PDA

View Full Version : Peak Oil is real, the crash is deliberate, and this man predicted all of it



PressCoverage
09-30-2008, 11:10 AM
Meet Michael Ruppert... Editor and founder of FromtheWilderness.com, author of "Crossing the Rubicon", former CIA recruit and LAPD narcotics officer...

Everything stems from the energy crisis and Peak Oil. Global conflict, economic catastrophe, mass famine, the War on Terror. About the only thing he's gotten wrong the past 9 years is that there'd be a military draft. Perhaps not wrong, just not yet.

This is a snippet from "Denial Stops Here" from '05

wjTP_Fco-oY

Part 2:

Note the 2:45 mark, where he nails the housing bubble.

K_h1UAuxUNA

"My whole thesis has been: Until you change the way money works, you change nothing."

Needless to say, his life is and has been in danger for quite some time. Brilliant men who tell the masses the truth they're not supposed to hear? They're frowned upon is this New World Order.

MDFINFAN
09-30-2008, 11:46 AM
That was very interesting, and a lot of ppl have heard me rant about Nike and why I don't buy their products.. it's companies like them that piss me off. we buy, and the dollar goes overseas to pay workers there..we are shifting our whole economy overseas.. and as they guy said, we'd living off peanuts and credit cards... hopefully those who understand, now really understand, and those who didn't before are starting to see now...it's been obvious to me for some years, we're going to a 3rd world status..if we don't change our policies and practices, we're be there within 10 years..if not sooner.

PressCoverage
09-30-2008, 05:59 PM
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TODAY



Michael C. Ruppert




Tuesday, September 29, 2008, 7 P.M. PDT - For years I have told you exactly what was going to happen and it has. Today's economic meltdown, with the Dow dropping 777 points and $1.2 trillion in equity lost is no exception. In our second FTW Economic Alert back in 2002 I predicted a market crash that saw $1 trillion in shareholder equity lost in the following three months -- $1.2 trillion was destroyed just today. That and much more.


In FTW's fourth and last Economic Alert (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061406_abyss_awaits.shtml) (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061406_abyss_awaits.shtml) -- just 11 days before our offices were burglarized on June 25, 2006 -- I specifically warned that this day (metaphorically speaking) would come. What prompted that alert was an unprecedented move by President George W. Bush to give the National Director of Intelligence, John Negroponte, the authority to exempt "certain" Wall Street firms and banking giants from reporting their financial records to the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was this move which permitted everything that has happened over the last month. That move allowed smaller banks and investors to continue buying pigs (without lipstick) in a poke while average Americans were led to believe that everything was OK. If you don't believe me, go read the Economic Alert for yourself. It's all right there -- everything.

And if you had followed every piece of advice I gave in that warning -- two years ago -- today's events would have made you money. They would have strengthened your family. They would have made you immune to the panic that today touched American public consciousness. Gold is likely to explode in price in short order. $2,000 an ounce is possible within six months.


Since 2003 I have told my readers that the destruction of the U.S. economy was planned, essential and a foregone conclusion. It has to do with Peak Oil. There is no economy without energy. The world is running out of oil faster than almost anyone had predicted. Even previously optimistic opponents of Peak Oil have acknowledged that global decline is now between 5.8% and 9% per year. That means that if the world produces 85 million barrels per day this year, it will possibly produce less than 80 Mbpd next year. Demand destruction is conserving a resource for which there is no replacement and this is what has always been intended. An $8 drop in price today has done nothing to reignite demand. The United States, with 5% of the world's population using a quarter of the world's oil, was/is the ONLY point of demand destruction available that will save human industrialized civilization. I have said that consistently for many years. I told you that the real Powers That Be had gotten or would get their money out and safe before they crashed everything. They did... It was your money. It was our money.
Those who read FTW for years know that time after time, and year after year my predictions have been proven correct. The United States economy is being deliberately destroyed. The fact that it was Republican House members who blocked the bailout today confirms that they are helping the Bush Administration complete its last mission before leaving office: the complete destruction of the American economy and the financial crippling of the American people. I believe the intent is, and has been, to leave a newcomer African-American president with an economy on life support which will expire early in his watch. Every Obama campaign ad that now promises to "turn the economy around" only tightens the noose around his neck. The subconscious "Jerome Corsi" message is, "Blame the backs" next year when you get it that the Great Depression was a picnic compared to what is coming.
(continued (http://fromthewilderness.com/whatreallyhappenedtoday2008.shtml), ... breathtaking reading)

PressCoverage
11-11-2008, 06:32 AM
from a leaked copy of a new International Energy Agency report, "The Financial Times" has disclosed that the global decline rate for oil production has been recalculated at 9.1% per year, up (or perhaps down, depending on how you look at it) from 5.8% less than a year ago. What does that tell ya? ... if mankind produced 85 million barrels per day in 2008 then, it will be able to produce -- under the best of conditions -- no more than 77.5 million barrels per day in 2009. ...

ominous much?:

Output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than previously thought, the first authoritative public study of the biggest fields shows.

Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent, the International Energy Agency says in its annual report, the World Energy Outlook, a draft of which has been obtained by the Financial Times. (http://www.odac-info.org/newsletter/2008/10/31)

The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields, such as those in the North Sea, Russia and Alaska, and meet long-term de­mand. The effort will become even more acute as prices fall and investment decisions are delayed.
I'm reminded of my favorite dialogue from Stephen Gaghan's "Syriana":


Prince Nasir Al-Subaai: What are they thinking, my brother and these American lawyers?

Bryan Woodman: What are they thinking? They're thinking that it's running out. It's running out... and ninety percent of what's left is in the Middle East. Look at the progression, Versailles, Suez, 1973, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2. This is a fight to the death. So what are THEY thinking? Great! They're thinking keep playing, keep buying yourself new toys, keep spending $50,000 a night on your hotel room, but don't invest in your infastructure... don't build a real economy. So that when you finally wake up, they will have sucked you dry, and you will have squandered the greatest natural resource in history...

BlueFin
11-11-2008, 11:31 AM
That was very interesting, and a lot of ppl have heard me rant about Nike and why I don't buy their products.. it's companies like them that piss me off. we buy, and the dollar goes overseas to pay workers there..we are shifting our whole economy overseas.. and as they guy said, we'd living off peanuts and credit cards... hopefully those who understand, now really understand, and those who didn't before are starting to see now...it's been obvious to me for some years, we're going to a 3rd world status..if we don't change our policies and practices, we're be there within 10 years..if not sooner.

Agree to a certain degree, however, Obama won't change that, no more than he changed the corruption in Chicago.......which he didn't. He played the game, just as he had done in Washington as a Senator, and will continue to do as a President. You got hoodwinked.

PressCoverage
11-11-2008, 11:53 AM
Agree to a certain degree, however, Obama won't change that, no more than he changed the corruption in Chicago.......which he didn't. He played the game, just as he had done in Washington as a Senator, and will continue to do as a President. You got hoodwinked.

Is that all you have to offer? Partisan agenda and political speculation in a non-partisan topic like this?

Do you believe oil is running out, or are you one of the 20 percenters still clinging to the ideas that OPEC is just "screwing us," and that we merely invaded Iraq to "free their people?"

Heck, go on record.... And spare us your pontifications of what you THINK Obama will or won't do. At least in this thread, please.

Ferretsquig
11-11-2008, 12:02 PM
This stuff is almost as good as the cult leaders predicting the end of the world. I didn't make it through the entire diatribe, but hopefully this guy isn't stupid enough to set a certain date. If he keeps it open ended he'll at least be able to play it out until the economy picks up again.

PressCoverage
11-11-2008, 12:13 PM
This stuff is almost as good as the cult leaders predicting the end of the world. I didn't make it through the entire diatribe, but hopefully this guy isn't stupid enough to set a certain date. If he keeps it open ended he'll at least be able to play it out until the economy picks up again.

unfortunately those cult leaders didn't have world-renowned geologsists, energy analysts and economists providing their belief system... slight difference...

anyhow, we get it... you believe everything is fine, and that there's plenty of oil for mankind... so that IEA report of 9.1% annual decline... that's all bunk... :up:

Ferretsquig
11-11-2008, 12:24 PM
anyhow, we get it... you believe everything is fine, and that there's plenty of oil for mankind... so that IEA report of 9.1% annual decline... that's all bunk... :up:

Decline of what? Oil production? Reserves?

PressCoverage
11-11-2008, 12:45 PM
Decline of what? Oil production? Reserves?


Output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than previously thought, the first authoritative public study of the biggest fields shows.

Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent, the International Energy Agency says in its annual report, the World Energy Outlook, a draft of which has been obtained by the Financial Times. (http://www.odac-info.org/newsletter/2008/10/31)

Ferretsquig
11-11-2008, 02:03 PM
Just a friendly suggestion. Before posting articles to prove your point....read them. The IEA does not report a projected annual 9.1% decline in oil production. It projects an increase in production, without even taking into account potential new sources in the south Atlantic which have yet to be tapped.

PressCoverage
11-11-2008, 06:58 PM
Just a friendly suggestion. Before posting articles to prove your point....read them. The IEA does not report a projected annual 9.1% decline in oil production. It projects an increase in production, without even taking into account potential new sources in the south Atlantic which have yet to be tapped.

what are you talking about? i read every word, did you? it said without additional investment, decline is 9.1% annually. here's more:


The IEA, the oil watchdog, forecasts that China, India and other developing countries’ demand will require investments of $360bn each year until 2030.

The agency says even with investment, the annual rate of output decline is 6.4 per cent.

The decline will not necessarily be felt in the next few years because demand is slowing down, but with the expected slowdown in investment the eventual effect will be magnified, oil executives say.

“The future rate of decline in output from producing oilfields as they mature is the single most important determinant of the amount of new capacity that will need to be built globally to meet demand,” the IEA says.

Please link to where the IEA said output would increase.

Ferretsquig
11-11-2008, 10:36 PM
Conventional oil production is projected to grow from barrels 70.4 m/d in 2007 to only 75.2m/d in 2030. This very limited growth is because nearly all new production is off-set by declines in older fields.

Of course this is making the assumption that extraction from major oil fields currently being tapped will decline by the percentage you quoted. Personally I think they're way off but as they said, it'll be difficult to know in the near future because of the decline in demand. Production will probably remain stagnant as OPEC cuts back.

XXXSURTAINXXX
11-11-2008, 11:31 PM
This is some scary stuff. US a third world country in the next 10 years? That i do doubt. We have too many capable and creative minds, such as you guys, who will find alternative energy and then produce and introduce the technology to the world.....who in turn will pay for it.

ih8brady
11-11-2008, 11:43 PM
This is some scary stuff. US a third world country in the next 10 years? That i do doubt. We have too many capable and creative minds, such as you guys, who will find alternative energy and then produce and introduce the technology to the world.....who in turn will pay for it.


Alternative energy is for sissies.....Drill, baby, drill! YEEEHAWWWW!!!!!!

CedarPhin
11-12-2008, 12:02 AM
I'd gasify the giant amounts of coal reserves we have in Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas.

shula_guy
11-12-2008, 12:33 AM
who is the IEA? Who are they that I should accept their math as being accurate?

PressCoverage
11-12-2008, 12:40 AM
who is the IEA? Who are they that I should accept their math as being accurate?

the International Energy Agency (http://www.iea.org/)

CedarPhin
11-12-2008, 12:44 AM
I'd be a fan of opening up more nuclear power plants around the country.

PressCoverage
11-12-2008, 12:47 AM
I'd be a fan of opening up more nuclear power plants around the country.

as long as they're not maintained 100% by private corporations... sure...

CedarPhin
11-12-2008, 12:48 AM
They'd be safer with private corporations. Said companies would have more to lose in an event of a disaster.

Locke
11-12-2008, 01:03 AM
I'd gasify the giant amounts of coal reserves we have in Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas.

Coal is much worse for the environment than the current internal combustion engine is. Its simply not an option if you are trying to combat global warming. Coal is one of the reasons China is one of the top polluters.

Wind and Solar energy is where our money needs to go......

Locke
11-12-2008, 01:04 AM
They'd be safer with private corporations. Said companies would have more to lose in an event of a disaster.

True, but then there would be much less regulation on their pollution.....

CedarPhin
11-12-2008, 01:06 AM
Nuclear Power plants have zero emissions.

CedarPhin
11-12-2008, 01:07 AM
Coal is much worse for the environment than the current internal combustion engine is. Its simply not an option if you are trying to combat global warming. Coal is one of the reasons China is one of the top polluters.

Wind and Solar energy is where our money needs to go......

So are wind and solar energy going to power our cars?

XXXSURTAINXXX
11-12-2008, 01:21 AM
These issues really need to be taken on by all. But the world has become too dependent on some luxuries. I wouldn't mind plugging my car up at night after work. Okay, 4 wheel drive might be something we have to sacrifice and huge SUV's. But the state the environment is in right now pretty much demands that we all take a look at the way we live.

Locke
11-12-2008, 01:27 AM
So are wind and solar energy going to power our cars?

Solar? yessir. Wind no. They have made 100% electric cars already as well. The biggest roadblock we are going to have is the lifestyle we live, not the technology. Where technology is headed, there won't be anymore Nascar, V-8 hemmies, monster trucks, etc. People are just going to be unwilling to give that up......

XXXSURTAINXXX
11-12-2008, 01:42 AM
It's worth the sacrifice IMO.

Locke
11-12-2008, 01:50 AM
It's worth the sacrifice IMO.

Agreed. With the economy in the crapper and crude oil being an extremely finite resource, I'm in shock that things like Nascar, demolition derbies, and monster truck rallies are even still being done. At some point sacrifices will need to be made.....

phins_4_ever
11-12-2008, 01:53 AM
Agreed. With the economy in the crapper and crude oil being an extremely finite resource, I'm in shock that things like Nascar, demolition derbies, and monster truck rallies are even still being done. At some point sacrifices will need to be made.....

Unfortunately we live in a selfish society where nobody wants to give up anything but want everything. :(

XXXSURTAINXXX
11-12-2008, 02:15 AM
I think I remember Michael Ruppert involved with something else. Was he involved with the Freeway Rick Ross saga? About the government introducing drugs into the inner cities? I am like 50% sure that was the same guy.

PressCoverage
11-12-2008, 06:34 PM
I think I remember Michael Ruppert involved with something else. Was he involved with the Freeway Rick Ross saga? About the government introducing drugs into the inner cities? I am like 50% sure that was the same guy.

Here's Michael Ruppert confronting CIA czar John Deutch in a public forum regarding CIA drug importation... He's been the bravest man in the world ever since.

4t3pl5Wxgyg

He also witnessed CIA guns for drugs drops off the coast of New Orleans in the late 70s. Yup, same guy.

Blackocrates
03-13-2009, 03:33 PM
PC, I'm just now studying up on this issue. Fortunately, peak oil coincides with global warming. Both will be able to be addressed in the same way. I just watched a documentary that had Michael Ruppert in it. It's called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

If you haven't seen it, check it out. The movie discusses peak oil, the changes that are coming to our society because of it, namely the fall of suburbia. It's fascinating that many of the same solutions to combat peak oil are the same solutions that combat global warming.

I believe we are seeing or about to see a change in our lifestyle as a Country. I think this is an exciting time, I see it as a positive. People are going to have to get to know each other again. Local markets will flourish, local produce will be our way of obtaining food. We will become what the earth has always intended, small tribes of people that help each other out. This has the opportunity to be an exciting, positive time. We'll witness new innovatives that will help the environment as well as ourselves.

PhinPhan1227
03-13-2009, 04:31 PM
PC, I'm just now studying up on this issue. Fortunately, peak oil coincides with global warming. Both will be able to be addressed in the same way. I just watched a documentary that had Michael Ruppert in it. It's called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

If you haven't seen it, check it out. The movie discusses peak oil, the changes that are coming to our society because of it, namely the fall of suburbia. It's fascinating that many of the same solutions to combat peak oil are the same solutions that combat global warming.

I believe we are seeing or about to see a change in our lifestyle as a Country. I think this is an exciting time, I see it as a positive. People are going to have to get to know each other again. Local markets will flourish, local produce will be our way of obtaining food. We will become what the earth has always intended, small tribes of people that help each other out. This has the opportunity to be an exciting, positive time. We'll witness new innovatives that will help the environment as well as ourselves.


It's amazing that you would classify the death of roughly 60% of the worlds population as a "positive, exciting time". Because that is what will have to happen for the utopia you dream of to come about. There are too many people in the world right now for the kind of localism you describe. They can't be fed that way.

Blackocrates
03-13-2009, 04:39 PM
It's amazing that you would classify the death of roughly 60% of the worlds population as a "positive, exciting time". Because that is what will have to happen for the utopia you dream of to come about. There are too many people in the world right now for the kind of localism you describe. They can't be fed that way.

1227, your stunts are becoming quite tiresome. Here again is more strawman argument. I noticed you switched (as usual) from what I was talking about, our Country to the world. So 60% of the US will die because we become more localized? That's absolutely absurd. Care to back any of that ridiculous statement up with some facts?

I'm also not surprised you'd take my optimistic opinion and try to strawman me into celebrating death. You're usually a great poster 1227, but this is off the deep end.

PressCoverage
03-13-2009, 06:01 PM
PC, I'm just now studying up on this issue. Fortunately, peak oil coincides with global warming. Both will be able to be addressed in the same way. I just watched a documentary that had Michael Ruppert in it. It's called The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

If you haven't seen it, check it out. The movie discusses peak oil, the changes that are coming to our society because of it, namely the fall of suburbia. It's fascinating that many of the same solutions to combat peak oil are the same solutions that combat global warming.

I believe we are seeing or about to see a change in our lifestyle as a Country. I think this is an exciting time, I see it as a positive. People are going to have to get to know each other again. Local markets will flourish, local produce will be our way of obtaining food. We will become what the earth has always intended, small tribes of people that help each other out. This has the opportunity to be an exciting, positive time. We'll witness new innovatives that will help the environment as well as ourselves.

I have seen "the End of Suburbia", yes... .Well done piece.

Dolphan7
03-13-2009, 06:41 PM
Time to start digging that bomb shelter next to the pool.

PressCoverage
03-13-2009, 06:49 PM
Time to start digging that bomb shelter next to the pool.

did anyone say that?

what a moderator... no, you never antagonize at all...

Dolphan7
03-13-2009, 07:00 PM
did anyone say that?

what a moderator... no, you never antagonize at all...I can't express an opinion on the subject?

Blackocrates
03-13-2009, 08:20 PM
I can't express an opinion on the subject?

It's not an opinion. You're just taking childish little pot shots.

Dolphan7
03-13-2009, 08:31 PM
It's not an opinion. You're just taking childish little pot shots.So now my opinion isn't an opinion? Okey dokey then.

:rolleyes2:

Blackocrates
03-13-2009, 08:39 PM
So now my opinion isn't an opinion? Okey dokey then.

:rolleyes2:

"Time to start digging a bomb shelter next to the pool." That's an opinion on peak oil how exactly? It was a statement, it wasn't an opinion about peak oil. You're just taking this off topic by antagonizing posters that actually want to talk about the subject.

Dolphan7
03-13-2009, 09:11 PM
"Time to start digging a bomb shelter next to the pool." That's an opinion on peak oil how exactly? It was a statement, it wasn't an opinion about peak oil. You're just taking this off topic by antagonizing posters that actually want to talk about the subject.Should I check with you from now on so that I know to post the appropriate response?


My post was dead on subject.......maybe just went over your head a lil' bit?

Blackocrates
03-13-2009, 10:23 PM
Should I check with you from now on so that I know to post the appropriate response?


My post was dead on subject.......maybe just went over your head a lil' bit?

I don't think you're capable of posting over anybody's head.

PhinPhan1227
03-14-2009, 04:31 AM
1227, your stunts are becoming quite tiresome. Here again is more strawman argument. I noticed you switched (as usual) from what I was talking about, our Country to the world. So 60% of the US will die because we become more localized? That's absolutely absurd. Care to back any of that ridiculous statement up with some facts?

I'm also not surprised you'd take my optimistic opinion and try to strawman me into celebrating death. You're usually a great poster 1227, but this is off the deep end.

300 million people are going to become "small tribes that help each other out"? Do you know what it takes to feed 300 million people Fish? "Local" growers can't keep up with that. It takes a massive infrastructure to manage the kind of food production we have now. Prior to the introduction of modern farming techniques, the population of the world was capped at or below about 40% of what it is today. And the kind of localized "tribes" you just advocated can't keep up with the massive industry of food production we need. It's just not sustainable. I'll try to get you a link to back this up, but it's coming from a history class I took which incorporated the study of agricultural technology, and its impact on population.

Bottom line is that you can't turn 300 million people into "small tribes that help each other", without getting rid of about 150-160 million of those people first. Especially not when we are getting 10-30 million new people every decade just from over the borders.

And I appreciate that you were trying for positive and optimistic. But the reality is that what you proposed can't come about without some serious tragedy first. Not unless some incredible new agri-tech is coming about that I don't know about.

Blackocrates
03-14-2009, 12:31 PM
300 million people are going to become "small tribes that help each other out"? Do you know what it takes to feed 300 million people Fish? "Local" growers can't keep up with that. It takes a massive infrastructure to manage the kind of food production we have now. Prior to the introduction of modern farming techniques, the population of the world was capped at or below about 40% of what it is today. And the kind of localized "tribes" you just advocated can't keep up with the massive industry of food production we need. It's just not sustainable. I'll try to get you a link to back this up, but it's coming from a history class I took which incorporated the study of agricultural technology, and its impact on population.

Bottom line is that you can't turn 300 million people into "small tribes that help each other", without getting rid of about 150-160 million of those people first. Especially not when we are getting 10-30 million new people every decade just from over the borders.

And I appreciate that you were trying for positive and optimistic. But the reality is that what you proposed can't come about without some serious tragedy first. Not unless some incredible new agri-tech is coming about that I don't know about.

It's already happening, people are moving out of the suburbs and back into the cities. They are localizing within the city, they walk to get what they need. Hence, they develop relationships with local markets and owners. You're dramatizing it for effect when in reality we're just moving back to the way we used to be. No more walmarts, it's going to be smaller local farms, local retailers, etc. This isn't a dream, it's happening. It's slow moving but it's happening. Mass transit is being put in place like it used to be in order to replace individual vehicle commutes. I don't know why in your paranoid view there has to be millions of people die. It's not that dramatic of a change. We'll just go back to the old ways.

SnakeoilSeller
03-14-2009, 03:31 PM
That's 15 minutes of my life that I cannot get back. I watched both of those videos and really did not hear anything that has not been said by many different people for years. This is just put together nicely in a you tube production.
Several people have predicted Peak Oil. Dr. Stephen Leeb was the first to predict oil would hit $100 a barrel and was chastised for it, until it became true. So that was not new news, this guy is just repeating it.
Buy Gold, shocker. Jim Rogers has been saying that for years, and rightfully so, just based on inflation alone gold's price should have been much higher than it was for years.
Housing Bubble. Easily predicted, especially when Barney Frank, Chriss Dodd and the likes forced fannie and freddie to give loans to people that could not afford them. None of what I lost in those 15 minutes was earth shattering, he is just reiterating stuff that has been said for years. Of course, he throws in a few jabs against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to get the left all riled up - because everything is their fault, global warming, the collapse of the dollar, I didn't get accepted to med school, your high school girlfiend cheated on you, whatever ails ya. You flash HALIBURTON up there - that gets the left all mad. Then you throw in the "of course every Republican in Congress is invovled with this, that's why they voted against the original bailout, they all are in on it." It couldn't be because that maybe just maybe the Republicans did not want the government invovlved in the banking system, that it is one more step closer to socialism. Absolutely not, it is because the evil rulers know as Bush / Cheney have planned all of this.

I am going home and grabbing that shovel. BTW, wouldn't you know I drive an SUV.

SnakeoilSeller
03-14-2009, 03:41 PM
It's already happening, people are moving out of the suburbs and back into the cities. They are localizing within the city, they walk to get what they need. Hence, they develop relationships with local markets and owners. You're dramatizing it for effect when in reality we're just moving back to the way we used to be. No more walmarts, it's going to be smaller local farms, local retailers, etc. This isn't a dream, it's happening. It's slow moving but it's happening. Mass transit is being put in place like it used to be in order to replace individual vehicle commutes. I don't know why in your paranoid view there has to be millions of people die. It's not that dramatic of a change. We'll just go back to the old ways.

I don't know where you are coming up with the information on people are moving back into cities. According to census figures and estimates Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, Milwauke, New Orleans (which is understandable), Washington DC, and Cleveland have all experience population decreases. I guess the tribes are just moving to other cities?

Blackocrates
03-14-2009, 04:34 PM
I don't know where you are coming up with the information on people are moving back into cities. According to census figures and estimates Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, Milwauke, New Orleans (which is understandable), Washington DC, and Cleveland have all experience population decreases. I guess the tribes are just moving to other cities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism#Criticisms

I guess I messed up by using the word tribe. I had something in my head and I used it instead of group, society, village, community. I should have known certain people on this board would pounce on one word. How convenient to ignore what somebody is trying to say and instead move on to a semantical argument over a word. :up: Sure beats trying to have a discussion about the topic. I also like how the conservatives on here have nothing to say about peak oil or its effects, just more chasing the tail.

Dolphan7
03-14-2009, 05:49 PM
That's 15 minutes of my life that I cannot get back. I watched both of those videos and really did not hear anything that has not been said by many different people for years. This is just put together nicely in a you tube production.
Several people have predicted Peak Oil. Dr. Stephen Leeb was the first to predict oil would hit $100 a barrel and was chastised for it, until it became true. So that was not new news, this guy is just repeating it.
Buy Gold, shocker. Jim Rogers has been saying that for years, and rightfully so, just based on inflation alone gold's price should have been much higher than it was for years.
Housing Bubble. Easily predicted, especially when Barney Frank, Chriss Dodd and the likes forced fannie and freddie to give loans to people that could not afford them. None of what I lost in those 15 minutes was earth shattering, he is just reiterating stuff that has been said for years. Of course, he throws in a few jabs against President Bush and Vice-President Cheney to get the left all riled up - because everything is their fault, global warming, the collapse of the dollar, I didn't get accepted to med school, your high school girlfiend cheated on you, whatever ails ya. You flash HALIBURTON up there - that gets the left all mad. Then you throw in the "of course every Republican in Congress is invovled with this, that's why they voted against the original bailout, they all are in on it." It couldn't be because that maybe just maybe the Republicans did not want the government invovlved in the banking system, that it is one more step closer to socialism. Absolutely not, it is because the evil rulers know as Bush / Cheney have planned all of this.

I am going home and grabbing that shovel. BTW, wouldn't you know I drive an SUV.Good point. If people want to make peak oil an issue, then they need to stop mixing the debate with anti-bush, cheney, republican, conservatism and conspiracy theories etc....

SnakeoilSeller
03-14-2009, 07:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Urbanism#Criticisms

I guess I messed up by using the word tribe. I had something in my head and I used it instead of group, society, village, community. I should have known certain people on this board would pounce on one word. How convenient to ignore what somebody is trying to say and instead move on to a semantical argument over a word. :up: Sure beats trying to have a discussion about the topic. I also like how the conservatives on here have nothing to say about peak oil or its effects, just more chasing the tail.

Quite the contrary about peak oil. I have done a lot of research on the oil industry and believe, to a certain extent, in the peak oil theory. I don't believe that has anything to do with the Republicans master plan to rule the universe.

Blackocrates
03-14-2009, 07:49 PM
Quite the contrary about peak oil. I have done a lot of research on the oil industry and believe, to a certain extent, in the peak oil theory. I don't believe that has anything to do with the Republicans master plan to rule the universe.

Where in the world did I bring up the Republican party?

PhinPhan1227
03-15-2009, 12:43 AM
It's already happening, people are moving out of the suburbs and back into the cities. They are localizing within the city, they walk to get what they need. Hence, they develop relationships with local markets and owners. You're dramatizing it for effect when in reality we're just moving back to the way we used to be. No more walmarts, it's going to be smaller local farms, local retailers, etc. This isn't a dream, it's happening. It's slow moving but it's happening. Mass transit is being put in place like it used to be in order to replace individual vehicle commutes. I don't know why in your paranoid view there has to be millions of people die. It's not that dramatic of a change. We'll just go back to the old ways.

Some people will do it. I never said that a degree of what you described couldn't happen. But ALL of us can't do it. We can't just "go back to the old ways", because there are too many of us now. As I said, it's a trade off. You want a world like "the old ways"(you'll have to explain exactly what old ways you mean btw), you need to go back to the conditions those old ways existed in. Firstly, a vastly smaller population. Unless you are talking about just some people moving back to the urban areas. That's certainly do-able.

But..."a change in our lifestyle as a Country"..."local produce will be our way of obtaining food"..."We will become what the earth has always intended, small tribes of people that help each other out"...all of those things are wonderful dreams. I do have to wonder exactly when Gaea informed you of her intentions for humanity. But that aside, what you describe above has never really existed. Forms of it certainly have, but never in the utopian image you described. And again, we could certainly move closer to that model. But the wholesale watershed change you describe can't come about without some pretty awful things hapenning first, because there are just too many people in the country for it to take place under current conditions. What you are talking about is an idealized form of "small town living". I live in a small town, it's not that idylic. But you're right, people help each other, a lot of food is locally grown. There's also a bad drug problem because a lot of kids are bored out of their skulls. Nothings perfect. But the biggest problem is that if you took all the folks in the big city and spread them into the small towns, you wouldn't have enough space. You can't get ALL the food locally, you can't even get MOST of the food locally. We get it cheaply around here, in the city they pay a premium for it. There are balances that you just aren't accountin gfor. And those balances are ugly.

Bottom line, had you said that some people would do as you described I would have agreed with you. But we can't do it as a country, not unless there are a lot fewer of us to do it.

Blackocrates
03-15-2009, 05:29 PM
Bottom line, had you said that some people would do as you described I would have agreed with you. But we can't do it as a country, not unless there are a lot fewer of us to do it.

This is a messge board. I don't check my grammar and I don't proof read what I write. I figure people will get the jist of what I'm saying. I'm not really interested in parsing my argument word for word.

PhinPhan1227
03-16-2009, 12:48 AM
This is a messge board. I don't check my grammar and I don't proof read what I write. I figure people will get the jist of what I'm saying. I'm not really interested in parsing my argument word for word.

Well if you don't care enough to make sure you are posting what you really mean, please don't take offense if people misunderstand your post and therefore misrepresent your meaning. I post here because I like to debate. I enjoy the "competition" of putting forth ideas and having them challenged. If I make a sloppy argument, I expect to be called on it. for that reason I try to express myself fully. I also assume others are doing so as well. If you post here for different reasons, I will try to view your posts in that light and treat them accordingly.

Another thing to consider is that, just like with what is said under the influence of alcohol, there is truth in what you write quickly. The post as written might be closer to your true beliefs than what is carefully spelled out, or relayed in the "jist". Just because it doesn't make sense that we could live in an idealized world doesn't mean that isn't what you hope and want to happen. And maybe deep down you believe it could. I sympathise man, I really do. I would love to see a world that is torn straight from Norman Rockwell. It even exists in small doses, and I wish it would apply the world over. It's tragic that human nature gets in the way. But without the idealism to sometimes ignore "reality" we might miss out on some of the wonders that man is capable of. The flip side of that is that if we ignore the negative probabilities we wind up with what Bush did in Iraq. He never grasped the "plan for the worst" when "hoping for he best". As a result, he never accounted for the negatives that were likely to come about. I just think that is what also took place in your earlier post.

Blackocrates
03-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Well if you don't care enough to make sure you are posting what you really mean, please don't take offense if people misunderstand your post and therefore misrepresent your meaning. I post here because I like to debate. I enjoy the "competition" of putting forth ideas and having them challenged. If I make a sloppy argument, I expect to be called on it. for that reason I try to express myself fully. I also assume others are doing so as well. If you post here for different reasons, I will try to view your posts in that light and treat them accordingly.

Another thing to consider is that, just like with what is said under the influence of alcohol, there is truth in what you write quickly. The post as written might be closer to your true beliefs than what is carefully spelled out, or relayed in the "jist". Just because it doesn't make sense that we could live in an idealized world doesn't mean that isn't what you hope and want to happen. And maybe deep down you believe it could. I sympathise man, I really do. I would love to see a world that is torn straight from Norman Rockwell. It even exists in small doses, and I wish it would apply the world over. It's tragic that human nature gets in the way. But without the idealism to sometimes ignore "reality" we might miss out on some of the wonders that man is capable of. The flip side of that is that if we ignore the negative probabilities we wind up with what Bush did in Iraq. He never grasped the "plan for the worst" when "hoping for he best". As a result, he never accounted for the negatives that were likely to come about. I just think that is what also took place in your earlier post.

No, no, no. You're putting words in my mouth and please don't try to analyze me, it just comes off as silly and cheap. I didn't write what I wrote quickly, I just didn't take the time to fully flesh out what I had in mind. Like I said, it's a message board not a research paper. I never meant that each and every human being would have to completely change their life around. That's nonsensical, and it's unreasonable to interpret it in that way. My statement wasn't extreme, yet your response tried to paint it that way.

You seem to want to argue word choice rather than the over all issue at hand. If you truly enjoyed the "competition" over ideas you wouldn't fixate on random words and take them out of context. There's plenty of stuff I could call you on but I understood what you were saying. I believe it's childish to call somebody out on something that doesn't pertain to the issue. That's just me though.

Edit: Plus, you seem to be the only one that has problems understanding what posters are getting at. Nobody else on here regularly takes my post out of context or adds to it.

Locke
03-16-2009, 01:17 AM
No, no, no. You're putting words in my mouth and please don't try to analyze me, it just comes off as silly and cheap. I didn't write what I wrote quickly, I just didn't take the time to fully flesh out what I had in mind. Like I said, it's a message board not a research paper. I never meant that each and every human being would have to completely change their life around. That's nonsensical, and it's unreasonable to interpret it in that way. My statement wasn't extreme, yet your response tried to paint it that way.

You seem to want to argue word choice rather than the over all issue at hand. If you truly enjoyed the "competition" over ideas you wouldn't fixate on random words and take them out of context. There's plenty of stuff I could call you on but I understood what you were saying. I believe it's childish to call somebody out on something that doesn't pertain to the issue. That's just me though.

Most of Europe lives this way already. They have smaller communities who trade within themselves rather than huge companies shipping in exports from other areas. Its not so far-fetched to believe we'll be that way again soon. In fact, going FROM that construct has pissed people off (Wal-Mart is a good example). We'll never fully go back to it, but we're going to revert to a more plausible version of it for our current society. Getting away from this is what put us in the economic mess we're in. We don't make anything for ourselves anymore, just buy it from elsewhere....

Blackocrates
03-16-2009, 01:20 AM
Most of Europe lives this way already. They have smaller communities who trade within themselves rather than huge companies shipping in exports from other areas. Its not so far-fetched to believe we'll be that way again soon. In fact, going FROM that construct has pissed people off (Wal-Mart is a good example). We'll never fully go back to it, but we're going to revert to a more plausible version of it for our current society. Getting away from this is what put us in the economic mess we're in. We don't make anything for ourselves anymore, just buy it from elsewhere....

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. We'll be producers, retailers, small farmers again. It will eventually be cost prohibitive for walmart to buy and ship the products as they do now. Main street might come alive again.

Locke
03-16-2009, 01:23 AM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. We'll be producers, retailers, small farmers again. It will eventually be cost prohibitive for walmart to buy and ship the products as they do now. Main street might come alive again.

I hope so. Its not too bad here yet. There are still a bunch of family-owned shops and restaurants. They are slowly dying out though, especially with the recent economic problems. In fact, I think that may be why my area is much more stable than other areas of the country, we haven't been completely taken over by large companies yet....

Blackocrates
03-16-2009, 01:31 AM
I hope so. Its not too bad here yet. There are still a bunch of family-owned shops and restaurants. They are slowly dying out though, especially with the recent economic problems. In fact, I think that may be why my area is much more stable than other areas of the country, we haven't been completely taken over by large companies yet....

Shops couldn't close fast enough here when walmart came rolling into town. People had to save a dollar and now I live in a ghost town. Residents here had/have no foresight.

That's what I think with peak oil and global warming. Those with foresight will be able to adjust more easily than those that get hit with the effects at the tail end. Things are starting to slowly change. Mass transit is getting funded. People seem to be calling for a new energy source, that isn't non-renewable, for their vehicles. The wheels of change are starting to move.

Locke
03-16-2009, 01:44 AM
Shops couldn't close fast enough here when walmart came rolling into town. People had to save a dollar and now I live in a ghost town. Residents here had/have no foresight.

That's what I think with peak oil and global warming. Those with foresight will be able to adjust more easily than those that get hit with the effects at the tail end. Things are starting to slowly change. Mass transit is getting funded. People seem to be calling for a new energy source, that isn't non-renewable, for their vehicles. The wheels of change are starting to move.

Thats where my area is at a disadvantage. We are very spread out and public transportation is horrible here. We have an amazing assortment of bike trails that connect the city, but most people are too lazy to use them. When it happens, people here are going to struggle with adjusting to no cars. All Albuquerque is doing is redoing the roads too, they aren't working on a better mass transit system. Its frustrating....

PhinPhan1227
03-16-2009, 02:01 AM
Thats where my area is at a disadvantage. We are very spread out and public transportation is horrible here. We have an amazing assortment of bike trails that connect the city, but most people are too lazy to use them. When it happens, people here are going to struggle with adjusting to no cars. All Albuquerque is doing is redoing the roads too, they aren't working on a better mass transit system. Its frustrating....


Some cities just aren't viable for extensive mass transit. Houston is a good example. The city is sixty miles across not counting suburbs. It has at least five different downtown areas in addition to the main one. In order to properly serve the city with mass transit would require buying up incredible numbers of homes and businesses to put in rail lines. The money just doesn't exist.

Locke
03-16-2009, 10:23 AM
Some cities just aren't viable for extensive mass transit. Houston is a good example. The city is sixty miles across not counting suburbs. It has at least five different downtown areas in addition to the main one. In order to properly serve the city with mass transit would require buying up incredible numbers of homes and businesses to put in rail lines. The money just doesn't exist.

Agreed. I don't blame the city for it, its just unfortunate that they are stuck in this position. I have to admit that I do blame them for the crappy bus network. To get almost anywhere, you have to change buses 2-3 times, which makes a 20 minute drive a 90 minute bus ride. There's a very good reason no one here uses public transportation....

PhinPhan1227
03-16-2009, 01:25 PM
Agreed. I don't blame the city for it, its just unfortunate that they are stuck in this position. I have to admit that I do blame them for the crappy bus network. To get almost anywhere, you have to change buses 2-3 times, which makes a 20 minute drive a 90 minute bus ride. There's a very good reason no one here uses public transportation....

Exactly. Same thing I have seen in Miami and Houston.