[lbo-talk] Fwd: [PEN-L] Kevin Phillips: declinist

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 09:50:24 PST 2006


Miles:
> It's interesting that almost all these arguments were used in the 1970s
> to debunk Hubbert's claim that U. S. oil production would peak in the
> mid-70s and then decline.

the arguments I presented do not apply to U.S. oil production. Rather, they refer to _world_ oil production (though for simplicity, I focused on U.S. oil consumption). There's a world market for oil, while I'm not interested in U.S. nationalist arguments about "avoiding dependency on imported (and/or 'Arab') oil."


> Geologists' statistical models--which
> supposedly ignore all of these sociopolitical factors--quite nicely
> predicted the decline (and continuing decline) of U. S. oil production.
> The Hubbert model has also been used to accurately predict patterns of
> oil production in a number of other countries.

but oil supplies in new countries have been -- and likely will be -- found, so that one-country studies don't mean very much. Again, the various demand-side factors that I sketched can play a big role in putting the Peak further off into the future.


> Let me put it this way:
> if I have to choose between a statistical model well-verified by data
> and neo-classical economic arguments about how price increases for a
> commodity will promote technological wonders, I'm going with the data.

the neoclassical argument is that price adjustments will do the trick. I disagree. I am not now and have never been a "neoclassical." I don't believe in technological wonders arising from "market forces." Intelligent government intervention in markets is needed. As I noted, it's unlikely given the current political balance.

My impression is that the statistical models you refer to involve minimal theory and a lot of simple extrapolation. Is this true?

My bottom line is that both theory and data are needed. Those who avoid theory and extrapolate trends are fooling themselves, as are those who think that theory is enough. And of course, there's more than one theory. One has to intelligently choose between them.

BTW, I did not elaborate my theory completely. I think that capitalism involves a tendency toward over-accumulation (excessive growth even from the capitalists' perspective) that causes or contributes to periodic "energy crises" due to the short-term inelasticity of energy supplies (whether or not there's a Hubbert Wall -- long-term supply inelasticity -- in the future). These crises encourage recessions and inflation, which undermine a lot of the investment needed to economize on energy use (especially when done by the private sector). -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list