There is already talk that we are entering a new geological epoch, the Anthropocine [sp?]. There are so many changes going on, caused by humans, that they will show up in the geological record.

Sorry to be so grim.

NAOM

Saudi Arabia has a considerable amount of, so far undeveloped, mineral wealth. The investments to develop those resources are now beginning to be made.

A couple of points.

First, in terms of cash flow, because of rising oil prices Saudi Arabia has shown increasing cash flow from export sales, even as the volume of the net exports fell by 20% over a five year period. I call this a Phase One decline. In a Phase Two decline, generally rising oil prices can no longer offset the volumetric decline in oil exports, and their cash flow from export sales would decline.

Second, 21 of the top 33 net oil exporters showed net export declines from 2005 to 2010. So far, there was not a single case of an exporter cutting their consumption sufficiently so that their net export decline rate was less than their production decline rate.

Collectively, the 21 declining exporters showed a -2.3%/year rate of change in production, a +3%/year rate of change in consumption and a resulting -4.4%/year rate of change in net exports, from 2005 to 2010. If we extrapolate the production and consumption rates of change, the combined net exports from these 21 countries would fall from 25 mbpd in 2010 to 13 mbpd in 2020, almost a 50% decline.

Having said that, I generally, but not always, talk about when net oil exporters will "approach" zero net oil exports, but in any case I think that the first 80% decline in net exports is more important than the last 20% decline in net exports.

Incidentally, my favorite part of the essay was where Yergin credits rising US oil production for the 2005 to 2010 decline in US net oil imports of crude + refined products. This is partly true, but about three-fourths of the five year decline in US net oil imports was due to reduced consumption, which was largely a result of US annual oil prices averaging about $72 for 2005 to 2010 inclusive, versus Yergin's predicted price ceiling of $38, and post-2004 monthly spot crude oil prices have so far never been below $39.

So, he uses a decline in US consumption-resulting in a decline in US net oil imports, resulting from a price increase he said wouldn't happen--to refute Peak Oil arguments. It's certainly a novel approach.

As I said the other day, I am reminded of the old joke about a woman who walks in and finds her husband in bed with another woman. He denies that he is in bed with another woman, and asks, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" That is pretty much what is going on now among the Cornucopian Crowd. The data are there, but they don't want you to believe what you are seeing:

http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1-13.jpg
(Global Net Exports & Available Net Exports)

It appears to me that the current prices for installing solar PV (not to mention local employment erecting the panels) would be very cost competitive with burning oil to keep the air conditioners running.

Some reports say the annual average will be over 1.5 million b/day this year.

1,500,000 x 365 x $110 = *LOTS* of solar PV !

Best Hopes for Better Decisions,

Alan

Soleman – Kind of a tough call. But I’ll lay out some facts and opinions.

Facts: Upside - The oil patch is very old and gray. Lots of very experienced hands checking out for good in the next 10 years. TAMU well respected in PetE. Did my geo grad work at TAMU right next store to PetE dept. Lots of Aggie PetE’s out there…and they take care of each other. Will be a demand for PetE’s even in the US for a while: old fields don’t take care of themselves. As long as prices stay up the resource plays will need a lot of PetE’s. A PetE degree can translate to other fields to some level.

Facts: Downside – A degree gets you only so far. Takes 4 – 5 years of experience before you become a truly use full mammal. So job availability when he graduates is critical. Avoid the service companies if possible. Good training but if biz slows they’ll cut you lose in a heartbeat…especially if you’re young. Lots of time away from home. Sometimes work on a 7 day rotation…sometime 28 days if working overseas. I handled rotation well…many don’t.

Opinions: I have no freaking idea. LOL. Let’s use me as an example. When I decided in 1970 to major Earth Sciences (geology) there were very few jobs for geologists. But I was young and foolish and having recently gone through some near death experiences didn’t give a cr*p about such insignificant things like the future. LOL. But then when I get out of TAMU in 1975 the oil patch wanted as many geologists/PetE’s as they could hire. Then the 80”s came along and they fired us as fast as possible…just when many new graduates (many of whom got into for the money) were getting out of school Then it got better in the early 90’s. Then it got worse. And now it’s much better.

So now let’s predict the next 40 years or so. You first. LOL.

So a simple answer: Yes…if he’s drawn to it. Might end up regretting it but that’s life. The only other advice I can offer: put a lot of that big paycheck into savings. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Not a whole lot to add to what the Rock said, but demographics is a very big factor. Most Oil Patch types are in the 55+ age group. And five years after graduation, people generally refer to Aggies as "Boss."

BTW, I don't know if the move to the SEC is a consideration, but here is a link to a discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6LB5TdmU4

Perhaps another way to look at the question of college majors is to consider what the alternatives are. Following is a link to my general advice from four years ago, the "ELP PLan." Getting a degree in petroleum engineering would certainly classify as taking care of the "P" part of ELP. Just remind him that geologists' estimates of recoverable reserves are always right.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-08/elp-plan-economize-loca...

A couple of points.

The University of Texas graduates about half of the PhDs in Petroleum Engineering in the world and some of that carries over into the undergraduate program. Bright undergraduates are sometimes approached about going to grad school.

I recommend that almost every engineering undergraduate stay an extra year and get a double major. It can save a year of unemployment later - and can help in one's career. Chemical Engineering is a natural complement to PetE (they even share a building @ UT) and for tertiary recovery, ChemE would be a definite asset.

Best Hopes,

Alan

I think that's a good way of putting it!

Surely this is somewhat of a propaganda piece, but propaganda works both ways. Some people who read this article might just be inclined to look up the facts for themselves. The Wall Street Journal cannot print an article like this without simultaneously awakening more people to the genuine problem of resource and energy constraints.

What's interesting about American propaganda is how futile it is. The Nazis and Soviets and many others throughout history were better at it. I suppose this is a good thing. Americans only care about getting richer, and when they can't get richer, no amount of propaganda will convince them that the nation is on the right track. You can't simultaneously have the American Dream and propaganda! The reason is that wealth is something tangible. When you're broke and gas is expensive, it's literally impossible for TPTB to tell you that it's in all in your head, that you are actually rich and gas is cheap.

Look at the polls these days, the vast majority of people are losing confidence in the whole charade.

Mind you I understand that gas is still cheap, but it's expensive in relation to the American suburban project and transportation infrastructure, and that's what counts. And it's only going to get more expensive in real terms.

The game is over, the jig is up, the fat lady has sung.

I haven't yet decided whether the current economic crisis is a symptom of expensive energy (peak/plateau/low-growth oil) or is simply caused by too much debt/credit, which in turn is a symptom of unrealistic future expectations. There's so many things happening simultaneouly that I have trouble figuring out what the root cause of our current situation is.

And how will it all play out in the medium term, for example, what will Greece, Ireland, and the US look like in five years, and what about China, India, and Pakistan?

Rockman - You are absolutely correct that the peak of oil production will only be known well after the fact, but that is not a refutation that the peak will occur. Even Yergin would agree that any continuous use of a finite resource will eventually deplete it. An oil peak will certainly occur sometime, and at the rate we use oil, the peak will be within years or decades, if it has not already occurred. In the not too distant future, fossil fuel use will reach such a low level that we could say that it has "run out".

Our real problem is the extremely shortsightedness of Yergin and others like him (most everyone). Energy use is so important to everything we do that we should be planning (collectively) in terms of centuries if not millennia.

A few years ago, an architect I was working with related a telling story. He had been asked to design the reinforced concrete foundation for a new religious temple near the seashore on the island of Kauai. One of the client's requirements was that this foundation be designed with a 1,000 year minimum life expectancy to match the life of the stone building that would go on it. The architect quickly found out that there were absolutely no guidelines anywhere in modern architecture for such a foundation. He speculated that he might have to study ancient buildings in Europe to find an appropriate foundation, most likely stone blocks. He worried that even if he came up with a plausible design, it would be unlikely to meet current building code requirements.

Not designing buildings for 1,000 year lifespans can possibly be justified by the belief that any such design would be "functionally obsolete" far before the end of its physical integrity. But human use of external sources of energy will become obsolete only on the day our we revert to a life of growing or gathering by hand, and eating uncooked, any food we can scrounge. Since we've never had a 100 year energy plan, much less one for a thousand years, that's what probably lies ahead for many of us.

I am reminded of Zeno's paradox where Achilles could never overtake the tortoise because the tortoise would always have moved a little further as well...

Yergin was right? From this Oil Drum article:-

cera oil production forecast - Google Image Search. Pick one at your leisure. The TOD graph from 2006 suggests 2010 C+C at 82 mb/d; even with the recession that's way off the mark. AL is off the chart, 98 mb/d? They made the EIA/IEA look like pikers. Wonder if he reflects on this in his book, which I do plan to read, and put on the shelf next to Smil/Mills/etc. Do enjoy seeing what the other side has to say.

You guys are making misleading arguments-I never said Yergin, or any of the cornucopians were right about prices.

But the issue is about prices. In 1998 Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere wrote the famous article in Scientific American "The End of Cheap Oil." It should be obvious to anyone who thinks that >$100/bbl oil is not cheap that they were right, and continue to be right. So, in effect, the peak of oil production is irrelevant. What matters is whether we can afford the stuff as the price stays $100/bbl or above on into the future.

The irony of this story (one irony among many) is that the 'cornucopians' are predicting that much oil will never get produced because we will simply segue into using some other form of energy (you know, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, etc....). While what is beginning to look much more likely is that, with the aid of $100+ oil, the economies around the world will slow down to such a slow level (or actually go into reverse) that much oil will never get produced.

I'm beginning to realize that 'peak oil' is becoming more and more irrelevant as the worldwide economic situation, along with the environmental situation, agricultural situation, climate change, etc. etc. will swamp us regardless of the availability of oil we can't afford anyway.

In Mark Twain's words, "What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

I have changed my mind and become more nuanced in my views in my years of following TOD. Rather than being a catastrophe, I now think that oil supply constraints will be a severe inconvenience. An inconvenience that we'll eventually get over, if we can avoid war and famine.

First a minor point.

I have not read Yergin's new book either, but the reviewer in The Economist seems to want to misdirect the reader:-

The digitalisation of oil production will make far more oil recoverable from any field. The complex deepwater drilling recently perfected by Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled company, has suddenly raised the prospect of Brazil becoming one of the world’s biggest producers. Refinements in hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, whereby water and sand are squirted at high pressure into shale beds, have made massive reserves of American gas available—sufficient to maintain current levels of production for a century.

I don't know what is meant by digitalisation. Presumably it means better steerability and other drilling and production enhancements that make small finds economic to extract . . . at current prices. But costs are rising, seemingly inexorably.

Brazil is all potential. How much oil is really there, how much OOIP is resource, and how much of that can be extracted remain to be seen. There is much hyperbole.

There is serious doubt, doubt raised by knowledgeable people here on TOD and other places, about the claims being made for shale gas.

The reviewer, if not Yergin, is being unbalanced in coverage of these matters.

But I want to turn to a larger point.

Vaclav Smil has pointed out many times that previous predictions of energy supply growth have all massively overestimated.

I think that this tendency to over-predict still exists, and Yergin is prey to it. The fact that he continually predicts that the price of oil will fall is an illustration of this tendency, so Yergin's price predictions are just as relevant as his predictions about quantity.

I think that pundits underestimate the power of the market, and subconsciously misunderstand how it works.

Sustained high prices unleash the market. High prices kill demand and make people use oil more efficiently. High prices stimulate manufacturers to make more efficient vehicles. High prices nudge manufacturers into selling vehicles that don't use oil at all. High prices provoke farmers to grow corn, sugar cane, and cassava for ethanol rather than wheat, soy beans and rice for food. High prices cause the clearing of rainforest to plant oil palms, so we can have substitutes for oil.

But most importantly, high prices nudge consumers to change their ways. To use buses and trains. To live in different places. To telecommute. To demand more trains and safer cycleways. They nudge logistics companies to use trains rather than trucks or planes. To double-stack the trains. To demand more and better rail service. High prices nudge manufacturers to locate closer to their markets.

Oh, yeah . . . high prices also stimulate oil companies to increase investment. But, if they're smart, not too much. Certainly not as much as Daniel Yergin says.

The power of the market has been unleashed, and anyone who thinks that fossil fuel demand will continue old patterns and trajectories is almost certainly wrong. We may well see $60 oil again, in a couple of decades, maybe less, but if market forces work as advertised, we won't see 101 million barrels per day. We simply won't want that much.

That's my humble opinion.

Now, you might say I'm being inconsistent with the comments I made yesterday.

Yesterday I said that the USA is splitting into two populations: people who can afford to buy new cars, and people who buy used. For the first group fuel is still a relatively small part of the household budget, and so these people will buy vehicles for their status-enhancing characteristics. And since humans are visual, social animals, status comes from size. Electric vehicles have to be cheaper in sticker price than ICE vehicles with the same status-enhancing power, or they won't be bought.

There really is no contradiction. First, what I said yesterday is about the short run, and this comment is about the long run. Second, annual vehicle sales are down by about a fifth from the peak. Which way will they go in future? The long-run forces listed above are pointing in the downward direction. And third, the USA is last century's news. The new growth is happening in Asia, and Asians will invest in the things that make sense in today's situation.

Sorry that this comment is so long. I didn't have time to write a shorter one.

oldfarmermac,

You can't use the argument that the cornucopians have been right for a hundred years because Yergin most certainly doesn't say that oil will never peak, though his opening remarks would tend to give that impression. His nonsense is that he chastises the peakists whilst, at the same time himself declaring a peak to come. As we can see from his prediction history, he doesn't have a good record on predictions about oil production and prices. In addition, you are defending him as an intelligent person and yet, despite his woeful record on predictions and despite over 30 countries being past peak, he wants us to believe him this time. This time, of course, he'll be right. If he is an intelligent man, he must know, surely he must know, that he has a good chance of being wrong on this. Yet he continues to beat the drum with regard to increasing production for the next 4 decades, when not even the IEA or many top oil executives would accept that. Is that the stance of an intelligent man? Heck, look at the projected chart of production that CERA has used - it is ridiculous to suggest that his company can forecast yearly changes of oil production decades out, and yet that is what CERA would have us believe (the chart has yearly ups and downs forecast for the plateau period lasting decades).

You earlier mentioned that tar sands can be thought of an an oil source, as indeed it can. But it can only do so profitably at high prices. Once that sort of oil becomes the norm, the production rate is going to be way down and the price will be way up (if it isn't, then the production rate will be even lower). Does Yergin factor that in? Of course he doesn't. All cornucopians like to give the impression that all oil reserves are equal, even if they know they are not equal. Their idiocy knows no bounds. As long as he's making money by telling lies, he's perfectly happy, while the rest of the world goes down the tubes.

Agreed..the timing of this article is very important.

We are on the cusp of the 4th QTR...the most profitable time of year for retailers. From all indications (my personal observations), the 4th QTR retail of this year is headed south. I believe there are some large retailers that can not continue BAU in their current model if the consumer is not going to go into debt to buy their products (i.e. Best Buy) and will either have to drastically change that business model or pack it in. Look at what happened to Borders.

If consumer sentiment continues to plummet, there will be a continued drain on the US (and global) economic engine...there are many out there trying to paint the consumer psyche to a much rosier portrait than it actually is...Yergin is doing his part to pacify people.

I digged out this usefull graph:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Model-4_effects.jpg

Didn't manage to get it to show up on my preview, you have to click the link.

Hi Paul, best of the weekend to you. Here in BC we have our first rainy weekend in almost two months and my electric heat came on this morning - summer is "officially" over!

I have asked you this before, but just clarification - for the ductless heat pumps, the factor that really counts is the HSPF, correct? Friends of mine are looking at a Daikin mini split, and the model range goes from SEER 15 to 18 to 26, but, for the 15,000 btu models (that qualify for the fed and prov rebates) the HSPF on all those is 10 to 10.8.

Since these will never be run in aircon mode, I presume the HSPF is the factor to go one, and not the SEER. It is a $1k premium (on a $3000 project) to go from SEER 15/hspf 10 to SEER 26/hspf10.8, but I don't think that is at all worth it.

Related, we have just had the yearly increase in power rates from BC Hydro - we now pay a truly outrageous 9c/kWh! To paraphrase someone, the BC way of life is "not negotiable" and I think we should invade whoever we have to to secure the cheap electricity that we need - gotta keep all those baseboard heaters going - the SUV's of home heating!

Thanks for your prompt reply, Paul

Jeez, you'd think with all millions of kitchen sinks out there, this would be a no-brainer for the LED industry.
Any idea what Philips charges for their cove light?

Meanwhile, maybe I'll stuff a string of LED Christmas lights into the cavity, cover everything up with the lens, and wait a few years....

-rick

Ralph - The UK? Heck, I live in one of the more red neck/blue collar places in Texas and have plenty of Indian and ME restaurants we hit often for our veggies and nan. But I also grew up in New Orleans and just can't handle bland food.

The ironic thing is, is that the vast majority of them are run by Pakistanis & Bangladeshis and not Indians!

@ida-russkie
Are the details of the accident available in the public domain? I have acquaintances that are interested in reliability and safety of software design engineering.

At the moment of the accident, which was 8:13 local time (00:13 GMT), its load was 475 MW and water consumption was 256 m3/s (9,000 cu ft/s). Vibration of the bearing was 0.84 mm which exceeded the values of other turbines by more than fourfold

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano-Shushenskaya_hydro_accident

No remote start, not in maintenance. They knew well beforehand turbine 2 was out of balance, and the bearings were failing.

I'll absolutely check it out. My guess is that, per his usual, he'll describe something quite practical and call it magic. A re-branding of something more prosaic, perhaps more suited to human brains as they actually exist.

Still, if you listen to the linked audio file, he does profess that demons & the like are real.

"that you can feel free to believe all sorts of crap you ain't got no right to. "

That's exactly what he doesn't perpetuate. I don't think you are that familiar with his work.

but as far as I'm concerned that basic lack of contact with reality, or at least lack of integrity within one's own mind is core if not primarily causal to most of mankind's ills.

I think we are on the same page here. However, its hard to blame the individuals, when the culture places no value on reality based thinking, and in fact celebrates, emotional and/or magical thinking. So the sheeple are mainly just doing what the culture encourages. The real failing comes in the public education arena, which ought to know better.

Yoiks. You may be right.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/russia-us-to-study-methane-emissi...
September 02, 2011
Moscow: A group of 27 Russian and US scientists has left on board a research vessel to study unprecedented emission of methane gas in the eastern Arctic, which could lead to acceleration of global warming.
The 45-day expedition will focus on the sea shelf of the Laptev Sea, the East Siberian Sea and the Russian part of the Chukotka Sea, where 90 per cent of underwater permafrost is located.
"This expedition was organised on a short notice by the Russian Fund of Fundamental Research and the US National Science Foundation following the discovery of a dramatic increase in the leakage of methane gas from the sea bed in the eastern part of the Arctic," the expedition leader Professor Igor Semiletov was quoted as saying by Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
As compared to carbon dioxide, methane traps about 20 times more solar heat.
"We assume that the leakage of methane results from the degradation of underwater permafrost...A massive release of such a powerful greenhouse gas may accelerate global warming," Semiletov said.

Scary as hell.

However, data is not that well-suited to convincing people.

What's needed is high-def video, maybe even take an IMAX camera along, charter a vessel to the area of boiling seas and light it. Ff it's really 'boiling' it could produce some testicle-retracting imagery, particularly at night.

The image of the arctic ocean on fire - if it's that bad - will penetrate much quicker, farther, and deeper into the zeitgeist than data could, taking the issue of climate destabilization out of the realm of abstraction.

Time's a-wastin'. Don't assume I'm kidding. (One hopes others are already on the way to do this, but I find that sometimes these "others" don't exist).

Volunteers? Fancy a sea voyage Alan? Dohboi? Rockman?

If you think that hitting 50% between the various extremists makes your opinions correct then you simply still don't get it. The facts are the facts. It doesn't matter how many people 'vote' a particular way, that doesn't change the facts.

We simply are not going to devolve into an agrarian utopia/dystopia (depending on if you like that sort of thing). The market will adjust. People need to eat so they'll pay more for their food such that the oil gets to the tractors & farms. But our wasteful use of oil will shrink as we move to mass transit and cars shrink in size, become hybrids, become plug-in hybrids, and become EVs. We have no magic bullet solution in science and technology. But they are the best tools we have. If you want to see what America will change into, all you have to do is look at Europe. They have the same standard of living and get by on half our oil usage. We will probably use EVs more though since we are more addicted to personal transport due to our lack of a good mass transit and rail system.

did you see what happened to the people in the Toronto protests? if any 'hint' is seen of them getting in any way what so ever serious the current mayor of new york in the name of 'keeping the peace' will have the city's police department physically haul them away. While the news media hype it up as a terrorist plot or the like.

Burgundy:
The American Dream is to be the rich guy, to be the one wheeling and dealing and oppressing. Not to be a punk on the street with a backpack and a cardboard sign.

The net effect of this "occupation" will be pretty much zero, you can count on it. Americans are too busy working for their fiat dollars, everybody trying to get ahead of everybody else in the quest for money, fame, and status.

That's why the conservative counterrevolution was so successful, and why it's pretty much complete at this point. This country is about getting as large of a piece of the pie as you possibly can, or "die tryin'." It's not about sharing the pie, even if people here wish this were the case.

Based on the pictures that I've seen, the demonstrators do not appear to be nearly well enough clothed or equipped for extended fall camping. Temps have been in the 50s, so it is nothing too bad right now, but the predictions are for persistent precip later in the week.

Besides, the bottled water will probably run out before then.

It's unclear whether enough New Yorkers are involved to sustain this. There seemed to be a lot of out-of-town demonstrators. If there isn't enough local logistical support, it will fizzle pretty quickly. Reports were that there were 5000 last evening and 500 this morning.

If you think that that $$$ doesn't buy them influence in congress...

Absolutely right dohboi. It's no longer By The People, but rather by the dollar influences from big corp. And in recent years those laws governing political contributions have been geared to allow pretty much anything. People can vote, but if every choice is a person bought and paid for, then it never really was a choice in the first place.

dohboi - Anyone can buy all the infuence they want. Does that make people vote for bad politicians? No...they vote for who they want elected. Do they buy cars with low mpg because of such influence? No, they buy what they want. Do they buy McMansioms that use more energy than a small African village because of this influence? No, they buy the house they want. Do they spport swapping blood for oil because of this infuence? No, they want to maintain BAU for their own comfort.

It's not difficult at all to go head to head against companies that try to influence politicians with campaign contributions. None of those companies get to vote. I'll throw it right back at you: how many incompetent/ignorant/dishonest politicians have you voted for because of corporate influence? None you say? So the majority of Americans are duped but not you? Sounding a tad elitist, eh? That's OK though. Don't many here, including both of us, go on about how we get it while much of the public doesn't? But isn't that laying it on the public's door step? That's exactly my point.

The American people have acted irresponibly election after election. The according to your logic I am correct: the American people have consistantly made mistakes by electing politicians who are influenced by corporations. So you agree with me: the Ameican people are primarially reponsible for our current situation. Thanks for the support. LOL.

Read my words again. I didn't say there weren't all kinds of influence that come to bear. I said the public is reponsible to sort it out and make the best choices. Corporations may have influence but they don't vote...the public does. If the public votes wrong it's their responsibility. To be honest I'm starting to get tired of folks making excuses for the public. We are where we are today because of the choices folks have made. And those choices were made to satisfy their selfish and ignorance based desires. I think it's called personal repsonsibility. Maybe some of don't like having to share some of that collective guilt. Too bad. We have met the enemy and he is US. And you and I are part of US...like it or not. LOL

But it all goes round and round, doesn't it.

Wall Street has enough money and power to dictate what the laws are. So saying 'they are just staying within the law' doesn't let them off the hook.

We certainly have to change the system, particularly to make it so that corporations do not have the rights of super-individuals, and so they are not required by law to put profits above all else. But those benefiting (for now) from that system are going to fight powerfully against any change in those laws.

For the record, I think it is much more important to cut expenses than to raise taxes. The main expense that should be cut is the military. Incurring expenses from to many adventurous wars that then means you must over tax the citizens is the usual rout for the fall of great powers. We are in the midst of that.

As with many things these days, thanks do a series of very bad decisions by various sides (but one must point out that Bush's rush to war really put a huge hole in our finances), we now have no very good choices. And the best choices seem to be permanently off the table.

If we had saner and less lobbied politicians, perhaps they would see that, just like the British Empire in the 20th century, the American Empire is now an anachronism that should be dismantled with all due haste. Train the returning service folks to be teachers, farmers, and installers of insulation and solar panels.

But there will also have to be tax increases. These should fall primarily on those who have the best means to pay them. Taxing the wealthy at the highest rates is not just about bringing down the deficit but out of a sense of fairness in a time of universal sacrifice. In the same way, small businesses and their owners cannot be let off the hook. Frankly there are few businesses that we need at this point. Mostly we all need to figure out how to have satisfying lives with a whole lot less of most things.

"The economy" has mostly been a huge engine to produce masses of stuff people don't need so that people who don't have enough money can buy it to impress people they don't like. It's time to move away from that kind of economy. So being the cornerstone of the boomboom economy does not sell me. In any case, the economy has thrived (thriven?) with much higher tax rates on the relatively wealthy, so higher taxes alone is not what squashes business.

Ultimately, we need a new economics of energy decent to help figure out how best to allocate increasingly scarce resources in a maximally fair way. But that is unlikely to happen any time soon, even if we had a well developed theory along those lines.

Yep, the main point (as I understood it) wasn't that high taxes on the wealthy cause the economy to boom. Just that they weren't the absolute impediment that rock seemed to suggest they were.

Businesses are swimming in cash right now. That is not what is stopping them from hiring.

The solution is a FIT. 90% of the worlds PV has been "leveraged" with a Feed in Tariff contract. At rates just need to be reasonable, perhaps a nickel over retail or the cost to build a new coal or production - whatever that is. Headway is being made and regulators are getting used to the idea. Not a single penny of Taxpayer money has to be involved. At panel prices where they are - A megawatt building or barn installed one pallet at a time is what many of my clients are itching to do.
Beats a 401k. FIT's catching on world wide, www.wind-works.org

Problem is that inflation after a point is a runaway train. Once people realize that you can borrow on your card, spend today then pay later in worthless dollars the whole thing will be out of control. All kinds of debt would spike all of a sudden and money velocity would go through the roof.
Right now in spite of all the QE, money is either being hoarded or is stuck with the banks, that could change rapidly.

Here's a good explanation
http://www.goldonomic.com/inflation.htm