Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/gas-prices.htm How Oil Companies Manipulate Gas Prices.
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
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 theprice 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
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
Wrong. The depletionist argument is not about price. It is about immediate, permanent exhaustion of reserves. Quoting myself advertising myself: It's not about resources, it's not about disappearing supplies, and it sure as hell is not about bell curves of production and depletion. The bell curve, like the unicorn, exists only as a fantasy. Oil production rates in most countries have not followed a bell curve of production increases and declines. North Sea production has actually seen two distinct peaks in production separated by a plateau. North Sea production has increased beyond and after the point when the new Hubbertists predicted the decline. Moreover, proven reserves, as tabulated by the Hubbertists themselves now exceed the estimates of reserves the Hubbertists made 6 and 7 years ago. - Original Message - From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] a non-Jones theory of oil prices 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. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
Michael Perelman wrote: 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. My impression is that Mark Jones' argument was about the timing of the event. Who would deny that as a resource is depleted, the labor time required to extract it goes up and that -- one way or another -- that is reflected on the market price? Mark's thesis was that we were at the brink of a Hubbert's precipice. That this prompted a struggle for control of oil resources and that this was the best way to understand global politics in our times. If he's correct except for the timing, then he's not correct. Moreover, Mark ruled out a gradual increase in the price. He emphasized the steepness of the curve's downward slope, which would lead to a sudden and devastating rise in the price of oil. And he claimed that the world economy would be unable to substitute away from oil via technological change or input substitution. He rejected the concepts of demand-and-supply elasticity and input substitutability as bourgeois ideology. The only type of adjustment he envisioned was a sudden and apocalyptic decline in oil consumption. It was a doomsday scenario. This thing about timing reminds me of an awful metaphor used by Gramsci to characterize Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution: Bronstein [Trotsky] in his memoirs recalls being told that his theory had been proved true... fifteen years later, and replying to the epigram with another epigram. In reality his theory, as such, was good neither fifteen years earlier nor fifteen years later. [...] It is as if one was to prophesy that a little four-year-old girl would become a mother, and when at twenty she did so one said: 'I guessed that she would' -- overlooking the fact, however, that when she was four years old he had tried to rape the girl in the belief that she would become a mother even then. (Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks) Julio _ ¿Cuánto vale tu auto? Tips para mantener tu carro. ¡De todo en MSN Latino Autos! http://latino.msn.com/autos/
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
Michael Perelman wrote: 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. not so. What if an extremely efficient solar energy system were developed? Then (if it were not suppressed) the demand for hydrocarbons would likely fall to the floor. Or, more likely, level off. Jim D.
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
Solar power would be nice. The panels themselves often contain plastics, I believe. You saw The Graduate, didn't you. I still don't see anything wrong with what I said. A point will eventually arrive when the price must increase unless some substitute resource comes along -- a la the infamous whale oil story that is told in every introductory class. On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:49:35PM -0700, Devine, James wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: 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. not so. What if an extremely efficient solar energy system were developed? Then (if it were not suppressed) the demand for hydrocarbons would likely fall to the floor. Or, more likely, level off. Jim D. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
Also, the oil companies may be shutting down refineries, as Shell is doing in Bakersfield, Ca. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: a non-Jones theory of oil prices
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. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
