Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

This from Paul Syvret in the Courier-Mail:

... Then there is the looming problem of Peak Oil - the stage when demand outstrips the world's capacity to produce it.

In September, a Macquarie Bank report found we had already hit that wall. Report author Iain Reid says production capacity will peak at 89.6 million barrels a day this year. By 2012, demand will exceed this.

... Australian policy makers (with the notable exception of the Queensland Government, which established an oil vulnerability task force several years ago) appear reluctant to listen.

It went unreported in the media this week, but on Wednesday Greens deputy leader Christine Milne noted in the Senate that: "Neither the former Howard government nor the Rudd Government implemented the first recommendation of the 2007 Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels."

This recommendation was that Geoscience Australia, ABARE and Treasury reassess both the official estimates of future oil supply and the "early peak" arguments and report to the Government on the probabilities and risks involved, comparing early mitigation scenarios with a business-as-usual approach.

She called on the Government to "develop a national plan to respond to the challenge of Peak Oil and Australia's dependence on imported foreign oil". The motion was defeated 31 votes to six.

The most basic logic should tell us we can't continue to increase the exploitation of a finite resource indefinitely.

Phil Moffat:"Maybe Bertrand Russell was correct when he said that a war every now and then was a good thing for it gets rid of excess population, or words to that effect. Let’s hope the economy does not become so important we humans have to slaughter each other in the interests of the economy".

It's a Keynesian myth that wars are good for the economy. People like Paul Krugman push this myth and then blame others for pushing wars as if to prove his fallacy.

Wars are a shocking malinvestment, and personally I couldn't think of anything worse for an economy. Any person that thinks a war can help with an economy is a fully fledged unthinking idiot. The historical evidence of how bad war and economics mix is easily available.

The human imagination may be the greatest source of growth, Paul. It is also the greatest creator of pathological destruction

When you embrace freedom (and most never will, not even in their own lives), you understand that it is a true double edged sword. Results are sometimes not what we'd like them to be - that's the price we pay being part of an imperfect world. In my opinion, still a much better price than the alternative.

Freedom is tough, captivity is worse.

Paul, I suppose my question was not a particularly fair one, for it would take a brave person to make a call regarding the carrying capacity of our planet. Although the question was not fair I  trust its logical was not missed for planet Earth is most certainly a finite bio-system.

You know, when you think about it, really think about it, you could be forgiven for becoming a little bit claustrophobic. Here we are, all 6.5 billion people surviving within a very thin envelope of air and water while surrounded by a totally inhospitable and unimaginably immense universe. No wonder many are extremely concerned for our survival and our current management of this fragile and finite environment .

There are many individuals and organisations/empires to point the finger at when it comes to massive disparities in the material culture of nations. I don't particularly want to get involved in a blame game for we all play our part in these inequalities.

I will add, however, that I feel our microscopic biosphere could carry trillions of people if we could use our knowledge and sciences in a creative (and yes we humans are good at that), and equitable fashion while facing up to the reality that our real-estate is finite - not a winner take all mind set that motivates our economies at the present.

Unfortunately one could draw a parallel between the winner take all mentality, material culture and corruption/fraud; our latest (watch this space) financial crises created by the very clever brokers of Wall is a fine example.

Here we see a whole industry corrupted by competition. It's a bit like Gresham's Law (where bad or debased currency pushes good currency from circulation) except in this case the honest brokers could not compete with dishonest ones and either had to behave equally fraudulently or go do something else.

The end result is the much of the globe has pretty well been stuffed (for the present) by financial capitalism (bullshit wealth) gone mad, which is robbing productive capitalism of life.

Somehow, I reckon, we as a people have to come to terms with our destructive/competitive streak and teach ourselves to be more co-operative otherwise we may not have an economy at all, which would be sad for I reckon we have enough real wealth/resources and creativity on this planet to comfortably support many trillions of us; if used fairly, intelligently and with prudent respect for our host - mummy Earth.

Maybe what we need is a Gresham's dynamic - in reverse.

David, short term price predictions aren't really my thing, but if you want an illustration of long term demand trends, check out this post by Sam Foucher at The Oil Drum. Basically, demand destruction (aka the 'global financial crisis') came into play in the OECD from circa 2005, while non-OECD oil consumption continues to grow strongly. Chinese consumption has nearly doubled in the last ten years. I find it very amusing that the casino monkeys (aka 'traders') and talking heads make their casino bets on the 'fundamentals' of the domestic US market alone, while ignoring the global trends. In the short term, bear in mind that oil is used as a currency hedge. With financial markets still jittery, I would say that USD fluctuations will have more of a bearing on short term oil prices than any demand fundamentals.

The connection between finance markets and peak oil (among other 'peaks') will be explored on the third episode of Addicted to Money on ABC TV next Thursday night.

Another upcoming test for whether it's speculation or demand that's driving the oil price.

My prediction: Thursday close (buyer taking delivery of real tankers-full) will be between $80 and $82 (6-7% up from yesterday).

I'll answer your questions Phil, however, first you answer one of mine.

Have you noticed how all attacks (in the world's best interest of course) are upon industries, careers, lifestyle choices etc of a particular type, ahem, once widely known as, ahem, "blue collar"? If you accept this, why do you think that is? I'd be most interested in your opinion.

I just never read about the "terrible growth of Silicon Valley". Or the idiocy of living on a "peer reviewed" earthquake fault line like people do in San Francisco, I mean why are prices so high when people should be forced to move? Surely re-building can't be environmentally sustanible?

How about the wasteful paper industry such as the book industry, newspapers etc? I mean how many forests need die for these merchants of tree death? Recyclable paper you say, however wouldn't that mean, ahem, that dreaded economic growth has sneakily got under all our guards? And should be stopped in the best interest of our planet?

Phil Moffat: "Although many would argue (correctly) that a fairer (less corrupt) allocation of wealth and resources could knock hunger on its head in no time."

It depends on who's doing the telling. The orginal socialist type (those people that actually did things like work) or those that think sharing the bong at the University Campus is enough for club membership.

If you are referring to the first group you would need to accept that the middle-class cannot exist. That free-loading is free-loading. That free-loaders include those that may be poor such as healthy welfare/tax collectors - known as free-loading off ones own society/kind (the most vile form of betrayal). Never at the harvest, always first at the table and all that.

Or the second category which pretty much represents most of today's western center left parties. Otherwise known as free-loaders.

The first category makes some very interesting arguments (though I disagree with them). The second category haven't any, and are highly represented on the net for some reason.

Stuart: “Perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world. Get used to it. Welcome to the peak oil era.”

Paul: “Any person that understands the actual meaning of real economic growth would understand why your above statement is pure uneducated nonsense.

I think Paul may be a little unfair with his criticism of Stuart’s comment. I suspect  when Stuart uses the term “growth” he had in mind biological growth. Paul then defines his term as being economic growth.

Paul gives me the impression he considers the economy to be an entity unto itself and if allowed to function unencumbered by human interference then all will be OK, both socially and environmentally.

The only problem with that is the economy is a by product of human interaction. Human beings are both the creators of good and services and the consumers of good as services. The relationship between biological growth, the environment, and the economy is an intimate and poorly understood one.  I would argue that our primitive races had a greater understanding of all that than we do - but that's another discussion.

No humans no economy, more humans a bigger economy.

Today the average human being requires around 2,300 calories a day and a clean water supply just to keep breathing. Today around 24,000 human beings stopped breathing for a lack of those basic essentials. In short, our economy cannot (or refuses to) support the population we have today. Although many would argue (correctly) that a fairer (less corrupt) allocation of wealth and resources could knock hunger on its head in no time.

My question to Paul is: How can we expect to enjoy infinite economic growth in a finite bio-system with a finite carrying capacity taking into account that the material culture enjoyed is directly related to the carrying capacity (more plasma TVs per capita less carrying capacity). In short, how many beings can Planet Earth support?

Maybe Bertrand Russell was correct when he said that a war every now and then was a good thing for it gets rid of excess population, or words to that effect. Let’s hope the economy does not become so important we humans have to slaughter each other in the interests of the economy. Oooops ... we have been doing that for yonks, like the mugs we are.

The human imagination may be the greatest source of growth, Paul. It is also the greatest creator of pathological destruction – seems to me we have already created our perpetual economy, but do we like it?

Stuart McCarthy: "These are your own ideological ravings, Paul, not the authors of the paper, who simply make the factual observation that "The connection between economic growth and energy use is fundamental in the IEA’s present modelling approach."

If you managed a company, any company, and you started refusing contracts because you had some crazy notion of keeping the exact rate of return year on year....on and on, you wouldn't be called an "ideological raver". You would rightly be known as an unbalanced idiot and dismissed.

Perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world. Get used to it. Welcome to the peak oil era.

Real growth (minus inflation)is a measure goods and services produced. Economic growth comes about through stronger demand in some cases, innovation, and productivity increases in others. Perhaps a combination of all of these things.

Any person that understands the actual meaning of real economic growth would understand why your above statement is pure uneducated nonsense. You're essentially claiming the human imagination (greatest source of growth) is finite. Or it least it should be.

Thankfully the world I inhabit doesn't revolve around caves, beating one another with clubs, and consuming raw meat (human or otherwise). Good thing this finite world thingy didn't take off ten thousand years ago.

The attack on economic growth was started by socialists and assorted losers as a means of explaining away past and hopefully (for them) future economic failures. It's a ruse aimed solely at the ignorant as means and a ways of exploiting them - scaring them against their best interests.

If you really understand economic growth, as you claim, I'm insulted that you'd attempt that garbage with me. I'm neither ignorant nor anywhere near exploitable.

Am here just returning from the Guardian, where one Terry McCallister, 9/11/09, tells us; " Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower".

We find out that the oils equivalent to Standard and Poors, the International Energy Agency, has been fudging on how much oil is really left. A bit less than we were told, originally (seem to to recall this question of fudged figures turning up in previous outings for this issue, at Webdiary!!)

Once again, so much for leaving the rabbits in charge of the lettuce patch.

The connection between economic growth and energy use is fundamental in the IEA’s present modelling approach. Since our forecast sees little chance of a significant increase in global oil production, our findings suggest that the "policy makers, investors and end users" to whom WEO 2008 is addressed should rethink their future plans for economic growth. The fact that global oil production has very probably passed its maximum implies that we have reached the Peak of the Oil Age.

Always with the evil of economic growth! What is it with people?

Without economic growth there isn't a hope of a better world. There's a place called Africa that for fifty years (some recent changes thankfully), has been a walking talking advertisement as proof of my claim.

The western world has been in the midst of a cultural change since the 80's. Energy use and lifestyle is a part of that change. It must be remembered that two very significant and unforeseen events have taken place since the 80's which has naturally caused transitional disturbances. That being said, cultural change is a generational thing likely to take up to a quarter of a century, possibly longer.

The two major interluding events:

1. The end of the red peril. We've gone from half a world to a full world in a very unexpected short period of time. This changing world has presented significant challenges.

2. Technology revolution. Resulting in a short boom period, that's unlikely to be matched again in our lifetimes.

The IEA is as delusional has helicopter Ben if it believes we'll be making a quick return to those halcyon days.

The point is that every half sensible person knows oil won't be the product this century as it was last century. And force and dreaded government control were never needed, and it's not needed now. Alternative energy sources become competitive around $90. Lifestyle changes for many become a very real option at around $100 a barrel (probably psychologically as much as any thing). Oil has a special niche, and that niche will be with us through our lifetime - but it's a niche and not a cure all. The human is a most adaptable creature, and necessity is the mother of all invention. People will make the priority cuts when the time comes (not having an alternative is a great motivator).

I just don't see all the doom and gloom.

Ps The third major lifestyle change will soon be upon us. The working retirement of the western worlds baby boom generation.

Wanting oil at ridiculously high prices is self defeating for alternative energy, and indeed environmentalism. Destroy industry and you destroy investment, and alternative energy (even with its God like qualities) is an industry that needs investment.

If people want an alternative energy industry they should only want a strong one. That means one that isn't solely kicking about on subsidies and hopes of competitor destruction - that's the surest road to doom. That though would be a whole new page.

By coincidence, Kjell Aleklett et al The Peak of the Oil Age was accepted for publication in Energy Policy today. The authors examined the IEA's own data in WEO 2008 to find that world oil production has already peaked. Here is the abstract:

The assessment of future global oil production presented in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2008 (WEO 2008) is divided into 6 fractions; four relate to crude oil, one to non-conventional oil and the final fraction is natural-gas-liquids (NGL). Using the production parameter, depletion-rate-of-recoverable-resources, we have analyzed the four crude oil fractions and found that the 75 Mb/d of crude oil production forecast for the year 2030 appears significantly overstated, and is more likely to be in the region of 55 Mb/d. Moreover, analysis of the other fractions strongly suggests lower than expected production levels. In total, our analysis points to a world oil supply in 2030 of 75 Mb/d, some 26 Mb/d lower than the IEA predicts. 

The connection between economic growth and energy use is fundamental in the IEA’s present modelling approach. Since our forecast sees little chance of a significant increase in global oil production, our findings suggest that the "policy makers, investors and end users" to whom WEO 2008 is addressed should rethink their future plans for economic growth. The fact that global oil production has very probably passed its maximum implies that we have reached the Peak of the Oil Age.

 

IEA whistleblower(s) in today's Guardian:

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.
...
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further."

Hi Paul. If I'm right, then we'll have another $100+ oil price spike in the next six months. So, we'll see which of us is reading the entrails better fairly quickly.

David Roffey, the present demand situation is tepid (being extremely nice). Builds are at all time highs (since early 80's), imports are decreasing and refining is at about 80%. If capacity was working any higher they'd be giving the stuff away with every family pizza - on fundamentals of course. The USA is all that matters in this situation and fundamentally you just couldn't be long oil at present. I'm not saying you must be short, however, I'd be on the sidelines rather than long. That's a fundamental reading.

Sure, the majors make a lot of money out of higher prices, but surely someone should have seen an option to make even more money by increasing their supply capability and market share at these prices. Or maybe they do really believe in underlying oilfield problems (aka Peak Oil).

There's buying but it ain't industry doing the buying.

If you saw a suit you liked, and then saw that it would be on discount next week, what would you do? Think about it. That's the same way an over cooked commodity market works.

Many billions of dollars need to be invested to increase energy supply. If it's to increase oil supply, that money goes into drilling, pumping and refining (and crapping up the planet generally).

When you don't want to run your existing assets at full capacity, why invest in extra capacity?

Good time for tanker watching though, and there's plenty out there with nowhere to go.

I can't read the future, only speculate, I do though know the present. And it's not getting better. Monetary expansion has never worked, and monetary expansion will never work.

David Roffey: "Here's a question for the economists amongst you: if, as Paul Morrella opines, the price of oil isn't determined by supply and demand, in what sense is it a market?"

I wrote supply and demand was one factor, a factor that often isn't the most important factor. Supply and demand wasn't a factor when the price ran up to $147, and isn't the most important factor at this point in time. The factors are numerous, too numerous to write about without a specific question.

Oil is traded either fundamentally or technically. Perhaps a combination of both. If you take the purely fundamental route (and obviously you have), it's beyond me how you could justify oil at even today's price. Basically and simply you can't - how could you? That's your supply and demand problem.

Read any (even a cursory glance) inventory report and it stares right back at you. Keep in mind October (historically the worst month for prices) had a distillate draw-down. The reason of course is that at the end of driving and hurricane season (peak) refinaries close for upgrades. That's a very basic historical market known. The physical barrel inventory of course increased, again, historically a basic known and expected.

If you have a fundamental reason for the current price, I'd be more than interested in knowing what it is.

The nonsense of peak oil chatter takes away from much more (real life) important and potentially very sinister and damaging activities. Activities that can have an adverse impact on us all - as we've all witnessed. Peak oil is a meaningless charade, and as such of absolutely no real discussion value.

22 Sept and 21 Oct (last trading days for October and November oil) were also trading peaks, with price climbs on both last days.

Here's a question for the economists amongst you: if, as Paul Morella opines, the price of oil isn't determined by supply and demand, in what sense is it a market?

David Roffey "Now, unless I've misunderstood your reasoning on this post (and others) so far, you say that a) the market cannot be fooled and/or plain wrong for any sustained period of time, and b) there is no logical reason to believe that oil prices should ever again get to June 2008 levels, as predicted in my original post above".

The recent oil price spike was due to factors not relating to supply being able to meet demand.

I would never be so stupid as to think a price could never reach a level in the future. Anything is possible given the right circumstances.

Stuart McCarthy "Granted, there is not yet conclusive proof that world oil production has peaked, but given that oil is a finite resource it is only a matter of time, not a 'theory'. To counter this 'theory' you would have to demonstrate not only that oil is infinite but that its rate of production can be increased infinitely". 

I'm still none the wiser about the point of peak oil. If it's to totally baffle me, it's working.

I was under the impression that oil decline would surely be taking place in my lifetime. That peak and subsequent decline in oil supply would lead to economic hardship, social unrest etc, etc etc. Hence the term "theory". Maybe I read it wrongly.

Yes, I know oil is a finite product - I've taken this sage advice on board, you don't need to repeat it post after post. I'm much more concerned about when the finite tag (as in out of existence) will kick in (something it appears you don't wish to share). Will it be in my lifetime, my childrens, perhaps in the third dynasty of the 25th century? I may get my self a lead lined box, and place within, your homely philosophical pronouncements. The box can be passed from generation to generation, only to be opened at the time.

Why would I try and prove oil production will go forever and ever? Why would I even spend time thinking about something as stupid as that?

I'm not concerned about oil supply in the near future, and don't think anyone else should be overly concerned. There's certainly no real evidence that points to a reason for great concern. And the "near future" means the next few years, not the life and times of Buck Rogers and friends. If something dramatic happens I'll re-access my analysis. Until such a time a shall continue to resist the urge of catching the falling dagger - it only ever stabs you in the head.

PS if you wish to share some predictions on "near future" supply shocks, prices etc feel more than welcome. I'll read such posts with great interest. I'll no longer be replying to questions about finite products, as such questions have now passed their finite used by date.

Paul, I'm now confused as to where your ever-practical reasoning leads you on what definitely happened in the first half of last year. One of the following two things happened:

1. the supply of oil failed to meet demand, and the price climbed dramatically to $145 a barrel and triggered a demand crash; or
2. the market dramatically failed and was overtaken by speculators who managed to drive it away from sensible pricing for a sustained period of more than a year (the period it was above current pricing).

Now, unless I've misunderstood your reasoning on this post (and others) so far, you say that a) the market cannot be fooled and/or plain wrong for any sustained period of time, and b) there is no logical reason to believe that oil prices should ever again get to June 2008 levels, as predicted in my original post above. These two beliefs cannot simultaneously be correct, as at least one of them is disproved by history. [Though NB "economics is the only science that examines what works in practice to find out whether it works in theory"]

 

Anthony Nolan: "However, the price for holding to irrational and unfounded views and for constantly asserting what no-one else holds to be true is to not be taken seriously, to be treated as what is known as a "flat earther" or a fanatic or an ideologue".

I highly doubt all my views are held to be the stuff of a "flat earth" or of an ideological fanatic by reasonable people. Though, it's true when something is out there, we're no longer in control of what the masses ultimately think.

My views have been formed through time and experience relating to certain core subjects. When I post here I attempt to formulate my experiences as a central theme. That's my thing, (for my own reasons) and if you don't like it, tough break. I think a forum such as this is nothing if not a clearinghouse of views and sometimes the reasons for those views.

Beliefs are a personal issue and so long as they comply with the law enjoy the freedom of speech. Something that has caused tin-pot little Hitlers everywhere no end of grief.

But Paul Morrella holds that beliefs are a freedom of choice issue which explains his consistent assertion of counter factual arguments in relation to, for example, peak oil and global warming (to name only two ideas on which he simply refuses to recognise facts as facts).

Common consensus isn't inalienable proof of correctness. And most certainly a common consensus doesn't apply to the two subjects above. Large numbers of questions remain when it comes to man made climate change (the first being what is the perfect temperature we're aiming for?). Peak oil is a theory, and many of views relating to near term peak oil and major problems aren't held by most involved with the oil industry.

At any rate my posts mostly deal with possible implementation of policies and laws as response to the two subjects, especially with man induced climate change - something that's been to date, disgracefully neglected.

I see him as an enemy of civilisation and with good cause.

You could only see me as "an enemy of civilisation" (like a type of virus) if you believe your own views (the views I dont' hold) to be of unquestionable right and good. That's as good a sign as any of a "fanatic".

Stuart McCarthy, the three most important factors when looking at oil prices are of course supply and demand, US dollar index, and future economic outlook. Volatility and trade volume are also of large importance if one wishes to take an intraday view.

It's also interesting to note that come November rules relating to large positions in oil will see regulatory changes.

Yes, oil rose dramatically (I well remember over ten dollars in one day leading to a trading halt). The subsequent pull back in prices whilst over a more orderly time period was no less dramatic (especially for anyone long).

If you want to argue purely supply issues it must apply in both directions.

I have been reading the posts of Paul Morrella with morbid fascination for some time now.  There are numerous things wrong with what he writes but for the moment I'll contain my criticism to one point alone and that is what is called moral subjectivism.  It is illustrated most clearly when he responded to another post in this thread that:

Beliefs are a freedom of choice issue.

Completely wrong. Belief, for example, in what is true is not a matter of subjective choice but of ascertainable and verifiable fact.  The sciences rest on a belief that it is possible to discover the truth, say of the laws of physics, via a variety of methods.  The philsophy of science has thoroughly tested the methods of science and notwithstanding the work of Alan Chalmers in What Is This Thing Called Science it remains the case that scientists can arrive at a commonly held and rationally testable idea of the truth of a matter.

But Paul Morrella holds that beliefs are a freedom of choice issue which explains his consistent assertion of counter factual arguments in relation to, for example, peak oil and global warming (to name only two ideas on which he simply refuses to recognise facts as facts).

The moral subjectivism of modernity has been thoroughly examined by Alasdair Macintyre in his After Virtue in which he claims that:

There seems to be no rational way of securing moral agreement in our culture. From our rival conclusions [as parties to a moral disagreement] we can argue back to our rival premises; but when we do arrive at our premises argument ceases and the invocation of one premise against another becomes a matter of pure assertion and counter-assertion. The rival premises are such that we possess no rational way of weighing the claims of one as against another. For each premise employs some quite different normative or evaluative concept from the others, so that the claims made upon us are of quite different kinds... It is precisely because there is in [modern] society no established way of deciding between these claims that moral argument appears to be necessarily interminable.

Interminability characterises Paul Morrella's incessant and conversationally disruptive posts because they are nothing more than assertions of beliefs; his opinions have no grounding in fact.  There is no basis for what he argues and he feels justified in asserting nonsense because he thinks that it is a freedom to believe whatever he likes.  It is, of course, an unfreedom to live in ignorance of the truth and, moreover, to deny the possibility of arriving at the truth through dialogue with others.  This is pre-modern superstition at its worst.

Michael Bakaoukas has a handy little web essay summarising the issues available at http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/uc_bakaoukas4e2.htm

in which he claims of Macintyre that:

In this system, termed emotivism, "moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character." Thus, morality has been reduced to little more than personal choice.

It is precisley the immorality of Morrella's subjectivism that I find disturbing: his refusal to cite facts or sources, his refusal to acknowledge counter arguments, his refusal to enter into dialogue in good fatih with respondent after respondent on thread after thread.  What is more, he thinks that he is entitled to believe what he likes as a matter of freedom of choice. 

However, the price for holding to irrational and unfounded views and for constantly asserting what no-one else holds to be true is to not be taken seriously, to be treated as what is known as a "flat earther" or a fanatic or an ideologue.  I do not see him as a kind of quaint contributor to Webdiary, a fogey with irascible if odd views.  I see him as an enemy of civilisation and with good cause.

Stuart McCarthy,now myself, I haven't a problem with consumption taxes (apart from being taxes). Taxes on consumption (that includes oil) are much preferable to taxes on production. My qualification is that they be up front and honest.

The fact is that as a percentage of income, consumption taxes (environment tax) are regressive. Yet, they're fair, in that you are taxed for what you use - it's a voluntary tax. And the gross figure will differ greatly from the percentage to income figure.

Unfortunately the low reaching nimrods that find themselves running  governments won't (can't) never get it together. Imagination and pizazz is the key to anything. Take something like the "Tobin tax" (worth looking at). Politicians haven't progressed ( the days of Tobin) from that day, they've regressed at a massive rate.

The best tax (there isn't really one) have a meaning, a reason, and an end. Can you think of tax that meets that criteria in operation?

And that's why environment taxes should be fought against. Tooth and nail.

Anthony Nolan, I read and watched all the links that you posted.

Your response? Nothing.

There wasn't anything to respond too. There's two sides to every story. Wal-Mart is the company you should write to. Defending Wal-Mart isn't my role.

You ignore genuine engagement in the hope that what shows you up as an intellectual fraud and a humbug will simply go away. It won't.

I don't post here as a joke. And I don't try and claim I'm an intellectual.

You have exposed yourself in post after post as unable to back up what he says or writes.

I post an opinion, "robust" perhaps, an opinion all the same.

You shirk away from real debate.

I shirk away from very few things. I wasn't even aware there was a debate. What exactly is the debate?

Seemingly the debate is mostly you linking me to masturbation.

Pathetically, you made the claim that the founder of Walmart and others of his ilk are creative persons. 

I think he was.

You clearly identify with the entrepeneurial spirit as a creative force and lament what you see as a lack of rcognition for the creativity of such energy.

Yes, that's probably true. Though, the context is still important.

If you want recognition for creative activity - learn to play the oboe, or write a decent poem or do something creative but for heaven's sake stop your bloody whining about how tough it is to be a dollar earning businessman and still find the dollars to be insufficient reward for a lifetime's endeavour.

At least the above paragraph has something resembling a pulse. I can read it and (shamefully) re-read it. You're approaching something like a confident (middle aged man, guessing) communicating.

Either that or do something worthwhile with you time. In your case I'd recommend that you start with a course on moral philosophy.

I'll pass.

 

Stuart McCarthy "So you're arguing that a) the end of perpetual economic growth is nothing to be worried about and b) the causes of the current global recession (including the 2007-08 oil price shock, as per material cited earlier) are no big deal, as long as we treat the symptoms and just wait for the next oil shock in a couple of years time?

"Perpetual growth" is something worth aiming for - similar to the perfect game. It doesn't follow that it's going to happen, or it's even likely. I can give a number of examples, including this year, when the chain was broken so to speak.

I don't believe the latest "oil shock" had much to do with supply and demand.

I'd prefer you quoted what I write, rather than what you'd like me to write.

Stuart McCarthy: "So as far as "speculating on future events" goes, maybe you could enlighten me on the evidence for your speculations that world oil production will continue to grow, i.e. show me where the two (plus) Saudi Arabias are going to be found every second year."

And show me when I ever wrote that "two Saudi Arabias" would be found every second year"> You must have me confused with somebody else.

There's more than enough oil in world at present. And the way the happy tax slappers are behaving, it'd seem they believe there is as well. I don't see any particular need to be worried about the future of oil, and I think the present has more than enough problems that need to be dealt with first. And a lot of those problems are much more pressing than concerns about oil - which is extremely minor in context.

Anthony Nolan: "Paul, it doesn't matter to me what the tax arrangements might be behind the Guardian.  Besides, without at least some form of reference to substantiate your claim I don't believe you."

what you believe on your own dime is entirely down to you.

There comes a time when ideological hot air exposes itself as puffery and nothing more.  Your time is up. 

And what ideology has to do with running a successful customer service based business is anyone's guess. I've no idea what the above line of gibberish means.

Paul, it doesn't matter to me what the tax arrangements might be behind the Guardian.  Besides, without at least some form of reference to substantiate your claim I don't believe you.

Now, on to your appalling error in lauding Walmart as a "creative" enterprise. The web is full of well researched critical comment about the social and economic impact of Walmart policies.  Here is one such:

Wal-Mart wields its power for just one purpose: to bring the lowest possible prices to its customers. At Wal-Mart, that goal is never reached. The retailer has a clear policy for suppliers: On basic products that don't change, the price Wal-Mart will pay, and will charge shoppers, must drop year after year. But what almost no one outside the world of Wal-Mart and its 21,000 suppliers knows is the high cost of those low prices. Wal-Mart has the power to squeeze profit-killing concessions from vendors. To survive in the face of its pricing demands, makers of everything from bras to bicycles to blue jeans have had to lay off employees and close U.S. plants in favor of outsourcing products from overseas.

Available at: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

And from the same source:

A gallon-sized jar of whole pickles is something to behold. The jar is the size of a small aquarium. The fat green pickles, floating in swampy juice, look reptilian, their shapes exaggerated by the glass. It weighs 12 pounds, too big to carry with one hand. The gallon jar of pickles is a display of abundance and excess; it is entrancing, and also vaguely unsettling. This is the product that Wal-Mart fell in love with: Vlasic's gallon jar of pickles.

Wal-Mart priced it at $2.97--a year's supply of pickles for less than $3! "They were using it as a 'statement' item," says Pat Hunn, who calls himself the "mad scientist" of Vlasic's gallon jar. "Wal-Mart was putting it before consumers, saying, This represents what Wal-Mart's about. You can buy a stinkin' gallon of pickles for $2.97. And it's the nation's number-one brand."

Therein lies the basic conundrum of doing business with the world's largest retailer. By selling a gallon of kosher dills for less than most grocers sell a quart, Wal-Mart may have provided a ser-vice for its customers. But what did it do for Vlasic? The pickle maker had spent decades convincing customers that they should pay a premium for its brand. Now Wal-Mart was practically giving them away. And the fevered buying spree that resulted distorted every aspect of Vlasic's operations, from farm field to factory to financial statement.

There comes a time when ideological hot air exposes itself as puffery and nothing more.  Your time is up. 

Stuart McCarthy: "Paul, how will the government afford to pay for roads by cutting taxes? There is already a road user deficit of around $8 billion per annum, i.e. a gap between tax receipts from road users and public costs for keeping cars on the road."

By cutting government spending in other areas.

Killing business and employment isn't going to help with future tax receipts. Unfortunately, what most don't seem to realize (they will shortly) is that this latest round of world-wide government waste (ironically to stimulate consumption spending) wasn't the selling of your childrens future, it was the selling of many peoples retirement future.

Scream and shout for all it's worth, nobody listens to the aged and broke. And that's a sad reality.

That's exactly the point. Imagine increases of a couple of dollars a litre. For what its worth, the CSIRO recently modelled (for what it's worth) prices of up to $8/litre within a decadein the event of a near term peak in world oil production, a scenario for which there is now very strong evidence. Don't you find it a little odd that the cheap-suit-wearers are going apoplectic over the 7c scenario but ignoring the much more far-reaching implications of the couple of dollars scenario?

There isn't any strong evidence. What you have is a government body speculating. Are they now dabbling in the hedge fund business to pay the wages or something?

People are put in positions today to manage the problems of today. Speculating on unknown future events is a cheap and easy way to avoid responsibility for today's problems. However, only in government would one ever get away with it.

Anthony Nolan, the Guardian, you  write? Ironic really, the Guardian parent company is controlled by a trust, a trust set up to avoid a very possible (at the time) inheritance tax. That's a socialist tax that really does hurt rich people.

The irony is that if this particular tax had come out to play (and worked), you wouldn't be quoting the Guardian talking about "capitalist pigs". Yes, that amuses me in its own weird way.

It might seem odd to equate oil with the publishing firm Penguin, but how other than the need to publish – ie be seen – do we explain the various correspondents’ collective oil ignorance?

Afghanistan has always been a conduit – with Armaco/Exxon etc proposing years before the need to chase terrorism 'providentially' arose – that Afghanistan was critical to the infrastructure that would see a pipeline to Delhi, a pipeline to Moscow, a pipeline to Paris, and a pipeline to a new terminal (on the Afghan coast) supplying tankers 'to the world'.

One imagines all these pipelines might carry something – but where are the peak or, for that matter, any figures re all this infrastructure, unless some-one else's oil is the attraction.

(John Howard and British Petroleum definitely knew what they were signing for – they'll even send you a tender – if you cast your mind back to those euphoric times).

Perhaps 'the humanitarian crisis' (John, you'll save us from ourselves!!) for Darfur contains the missing link.

One billion by invested BP/Total and Chevron in Chad, one billion invested in Sudan BP, Total and China – while gunships use the facilities to launch raids.

Perhaps we are all climate-skeptics despite our impossible beliefs.

Stuart McCarthy: "You seem to be conflating climate change responses (eg. the proposed CPRS) with peak oil. Not that I am advocating the CPRS (which I think is bogus, as I said previously), but this proposed tax would equate to about 7c/litre in its current form. This is less than the fluctuations of the weekly "price cycle" manufactured by the petroleum retailers. This is peanuts compared to the price increases associated with declining production and/or shortages"."

Well, the reverse would make such a tax cut "peanuts". Funny how politicians aren't talking about that. By the way, the 7c (if that's the correct figure) will increase along the supply chain. The trick for opposition to this tax is to talk annual costs. The simple rule for the Australian Conservative leader should be, one can never say the word tax enough (his party should run a book on who can say it the most in thirty seconds). It seems he, and indeed they, need all the help he can get.

 I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that people like the late Sam Walton strive to give the consumer what they want at the most competitive price. That's why they're credited with creating things, and enjoy the rewards that come with that.

People like politicians live off the sweat and hard work of others. They attempt to find the easy earn in everything (the peanuts). That's why they're credited with destroying things, and are treated to the derision they deserve amongst polite society. And they wear cheap suits and shoes.