Is Economic Growth Scientifically Impossible?

[joepistole]

I offer empirical premises. I made an arugment that shows the connections. Failing to understand is not a valid argument that there is no connection. It is also not an argument to just call something chaff, nonsense or irrelevant. It is the grown up version of a child screaming "No!". Something to learn in Logic 101: Negation is not an argument.

What you have done is throw up a bunch of disconnected illogical thoughts. Perhaps you should take that class in Logic you were referring to, ad hominem is not a logical response, nor is throwing up a bunch of chaff in response to logical holes in your argument. Your refusal to acknowledge fact, evidence and reason is not a defense of your claims.

I suggest you go back and read my previous posts. I suggest you do a little research on your own. You obviously have no clue about economics – much less science.

If you want to offer an intelligent argument, then make an argument that proves they are not relevant. But, you have to be affirmative, because if you continue to make negative statements or qualify things in non-sense categories, you will have imparted nothing to the argument at hand.

This is not about affirmative statements. Just because you find evidence and reason negative, it does not follow that it is not true.

Let me break it down to you. You may get your feelings hurt.

I suggest you worry less about my feelings and more about your facts and reasoning skills.

An object continues in a state of rest or travels in a straight line unless it is impelled to change that state by a force acting up it. Newtons First Law.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Growth is acceleration of the economy, but in order for this acceleration to be qualified as growth this acceleration must be positive which leads us to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Growth means more mass is added to the system, which means more energy. So in order to have growth, you need more energy. Simple laws that can be understood by a sixth grader have proven you wrong.

I like how you like to hide in broad generalities and obscurity. What is energy? Is energy solely derived from petroleum? Obviously not. Your argument goes like this, because oil is a finite resource there can be no economic growth. So how do you reconcile that with the fact that economies around the world, including the US economy, are growing?

As previously pointed and out and definitively proven many times in this thread and many times ignored by you in this thread, is that energy is not solely sourced from petroleum products – a big hole in your premise. Two you have repeatedly ignored the fact that the definition of recoverable oil reserves has expanded greatly through the years because of technological advancements. Three, your argument has no time line. Economic growth today is certainly possible because it is occurring. Will finite oil reserves at some time in the future prevent economic growth? Well not in the foreseeable future. Which brings us to point four, it has been pointed out to you that we are in the midst of an oil glut. Oil supplies exceed demand – another big hole in your thesis that limited oil supplies prevent economic growth.

To say energy is not a constraint to the economy is pseudo-science. Instead you are implying perpetual motion: "Motion that continues indefinitely without any external source of energy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

How is this relevant? No one has made this claim, no one other than you. This is you creating a straw man, something you would have learned about had you taken that logic 101 class. What you don’t understand is that economic constraints are nothing new in economics. They have existed since man began trading with his neighbors and yet we still have economic growth. I suggest you quickly look up the definition of economics and come back and tell us what you have found.

The national debt is not just another discussion, or as you are implying, unrelated to this argument. A 16 Trillion dollar debt is 50,000 dollars in energy per American. Did you know that this debt equals work owed? Or shall I say, energy owed! The fact we did not have that energy meant we had to borrow it. The debt is proof of energies constraint, with out that energy loaned to us, we would not have done 16 Trillion things!

Are you that dense? The national debt has nothing to do with your OP. Additionally, the fact that you are equating the debt to work owed demonstrates a profound ignorance of economics, government debt and finances. Debt is not energy. Government debt never needs to be repaid. The government can continually run debt without ever paying down it's debt. It just needs to service its debt. Unlike humans, mere mortals, governments are not constrained by the frailtiy of human life spans. Additionally the value of sovereign debt can be manipulated by the sovereign through monetary policy.

I asked for one link and you don't provide it. I think you are lying.

You were provided ample links as evidence. Your refusal to acknowledge them just demonstrates the severity of your cognitive biases, ignorance and/or ego.

Now I have to run down this mysterious technology your company failed to advertise on the front page of their website. Instead of advertising this, they advertised an inferior product. Bullshit! So now you need to cover for that companies lack representing their best technologies, so you say. I say, a company is going to put their best technologies up front, not hidden somewhere. This is your way of not providing evidence there is a replacement. The burden is on you. They way your are trying to skirt that burden is to say showing proof is being a nurse maid. You've obviously don't have proof. A link is not that hard to paste.

Incoherent thought is not evidence of sanity my friend. I provided you a link showing you one company that is producing oil from biological sources. It is a publicly traded company. That means they have to be open. They have to provide honest information to the government and to investors. Their books are audited by independent auditors. They are today making oil used by the US military. The fact that this evidence puts another big hole in your premise does not mean it is wrong. This proves that oil is NOT a finite resource which is an essential part of your premise.

Do you assume that it must logically follow that it has promise and then will replace oil? I didn't ask for a faith based energy source. I asked for a energy source that proves that we have a replacement. I guess you don't have one. Just one is all I ask. Why can't you provide it?

Why don’t you ask the US military if they are getting faith based oil from that company? Why do you refuse to see what is clearly in front of you, could it be your ego? For the umpteenth time, your argument here has several flaws.

1. Oil is not preventing current economic growth because economies are growing.

2. There is no current shortage of oil now or in the foreseeable future (excluding a man-made crisis).

3. Oil is not finite, as it can and is being commercially created from other sources.

4. Oil is not the only source of energy and you fail to acknowledge current proven reserves of other fossil based fuels (e.g. natural gas) that could fill/reduce the demand for oil based energy.

5. You fail to account for the role of technology in accessing new sources of energy, improving efficiencies, and finding new sources for existing energy sources.

6. You fail to understand and account for the market dynamics of supply and demand.

And each of the above points have been repeatedly proven to you beyond a shaddow of a doubt. Your continued refusal to acknowledge fact, evidence and reason does not invalidate reality. To date you have not been able or even tried to defend your broad and erroneous claims. Instead you have made vain attempts to defend your claims by refusing to acknowledge reality and the mountian of evidence that makes rubble of your unsupported claims.
Unsupported denials, are not proofs.

[Billy T]

Energy will not be limiting until after you are dead:



To whom will the US sell its planned LNG exports?

[Aqueous Id]

Looks like Mauritania might be looking for some, Billy T.

[Billy T]

Looks like Mauritania might be looking for some, Billy T.

I suspect their "problem" is they have NOT been looking for some. - With the fracking & horizontal drilling technology, it seem hard not to have your own NG needs for a few decades at least.

BTW, as I mentioned in another thread, this surge in cheap NG supplies is, IMHO, why the completed (two years ago) large (1M ID, I think) NG pipeline from Russia to China, is not in use. - They can not agree on long term contract (take or pay, I think) price. Russian trade with China is currently worth 80 (or 84?) billion dollars annually but not one dollars is used. They have agreed to boost it to 200 billion annually by 2020.

The volume of world trade not using dollars is rapidly growing, even in Africa. In December of 2011 Japan & China agree to cease using dollars in their ~350 billion of annual trade. China has "currency swaps" in place with I think all five of the BRICS and several dozen Asian nations with which its trade is growing by double digits each year. - The day when the RMB is as important as the dollar is not far away. HSBC has just opened in London an RMB exchange center (for companies to borrow RMBs with "Dim Sum" bonds) for their Asian investments.* Iran, is scheduled to open an oil trade bourse this year, which will not uses dollars. - That is real reason why US is so hostile to Iran, despite IAEC inspectors saying their is no evidence of nuclear bomb directed activity.

Also worth noting is that even if there were an Iranian bomb program, it would be a decade before Iran could have two, (one to test) and US is not bent all out of shape by the many dozens that unstable Pakistan and some others already have. I.e. like the Iraq war´s invented WMDs danger, any war with Iran will really be about it selling oil with no dollars required. Essential to US economic health is the preservation of the "PetroDollar system" with the "recycling of its dollars" back to buy US treasury bonds.

* China is already the world leader in FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) even though getting RMB has not been easy, but now is with two large centers issuing Dim Sum bonds. (First was Hong Kong, and MacDonald´s was the first to borrow RMB there a few years ago and Catepillar was the second to borrow RMB about 1 month later.)

[steampunk]

joe,

I'm done addressing your psuedo-scientific babbling. Now where's the link to the replacement fuel technolody that I will slam like I did you last one? If you don't have that, then my discussion with you is at an end. Back up your claim or this is over.

[steampunk]

Energy will not be limiting until after you are dead:

So you say you know when it runs out. So what? That's not the problem. Does it make sense to grow the infrastructure in this sprawling manner when there is no replacement fuel for that day we do run out?

[joepistole]

joe,

I'm done addressing your psuedo-scientific babbling. Now where's the link to the replacement fuel technolody that I will slam like I did you last one? If you don't have that, then my discussion with you is at an end. Back up your claim or this is over.

LOL, I am sorry you find reality so unpleasant. If you had a case you could refute the holes in your premise. But you can't so you are left with this nonsense (e.g pretending you slammed something). Denial and grandoise unsupported claims are not proofs my friend.

[steampunk]

joe,

Link to a replacement fuel. Back up your claim or shut up. Enough of your textbook narcissism.

Let me remind you, your last link was to fungus. There is is not enough land to grow grass to put in those barrels. So, you lost that argument. But mysteriously you say they have another fuel that you refuse to give a link to. It reminds me of "you can't prove there isn't an invisible, unseeable God." or "Ha ha, I know something you don't. And I'm not going to tell you. Nanny, nanny boo boo." That's what you sound like joe. A real grown ass man child.

But don't limit yourself to this fantasy link that doesn't exist. Give me something credible, just link to an alternative. JUST ONE! But why don't you just admit you are full of it. There is no replacement fuel joe. There is no link. Now is there? You are wrong and you cannot prove a replacefull fuel exists, so all your nonsense about trust in fossil fuel estimates is WRONG and a threat that is leading catastrophic consequences. So you play this childish game and troll an intellectual forum. Ain't that right?

If you think you can win with smart alec remarks, I better at that too. Bring it on.

[joepistole]

joe,

Link to a replacement fuel. Back up your claim or shut up. Enough of your textbook narcissism.

LOL, Here is the rub, I have. Your refusal to acknowledge reality is not my problem. It is yours. By the way you should pick up a text book once in a while.

Let me remind you, your last link was to fungus. There is is not enough land to grow grass to put in those barrels. So, you lost that argument. But mysteriously you say they have another fuel that you refuse to give a link to. It reminds me of "you can't prove there isn't an invisible, unseeable God." or "Ha ha, I know something you don't. And I'm not going to tell you. Nanny, nanny boo boo." That's what you sound like joe. A real grown ass man child.

Where is your evidence that there is not enough land to grow those “barrels”? If you had read the material previously provided to you, you would know that the Solazyme process uses many sources including sea weed to produce oil. You have tried in vain in to discredit Solazyme rather than admit your error. There is nothing mysterious about Solazyme. It is producing oil for commercial use today from plant materials grown on land and in the sea.

As for this “mysterious” other fuel you are referencing, I have no clue as to what you are referring. I can only assume it is yet another delusion. I and others in this thread have repeatedly shown you that there are other fuels that can supplement our energy needs. Oil is neither finite nor is it a factor preventing economic growth as you have claimed in this thread.
By the way, pounding on your chest is something apes do. I am not impressed. I would be more impressed if you could make a coherent argument using real evidence.

But don't limit yourself to this fantasy link that doesn't exist. Give me something credible, just link to an alternative. JUST ONE! But why don't you just admit you are full of it. There is no replacement fuel joe. There is no link. Now is there? You are wrong and you cannot prove a replacefull fuel exists, so all your nonsense about trust in fossil fuel estimates is WRONG and a threat that is leading catastrophic consequences. So you play this childish game and troll an intellectual forum. Ain't that right?
If you think you can win with smart alec remarks, I better at that too. Bring it on.

The subject here is not replacement fuels. The issue is your claim that economic growth is not possible because there is no energy to drive economic growth. And that argument rested solely on your claim that oil supply was finite. And clearly your premise is false as there is plenty of energy available (including oil) for economic growth as I and many in this thread have pointed out to you repeatedly. Ain’t that right?

I repeat my challenge to you to address the previously identified holes in your claims. My guess is based on your behavior to date you will not do so. I am betting you will continue in your efforts to obfuscate.

[steampunk]

You have chosen not to back up your claim of a replacement alternative energy for oil. Later dude.

[joepistole]

You have chosen not to back up your claim of a replacement alternative energy for oil. Later dude.

LOL, yes by all means , close your eyes and deny fact and reason. The reality is that that oil is not a finite resource as you have claimed. The reality is that there are many replacement fuels for oil, including natural gas. The reality is that your claims here are wrong and you don't have the moral fortitude to admit your many errors. A lack of energy is not now nor in the foreseeable future a factor prohibiting economic growth - assuming there are no man-made shortages like war or embargo. You have consistently ignored alternative energies (e.g. nuclear) and the role of technology and the economy in solving our energy demands both past, present and future. You seem to be fixated on oil to the exclusion of all else.

Solazyme is a commercial publicly traded company that makes oil from plant materials today - oil that is used to fuel vehicles in the US military for one. And Solazyme is just one commercial company offering an alternative to traditional oil. Natural gas is yet another replacement fuel for oil, a fuel for which we have a huge abundance as I and others in this thread have pointed out to you.

How about responding to the many questions and issues that have been put to you? You cannot and have not responded because your many claims in this thread are bogus. Fact and reason do not support your claims. You have yet to put forth one coherent argument to support your claims. And you have repeatedly failed to answer even on of the many questions put to you. Your claim that economic growth is not possible due to a lack of energy is just nonsense and flies in the face of reality.

[Billy T]

So you say you know when it runs out. So what? That's not the problem. Does it make sense to grow the infrastructure in this sprawling manner when there is no replacement fuel for that day we do run out?

Not what I said. I only said that new supplies and technology have made supply for all those now living - no forecast of when it "runs out."

You, in contrast, are making a forecast the future about. I.e. that there will be no replacement fuel, ever. Some how you must know that controlled fusion, etc. is impossible - I.e. mankind will never be able to fusion the hydrogen of the oceans into helium. etc.

I have not followed thread closely, but what of yours I have read has been false misstated nonsense or demonstrably in error by factor of 10 million (see post 40).

[wsb]

Steampunk....I can tell you have a more complete understanding of this problem than others here. It may be helpful to include more on the limits of the planet in relation to fuel usage. For instance I could argue that economic growth is possible for quite some time as long as poverty levels increase with it. Another useful tool could be to look at the history of world population and fossil fuel production. They mirrored each other during the first half of world production because of the low cost. Even with fracking, horizontal drilling and any other "miracle of technology" the supply is finite and price will rise. So...your idea to move towards balance is much more authentic and realistic. The current economic system based on constant growth is unsustainable and most economists already know this, it is however, not a palatable idea for the spoiled masses that got here from cheap fuel.