All of the below is straight out of wikipedia. Helps to know I'm not just making shit up :)
[I]"Luis Ramírez Corzo, head of PEMEX's exploration and production division, announced on August 12, 2004 that the actual oil output from Cantarell was forecast to decline steeply from 2006 onwards, at a rate of 14% per year. In March 2006 it was reported that Cantarell had already peaked, with a second year of declining production in 2005. For 2006, the field's output declined by 13.1%, according to Jesús Reyes Heróles, the director-general of PEMEX.
In July 2008, daily production rate fell sharply by 36% to 973,668 barrels per day (155,000 m3/d) from 1.526 million barrels per day (243×103 m3/d) a year earlier. Analysts theorize that this rapid decline is a result of production enhancement techniques causing faster short-term oil extraction at the expense of field longevity. By January 2009, oil production at Cantarell had fallen to 772,000 barrels per day (123,000 m3/d), a drop in production of 38% for the year, resulting in a drop in total Mexican oil production of 9.2%, the fifth year in a row of declining Mexican production.
In 2008, Pemex expected Cantarell's decline to continue to 2012 and eventually stabilizing at an output level of around 500,000 barrels per day (80,000 m3/d). By September 2009 this figure was already achieved, marking one of the most dramatic declines ever seen in the oil industry"[/I]
The reason is that there is a huge economic incentive to NOT announce that a field will be declining, with all known parties, both private and public, being hurt badly if it became known that a field would be in severe failure in the upcoming years. In short, they had started a nitrogen injection program in 2006, allowing them to extract more heavily at the expense of long-term extraction....but again, all incentives are aligned to do this. No one gets paid or elected from saving a field for 20 years down the line.
The reality is that the geologists do not understand the long-term effects of some of these techniques for more rapid extraction of an elephant, because they don't have anything to go off of. It is all educated guessing at best.
If one day the House of Saud announces that production next year will be falling double digits though, put your chin strap on. It would be an economic nuclear bomb. We would recover at higher prices, MUCH higher, but at first it would be a mess.
The ultimate failure of a "free market", code for allowing aligned capital to do whatever they want to make money THIS quarter, is seen in areas like this, not to mention what happened in 2008 in banking....these all require long-term, patient planning. Acting as if completely self-interested capital should be at the reins of such seismic societal resources is ideological madness. It is common sense that it will be a disaster, as we have evidenced.
Thank you for that, Laz, and yes, Pemex, not Parabas. So - they did know and kept what they knew secret; and also they did not know how fast it would fail at the end.
"Acting as if completely self-interested capital should be at the reins of such seismic societal resources is ideological madness." I wonder, if there was no Gov't, or VERY small Gov't, if our lifestyle, economy and production would be so completely dependent on Oil. I don't think so. For over 60 years engineering students, for their graduating thesis, have designed cars that run on a wide variety of sources, such as water - a steam engine. And for all that time Ford or GM have bought up those papers, designs, and buried them. Electric cars are seriously hampered because gas stations have no facilities for recharging them, and the big Oil companies have no plans on adding that. It's very possible, even likely I think, that our economy, society, country, culture would be very different if Gov't hadn't grown so big and controlled so much. And that's true in most countries.
I agree, it does look like there's disaster ahead. There's no reason to think that our Gov't, Big Corporations, and elites will act any differently. How long do you think we have before the coming oil collapse, a guess, as you have said the figures are not available?
I agree with your sentiment entirely....what I would say is that there is no separation between the government and the interests you outlined. They are one and the same. When I read "Big Government", I hear "corporate control of government"....most "bureaucracy" is just thinly-veiled corporate interference into protecting their capital.
If one could create a real free market, with rules in place to prevent monopolization, and with strict rules that prevent money from running the political process, I am in favor. That would not be difficult. We did it for 200 years in the US, before Reagan.
Government is steered by corporate interest, and their interest is about the next 3 months alone. If you run a country like that, it will be a disaster. That isn't rocket surgery.
As for the rest, I don't really like to use the word "collapse", as that implies it will happen quickly and violently. I think it is more like a "new normal", where exceedingly expensive energy becomes just accepted....just as $4 a gallon has gone unnoticed without anyone questioning the fundamentals.
Within ten years, it will be very obvious that we are in a huge amount of trouble....as my father always used to say "It will be so obvious, even stupid people will know it." :)
[B]Laz[/B], we agree on the effects but perhaps disagree on the causes, or attribute causes differently.
"If one could create a real free market, with rules in place to prevent monopolization, and with strict rules that prevent money from running the political process, I am in favor. That would not be difficult. We did it for 200 years in the US, before Reagan."
It sounds like you place the primary blame on the corporations for offering bribes (no matter how legally). I place the blame primarily on the Gov't for accepting the bribes. Two hundred years ago it was considered shameful to 'want' political office, rather the 'people were supposed to actively choose a candidate by acclaim'. Today no one even understands the thought of any shame in wanting political power, and taking bribes to get it. The fact that Fed. and State pols get rich while being in office isn't even commented on, and they all do. Two hundred years ago a man of 30 - 35 who had established his own wealth or income from farming or business would be able to hold office without expecting to be paid, other than bare expenses, or to get rich, and desiring power over others was immoral. (Of course they held this belief while also having slaves.) Today such beliefs are considered somewhere between naïve and foolish.
Because of the general moral depravity I think no Fed. Gov't preferable, and no enforced customs except 'non-aggression'. Because like everyone else I now have a hard time believing any politician is not out for power and money. Now if a community, town, area wants to make their own rules without enabling the majority to deprive the minority of anything, that would be OK. But I'm not sure that can be done.
Thanks for the 10 year time guess. That gives us time to prepare.
[B]Laz[/B], Please do respond. I really am ignorant of the view that the big corporations are primarily to blame. Yes, they are the ones with the money to spend, but that in itself is not morally wrong, is it? On the other hand, Big Gov't takes in quite a lot of money in taxes, and although that's supposedly a non-profit exercise, spending it does wield a great lot of power.
I've also been thinking of your hope for the checks and balances of our Constitution to effect a good Gov't. Are you suggesting returning to the limits imposed by the Constitution?
[QUOTE=Rojo;1312706]LJB's Howard University Commencement speech:
[I]But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.
For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities--physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.
To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough. Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighborhood you live in--by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.[/I][/QUOTE]
And yet he was one the worst presidents in us history and one of the worst people
good speech writer though
[QUOTE=Cryptocode;1322943][B]Laz[/B], Please do respond. I really am ignorant of the view that the big corporations are primarily to blame. Yes, they are the ones with the money to spend, but that in itself is not morally wrong, is it? On the other hand, Big Gov't takes in quite a lot of money in taxes, and although that's supposedly a non-profit exercise, spending it does wield a great lot of power.
I've also been thinking of your hope for the checks and balances of our Constitution to effect a good Gov't. Are you suggesting returning to the limits imposed by the Constitution?[/QUOTE]
I will try to make this as systematic as I can. It is a VERY complex issue....
First of all, let us start with the Constitution and what we were founded on. I have written about this before, both on this forum as well as more academically.
The founders were a very combative, diverse group...for this reason, pretty much anytime you hear the words "our founders said", whomever is talking is about to lie to you. Our founders disagreed on pretty much everything. There are only a few basic tenants that they all shared. Chief among this is:
-- Property rights and INDIVIDUAL liberty....what I mean is that they were anti-collectivists, all of them. They did not feel that large organizations, be that a monarchy, government, a corporation, or a bank, should be able to override an individual's liberty. Redress of grievances is the mechanism to affect this, through petition or protest. The government must be responsive, and AFRAID of the resolve of, the individuals of the society rising up against them.
Against this force, individual liberty, there were 5 forces aligned against it. If one reads anything by the founders, especially Jefferson, the odds are good he is talking about one of these 5 forces and it's dangers. (I can say I have read all published writing of Jefferson. Others I am working on.). In short, there is liberty, what we were founded on, and these 5 forces that we must always fight against.
1. The Government itself ---> very obvious, and spoken about all the time today, esp by the right.
2. Religion ---> They came from a place where the church could raid your home, take your possessions, or throw you in prison for what you believed. Assuring that the government favored no religion was central to their philosophy.
3. Large corporations, banking interests ---> The Boston Tea Party happened because of a tax break given to the biggest business/monopoly of its day, the East India Company. Most colonial businesses were constantly being choked out by British monopolies, so the founders were very leery of big companies. The same went for banking.
4. Perpetual war ---> Jefferson felt there was no greater way to enslave a population and ruin the treasury. This is why he opposed to his death a standing army.
5. Oligarchy, especially in regards to information ----> The ability of a small group of people to run things, and influence thought through media. This is why the freedom of the press was in the first amendment.
What has happened is that we have lost the idea of individual liberty....that is what is usurped by this made-up ideal of a "free market"....and it is the fault of the moneyed elite, more so than the politicians, because of that. In short, the 1950's and Milton Friedman, with all of his contemporaries like Rand, saw the ideal of a "free market" touted like a new kind of religion. That is the part I believe you are missing; that these politicians did not, and DO NOT today, make these decisions that vastly benefit the obscenely wealthy, out of being crooked or to make money themselves....they do it because they honestly believe, as it is now doctrine to believe, that these policies actually aid the country.
The idea of the "free market" did not arise out of nowhere. It was heavily promoted and funded by the super-rich as early at the late 40's. Any small amount of research will verify this. Out of the Chicago School of Economics as a sort of paid-for thinktank, it eventually became the official economic policy of the US starting with Nixon, but much more so with Reagan.
Under this idea, all organized capital must be given whatever it wants. This led to lobbying in its current form, whereupon interest groups are allowed to influence policy directly, and often to write the laws. (At our founding, this was explicitly illegal, and call by its real name, "bribery") There have literally been people put to death for treason in this country for doing what is now accepted economic/political practice, that being to allow those with monetary interest to write law.
The reason this usurps liberty is for the reason I started with; it is a COLLECTIVE entity, a corporation....we were founded on the idea that the collective, in whatever form, may not be allowed to over-ride the individual.
Every time a corporation influences government, it is taking the place of the rightful mechanism of change, that being the redress of grievances by the people, from having power. This is theft of liberty, pure and simple.
The reason it happens is not because all politicians are corrupt. It is because the elite have branded it, made tv channels and magazines, all from the idea that because an entity has money, it must be allowed to acquire power.....allowing this collective action of a legal entity, a corporation, to override our ability as citizens to influence government, now has a name, the "free market". In short, it is code for allowing the wealthy and to take over the government as a religious-like doctrine. It is genius that they have morphed it into this, and convinced so many of the non-wealthy citizens to give up their own power and turn it over to them, all in the name of so-called "liberty".
Of course, not understanding that liberty is an individual attribute. As Jefferson said, there is no such thing as a "free country", only the "souls of the living" can possibly know liberty, by its definition.
The wealthy created this idea, funded it, and gradually converted it into actual governmental policy....the chicken came before the egg, so to speak....or in this case, the free market cult came before the corruption. The simple problem with the so-called "big government" is that "we the people" are not in charge of it. We have lost out ability to redress grievances, and most of our problems have this in common. The free market religion has cultivated this robbery of our liberty into a virtue, much to the elite's benefit. Very brilliant.
I see. Thank you, that is a very clear explanation.
How would you go about correcting the current situation?
I gotta be honest....that question would take me a book to answer. I am writing one, if that is any help. Fiction, but based on this kind of stuff.