the money and run. Even though reserves have risen, output has fallen... This should tell us something, as reserves have risen, and output has fallen as a result of the mega-mergers of the 90s which allowed the combined companies the luxury of booking combined reserves while struggling with the overweight combined fixed assets. You can look it up. Actually you can look it down, in the very same article in the NYT: What we have now is meaningless data, Mr. Simmons said. Big oil companies once prided themselves on conservative reserve estimates. But today, to justify multibillion-dollar investments in politically or technologically risky fields, companies have become much more aggressive, he said. Mr. Simmons is making a social, economic analysis. Not a geological one. Call me old-fashioned, but.. I would think Marxists would want to look at rates of return, fixed asset levels rather than geology before making determinations as to the real reasons for changes in output.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Hey, don't knock the NATIONAL ENQUIRER! they recently revealed one of the deepest and darkest secrets of official Washington, to wit that Dick Cheney is a robot. jd -Original Message- From: sartesian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/12/2004 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Further confirmation of Mark Jones Here we go again: I read it in the (New York Times, Newsweek, National Geographic, the National Enquirer, All of the Above); I saw it on TV; I heard (Colin Campbell, Mike Davis, Homer Simpson, All of the Above) say it. Ergo Mark Jones was right. Amazing. In the very midst of the exposure of the natural gas crisis of the 2000, 2001 as market manipulations; in the very midst of the revelation that crude and refined petroleum stocks in the US and the advanced countries are at record levels, thus generating high spot prices, allowing companies to book inventory valuation based profits; despite the fact that natural gas prices soared as a response too price reductions after the bringing to market of new supplies; despite the fact that Shell's reserve reductions, like its reserve inflation, were accounting adjustments and accounting tricks; despite the fact that gasoline price increases have been shown to be the product of similar market manipulations, based in part of fixed asset reductions and production restrictions-- despite all that the sky is falling; chicken little is right; and so was Hobbes because the future is nasty brutish and short, so close out your positions and take the money and run. Even though reserves have risen, output has fallen... This should tell us something, as reserves have risen, and output has fallen as a result of the mega-mergers of the 90s which allowed the combined companies the luxury of booking combined reserves while struggling with the overweight combined fixed assets. You can look it up. Actually you can look it down, in the very same article in the NYT: What we have now is meaningless data, Mr. Simmons said. Big oil companies once prided themselves on conservative reserve estimates. But today, to justify multibillion-dollar investments in politically or technologically risky fields, companies have become much more aggressive, he said. Mr. Simmons is making a social, economic analysis. Not a geological one. Call me old-fashioned, but.. I would think Marxists would want to look at rates of return, fixed asset levels rather than geology before making determinations as to the real reasons for changes in output.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Proven reserves are very unreliable. That point seems to be key to the new Out of Gas book. He asserts that the production curve is a lagged reserves curve. Just as we cannot predict the future based on a couple of data points of GDP or unemployment, the NYT article is only a suggestion of a problem, not confirmation of anything. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
In a message dated 6/12/2004 9:00:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "I read it in the (New York Times, Newsweek, National Geographic, theNational Enquirer, All of the Above); I saw it on TV; I heard (ColinCampbell, Mike Davis, Homer Simpson, All of the Above) say it. Ergo MarkJones was right."Amazing. In the very midst of the exposure of the natural gas "crisis" ofthe 2000, 2001 as market manipulations;. . . despite all that the sky isfalling; chicken little is right; and so was Hobbes because the future isnasty brutish and short, so close out your positions and take the money andrun. Comment Mark Jones thesis - in my opinion, had very little to do with price fluctuations and rivetinghis thesis to price fluctuations does not accurately explain his salient points.Comrade Jones put forward a proposition that humanity itself had reached or would shortly reach the "event horizon" or the nodal point or that point in the bell curve where the absolute decline fossil fuel and energyproduction runs into the thermodynamic barrier with all its socialconsequences. Comrade Jones also advanced the proposition that this thermodynamic principle was the underlying unseen "law" - impulse, that compelled industrial socialism in the Soviet Union to reach its historical limitation (and he throws in the issue of industrialstructures for good measure) in 1945. It seems that trying to prove the operation of the law of thermodynamics on the basis of monthly price fluctuation is a losing cause. Fifty years is a very short time in human history - one way or another. Henry C. K. Liu did an excellent reprint of an article he wrote two years ago (the A List) on the price of oil predicting the $40.00 range and the mechanics that would lower the price . . . only for it to further rise. If Mark J. predicted the rise in the price of oil he was most certainly correct along with everyone else on earth. Comrade Mark J was talking about something with a lot more depth than the price form. Melvin P.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
By the way, in the article posted to pen-l, Mike Davis didn't say that we were running into the Malthus/Ricardo stationary state driven by the absolute scarcity of oil (it's running out! it's running out! we went over H's peak!). Rather, he made it clear that he _assumed_ this and then derived conclusions from it. He's by no means an oil expert and he knows it. the big problem is that because no-one can predict the future, it's very easy for superficial observers to confuse a short-term shortage of oil with a long-term running-out of oil (even though real oil prices are lower now than they were during previous oil crises). jd -Original Message- From: sartesian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 6/12/2004 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Further confirmation of Mark Jones Here we go again: I read it in the (New York Times, Newsweek, National Geographic, the National Enquirer, All of the Above); I saw it on TV; I heard (Colin Campbell, Mike Davis, Homer Simpson, All of the Above) say it. Ergo Mark Jones was right. Amazing. In the very midst of the exposure of the natural gas crisis of the 2000, 2001 as market manipulations; in the very midst of the revelation that crude and refined petroleum stocks in the US and the advanced countries are at record levels, thus generating high spot prices, allowing companies to book inventory valuation based profits; despite the fact that natural gas prices soared as a response too price reductions after the bringing to market of new supplies; despite the fact that Shell's reserve reductions, like its reserve inflation, were accounting adjustments and accounting tricks; despite the fact that gasoline price increases have been shown to be the product of similar market manipulations, based in part of fixed asset reductions and production restrictions-- despite all that the sky is falling; chicken little is right; and so was Hobbes because the future is nasty brutish and short, so close out your positions and take the money and run. Even though reserves have risen, output has fallen... This should tell us something, as reserves have risen, and output has fallen as a result of the mega-mergers of the 90s which allowed the combined companies the luxury of booking combined reserves while struggling with the overweight combined fixed assets. You can look it up. Actually you can look it down, in the very same article in the NYT: What we have now is meaningless data, Mr. Simmons said. Big oil companies once prided themselves on conservative reserve estimates. But today, to justify multibillion-dollar investments in politically or technologically risky fields, companies have become much more aggressive, he said. Mr. Simmons is making a social, economic analysis. Not a geological one. Call me old-fashioned, but.. I would think Marxists would want to look at rates of return, fixed asset levels rather than geology before making determinations as to the real reasons for changes in output.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Michael Perelman wrote: Proven reserves are very unreliable. That point seems to be key to the new Out of Gas book. He asserts that the production curve is a lagged reserves curve. Just as we cannot predict the future based on a couple of data points of GDP or unemployment, the NYT article is only a suggestion of a problem, not confirmation of anything. The material facts regarding oil depletion, global warming, mercury poisoning of the seas, have _never_ been a central issue except in the thought of those who cannot or who refuse to think politically. And thinking politically involves NOT What should the government(s) do? But How can those who recognize the 'facts' achieve political power to do something about it? How can 'we' achieve political power? Then the question becomes: In what way does knowledge of the future of oil contribute to achieving political power? And my answer to that question is, it does _not_. At a certain point environmentalist politics (or what one might call 'futurist' or 'predictive' politics) hit a wall, in the sense of being unable to achieve additional mass support. And that support by itself is not sufficient, or even close to sufficient, either to have the needed impact on capitalist states or to overthrow those states. In this key political sense, environmentalist (or what I am here calling 'predictive') politics resemble conspiracism: they have no 'bite' outside some theoretical courtroom where all the facts can be presented to a fixed judge and jury. One could compare also the bizarre debate among 'soft' leftists about the desirability or undesirability of an immediate u.s. withdrawal from Iraq. Their various suggestions (U.N. replacement of U.S. troops, etc.) have as much political bite as predictions of global warming or of economic collapse from oil depletion. The discussion of whether Mark Jones was correct or not in his analysis of oil is, then, a purely academic discussion. Carrol
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
I have to disagree. Such knowledge is not sufficient. It may not be necessary, but understanding how material conditions evolve will certainly give activists a valuable edge. On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:32:35AM -0500, Carrol Cox wrote: In what way does knowledge of the future of oil contribute to achieving political power? And my answer to that question is, it does _not_. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
I am in general not known for agreeing with others, but hey in an infinite universe The point is, if predicative science is inherently unreliable, then clearly we need to look at the function of such predictions, and that function is ideological, to obscure the origins of economic, social, distress, by attributing those origins to nature, geology, limits, or the greedy, destructive nature of human beings as a biological entity. There is predicition and there is prediction; to confuse science, and/or nature, with class, with the expropriation of labor and the aggrandizement of profit is to wind up supporting a status-quo in its decay. We all should remember that among other things, Mark Jones, predicted that Bush was all bluff, and would never, absolutely never risk an invasion of Iraq. I think Mark's prediction here was part of an organic unity with his other predictions about reserves, supplies, and the future of capitalism.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Carrol Cox wrote: The material facts regarding oil depletion, global warming, mercury poisoning of the seas, have _never_ been a central issue except in the thought of those who cannot or who refuse to think politically. And thinking politically involves NOT What should the government(s) do? But How can those who recognize the 'facts' achieve political power to do something about it? How can 'we' achieve political power? Then the question becomes: In what way does knowledge of the future of oil contribute to achieving political power? And my answer to that question is, it does _not_. I suppose knowing about storm clouds for wars doesn't matter either, although I don't recall any Marxist who didn't care about that issue. Paul * Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science ** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Devine, James wrote: By the way, in the article posted to pen-l, Mike Davis didn't say that we were running into the Malthus/Ricardo stationary state driven by the absolute scarcity of oil (it's running out! it's running out! we went over H's peak!). Rather, he made it clear that he _assumed_ this and then derived conclusions from it. He's by no means an oil expert and he knows it. the big problem is that because no-one can predict the future, it's very easy for superficial observers to confuse a short-term shortage of oil with a long-term running-out of oil (even though real oil prices are lower now than they were during previous oil crises). Why is so hard to predict the future? At the current rate, there will be no more blue-fin tuna left in a decade or so due to industrial fishing techniques and worldwide demand. Most scientists view the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies most of the fresh water in the USA, as a source that will dry up in 35 years or so. The real question for us is now whether these resources are exhaustible, but whether the capitalist system can husband them for future generations. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Carrol Cox wrote: The material facts regarding oil depletion, global warming, mercury poisoning of the seas, have _never_ been a central issue except in the thought of those who cannot or who refuse to think politically. And thinking politically involves NOT What should the government(s) do? But How can those who recognize the 'facts' achieve political power to do something about it? This is not true. Karl Marx was consumed with the question of soil fertility, which was the oil depletion of his age. He never connected it to any immediate struggle, such as the need for an end to Junkers rule in Germany, but saw communism as the real answer--especially in its ability to overcome the metabolic rift. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
You know what I like about baseball? Almost everything, but most of all that anybody can play the game, once social impediments are removed. There is no biological, natural restriction on learning and playing the game. All the restrictions are social in nature and exist to be overthrown. The first step is to distinguish between the social and natural... So like if the game is suspended because of rain, that doesn't mean the players don't know how to play the game. War is not a storm cloud. War is not a natural, biological, geological event. The arguments for petroleum scarcity are all disguised as geological, natural, scientific arguments. Lots of people have been right and wrong. Geologists were absolutely right that large supplies of petroleum would never be found below ground in Titusville, Pa., Spindletop, and East Texas, until large reserves of petroleum were found exactly there. Batter up. - Original Message - From: Paul Zarembka [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suppose knowing about storm clouds for wars doesn't matter either, although I don't recall any Marxist who didn't care about that issue. Paul
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Michael Perelman wrote: I have to disagree. Such knowledge is not sufficient. It may not be necessary, but understanding how material conditions evolve will certainly give activists a valuable edge. It already has given activists an edge -- my point was that nothing could be added to that edge. It is fairly self-evident that capitalist progress is destroying the human species. That needs to be incorporated into all left programs and struggles. But the amount of time, energy, and space being devoted to specific aspects of it (like the coming oil crisis) is out of all proportion to any further gain that can be made. Everyone who can be influenced by the news has already been influenced. And the sad fact is that _most_ of those so influenced have _not_ moved on to anti-capitalist struggle. In other words, our time and energy needs to be spent in turning greens red, not in the hopeless task of bringing more people into the general movement through green agitation. The knowledge we had by 1980 of the ongoing damage to our living space by capitalist progress was sufficient to produce a sizeable green movement, and the added knowledge of the last 25 years has been of no added political impact. Or perhaps it even has had a negative impact, by adding weight to the lesser evil strategies that keep so many leftists tied to the tail of the DP. Carrol
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
- Original Message - From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In other words, our time and energy needs to be spent in turning greens red, not in the hopeless task of bringing more people into the general movement through green agitation. The knowledge we had by 1980 of the ongoing damage to our living space by capitalist progress was sufficient to produce a sizeable green movement, and the added knowledge of the last 25 years has been of no added political impact. Or perhaps it even has had a negative impact, by adding weight to the lesser evil strategies that keep so many leftists tied to the tail of the DP. Carrol ___ At the risk of undermining Carrol's credibility on this issue--- I agree exactly.
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Radicals trying to parse bourgeois discourse around oil now should remember that a lot of it is infected by market sentiment, and with oil up 250% over the last five years, market sentiment is very frothy. (Sentiment follows prices, it doesn't lead them.) A lot of the recent gains were driven by speculators, not actual producers or users, and they're attracted by price movements, not fundamentals. For a lot of them, the fundamentals are just after-the-fact rationalizations of market dynamics. Since many, maybe most, experts quoted in the papers are Wall Street analysts, they're going to reflect the bullish consensus. I suspect we're closer to a price peak than further sustained increases. Doug
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Carrol Cox wrote: In other words, our time and energy needs to be spent in turning greens red, not in the hopeless task of bringing more people into the general movement through green agitation. The knowledge we had by 1980 of the ongoing damage to our living space by capitalist progress was sufficient to produce a sizeable green movement, and the added knowledge of the last 25 years has been of no added political impact. Or perhaps it even has had a negative impact, by adding weight to the lesser evil strategies that keep so many leftists tied to the tail of the DP. This is not really true. Awareness of the ecological crisis has not only led to the growth of the Green Party, it has been largely responsible for the protests in places like Seattle, etc. For Marxists, the problem is how to maintain our credibility among such folks when the USSR appeared to be violating ecological principles in the name of socialism. We also have to sort out our theoretical differences with Frankfurt School type Marxists who conceptualize the problem in terms of Heidegger's writings on industrialization, etc. Not to speak of those Marxists who championed nuclear power, etc. such as Furedi's sect-cult before it morphed into libertarianism. -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
- Original Message - From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Further confirmation of Mark Jones I suspect we're closer to a price peak than further sustained increases. Doug __ Frightening. I agree again. Think the $40 range is the break price. Already some Asian economies are suffering, not to mention transportation concerns, airlines, RRs, etc. (Second largest consumer of petroleum in the US? Union Pacific RR) And when it blows, flaring off all that gas is going to be a hell of a task. In the meantime, advertising for myself and my spleen: http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
A week or so ago, Ian Masters interviewed Fadel Gheit, Vice President for Oil and Gas Research with Oppenheimer Inc. He was explaining how many $$ each international flash point added to the price of oil. Several dollars each for Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia Iraq. I think that it was on the order of $12 or so. http://ianmasters.org/archives.html On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:00:37PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Radicals trying to parse bourgeois discourse around oil now should remember that a lot of it is infected by market sentiment, and with oil up 250% over the last five years, market sentiment is very frothy. (Sentiment follows prices, it doesn't lead them.) A lot of the recent gains were driven by speculators, not actual producers or users, and they're attracted by price movements, not fundamentals. For a lot of them, the fundamentals are just after-the-fact rationalizations of market dynamics. Since many, maybe most, experts quoted in the papers are Wall Street analysts, they're going to reflect the bullish consensus. I suspect we're closer to a price peak than further sustained increases. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Michael Perelman wrote: A week or so ago, Ian Masters interviewed Fadel Gheit, Vice President for Oil and Gas Research with Oppenheimer Inc. He was explaining how many $$ each international flash point added to the price of oil. Several dollars each for Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia Iraq. I think that it was on the order of $12 or so. True, up to a point, but remember, the analysis often follows the price. That's one of the things that civilians often don't get about speculative markets. Doug
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
Michael Perelman wrote: A week or so ago, Ian Masters interviewed Fadel Gheit, Vice President for Oil and Gas Research with Oppenheimer Inc. He was explaining how many $$ each international flash point added to the price of oil. Several dollars each for Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia Iraq. I think that it was on the order of $12 or so. http://ianmasters.org/archives.html I just posted an entry including Gheit's estimate of the risk premium of each fear factor: http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/fear-factor.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Further confirmation of Mark Jones
I beg your pardon, but I predict that the next time there's a supply bottleneck or cartel tightening, people will start talking about Hubbert's Peak again. mbs the big problem is that because no-one can predict the future, it's very easy for superficial observers to confuse a short-term shortage of oil with a long-term running-out of oil (even though real oil prices are lower now than they were during previous oil crises). jd
