Energy Is the Economy; Shrinkage in Energy Supply Leads to Conflict

It takes energy to accomplish any of the activities that we associate with GDP. It takes energy to grow food: human energy, solar energy, and–in today’s world–the many types of energy used to build and power tractors, transport food to markets, and provide cooling for food that needs to be refrigerated. It takes energy to cook food and to smelt metals. It takes energy to heat and air condition offices and to power the internet. Without adequate energy, the world economy would come to a halt.

We are hitting energy limits right now. Energy per capita is already shrinking, and it seems likely to shrink further in the future. Reaching a limit produces a conflict problem similar to the one in the game musical chairs. This game begins with an equal number of players and chairs. At the start of each round, a chair is removed. The players must then compete for the remaining chairs, and the player who ends the round without a chair is eliminated. There is conflict among players as they fight to obtain one of the available chairs. The conflict within the energy system is somewhat hidden, but the result is similar.

A current conflict is, “How much energy can we spare to fight COVID-19?” It is obvious that expenditures on masks and vaccines have an impact on the economy. It is less obvious that a cutback in airline flights or in restaurant meals to fight COVID-19 indirectly leads to less energy being produced and consumed, worldwide. In total, the world becomes a poorer place. How is the pain of this reduction in energy consumption per capita to be shared? Is it fair that travel and restaurant workers are disproportionately affected? Worldwide, we are seeing a K shaped recovery: The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

A major issue is that while we can print money, we cannot print the energy supplies needed to run the economy. As energy supplies deplete, we will increasingly need to “choose our battles.” In the past, humans have been able to win many battles against nature. However, as energy per capita declines in the future, we will be able to win fewer and fewer of these battles against nature, such as our current battle with COVID-19. At some point, we may simply need to let the chips fall where they may. The world economy seems unable to accommodate 7.8 billion people, and we will have no choice but to face this issue.

In this post, I will explain some of the issues involved. At the end of the post, I include a video of a panel discussion that I was part of on the topic of “Energy Is the Economy.” The moderator of the panel discussion was Chris Martenson; the other panelists were Richard Heinberg and Art Berman.

[1] Energy consumption per person varies greatly by country.

Let’s start with a little background. There is huge variability in the quantity of energy consumed per person around the world. There is more than a 100-fold difference between the highest and lowest countries shown on Figure 1.

Figure 1. Energy consumption per capita in 2019 for a few sample countries based on data from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy. Energy consumption includes fossil fuel energy, nuclear energy and renewable energy of many types. It omits energy products not traded through markets, such as locally gathered wood and animal dung. This omission tends to somewhat understate the energy consumption for countries such as India and those in Middle Africa.

I have shown only a few example countries, but we can see that cold countries tend to use a lot of energy, relative to their populations. Iceland, with an abundant supply of inexpensive hydroelectric and geothermal electricity, uses it to heat buildings, grow food in greenhouses, mine “bitcoins” and smelt aluminum. Norway and Canada have both oil and gas supplies, besides being producers of hydroelectricity. With abundant fuel supplies and a cold climate, both countries use a great deal of energy relative to the size of their population.

Saudi Arabia also has high energy consumption. It uses its abundant oil and gas supplies to provide air conditioning for its people. It also uses its energy products to enable the operation of businesses that provide jobs for its large population. In addition, Saudi Arabia uses taxes on the oil it produces to subsidize the purchase of imported food, which the country cannot grow locally. As with all oil and gas producers, some portion of the oil and gas produced is used in its own oil and gas operations.

In warm countries, such as those in Middle Africa and India, energy consumption tends to be very low. Most people in these countries walk for transportation or use very crowded public transport. Roads tend not to be paved. Electricity outages are frequent.

One of the few changes that can easily be made to reduce energy consumption is to move manufacturing to lower wage countries. Doing this reduces energy consumption (in the form of electricity) quite significantly. In fact, the rich nations have mostly done this, already.

Figure 2. World electricity generation by part of the world, based on data from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Trying to squeeze down energy consumption for the many countries around the world will be a huge challenge because energy is involved in every part of economies.

[2] Two hundred years of history shows that very slow growth in energy consumption per capita leads to bad outcomes.

Some readers will remember that I have pieced together data from different sources to put together a reasonable approximation to world energy consumption since 1820. In Figure 3, I have added a rough estimate of the expected drop in future energy consumption that might occur if either (1) the beginning of peak fossil fuels is occurring about now because of continued low fossil fuel prices, or (2) world economies choose to leave fossil fuels and move to renewables between now and 2050 in order to try to help the environment. Thus, Figure 3 shows my estimate of the pattern of total world energy consumption over the period of 1820 to 2050, at 10-year intervals.

Figure 3. Estimate by Gail Tverberg of World Energy Consumption from 1820 to 2050. Amounts for earliest years based on estimates in Vaclav Smil’s book Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects and BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy for the years 1965 to 2019. Energy consumption for 2020 is estimated to be 5% below that for 2019. Energy for years after 2020 is assumed to fall by 6.6% per year, so that the amount reaches a level similar to renewables only by 2050. Amounts shown include more use of local energy products (wood and animal dung) than BP includes.

The shape of this curve is far different from the one most forecasters expect because they assume that prices will eventually rise high enough so all of the fossil fuels that can be technically extracted will actually be extracted. I expect that oil and other fossil fuel prices will remain too low for producers, for reasons I discuss in Section [4], below. In fact, I have written about this issue in a peer reviewed academic article, published in the journal Energy.

Figure 4 shows this same information as Figure 3, divided by population. In making this chart, I assume that population drops only half as quickly as energy consumption falls after 2020. Total world population drops to 2.8 billion by 2050.

Figure 4. Amounts shown in Figure 3, divided by population estimates by Angus Maddison for earliest years and by 2019 United Nations population estimates for years to 2020. Future population estimated to be falling half as quickly as energy supply is falling.

In Figure 4, some parts of the curve are relatively flat, or even slightly falling, while others are rising rapidly. It turns out that rapidly rising times are much better for the economy than flat and falling times. Figure 5 shows the average annual percentage change in energy consumption per capita, for ten-year periods ending the date shown.

Figure 5. Average annual increase in energy consumption per capita for 10-year periods ended the dates shown, using the information in Figure 4.

If we look back at what happened in Figure 5, we find that when the 10-year growth in energy consumption is very low, or turns negative, conflict and bad outcomes are typical. For example:

  • Dip 1: 1861-1865 US Civil War
  • Dip 2: Several events
    • 1914-1918 World War I
    • 1918-1920 Spanish Flu Pandemic
    • 1929-1933 Great Depression
    • 1939-1945 World War II
  • Dip 3: 1991 Collapse of the Central Government of the Soviet Union
  • Dip 4: 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic and Recession

Per capita energy consumption was already growing very slowly before 2020 arrived. Energy consumption took a big step downward in 2020 (estimated at 5%) because of the shutdowns and the big cutback in air travel. One of the important things that energy consumption does is provide jobs. With severe cutbacks intended to contain COVID-19, many people in distant countries lost their jobs. Cutbacks of this magnitude quickly cause problems around the world.

For example, if people in rich countries rarely dress up to attend meetings of various kinds, there is much less of a market for dressy clothing. Many people in poor countries make their living manufacturing this type of clothing. With the loss of these sales, workers suddenly found themselves with much reduced income. Poor countries generally do not have good safety nets to provide food for those who are out of work. As a result, the diets of people subject to loss of income became inadequate, leading to greater vulnerability to disease. If the situation continues, some may even die of starvation.

[3] The pattern of world energy consumption between 2020 and 2050 (modeled in Figures 3, 4 and 5) suggests that a very concerning collapse may be ahead.

My model suggests that world energy consumption may fall to about 28 gigajoules per capita per year by 2050 (for a reduced population of 2.8 billion). This is about the level of world energy consumption per capita for the world in 1900.

Alternatively, 28 gigajoules per capita is a little lower than the per capita energy consumption for India in 2019. Of course, some parts of the world might do better than this. For example, Mexico and Brazil both had energy consumption per capita of about 60 gigajoules per capita in 2019. Some countries might be able to do this well in 2050.

Using less energy after 2020 will lead to many changes. Governments will become smaller and provide fewer services such as paved roads. Often, these governments will cover smaller areas than those of countries today. Businesses will become smaller, more local, and more involved with goods rather than services. Individual citizens will be walking more, growing their own food, and doing much less home heating and cooling.

With less energy available, it will be necessary to cut back on fighting unfortunate natural occurrences, such as forest fires, downed electricity transmission lines after hurricanes, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and constantly mutating viruses. Thus, life expectancy is likely to decline.

[4] It is “demand,” and how high energy prices can be raised, that determines how large an energy supply will be available in the future.

I keep making this point in my posts because I sense that it is poorly understood. The big problem that we should be anticipating is energy producers going out of business because energy prices are chronically too low. I see five ways in which energy prices might theoretically be raised:

  1. A truly booming world economy. This is what raised prices in the 1970s and in the run up to 2008. If there are truly more people who can afford homes and new vehicles, and governments that can afford new roads and other infrastructure, companies extracting oil and coal will build new facilities in higher-cost locations, and thereby expand world supply. The higher prices will help energy companies to be profitable, despite their higher costs. Such a scenario seems very unlikely, given where we are now.
  2. Government mandates and subsidies. Government mandates are what is maintaining demand for renewables and electric vehicles. Conversely, government mandates are part of what is keeping down tourist travel. Indirectly, this lack of demand relating to travel leads to low oil prices. A government mandate for people to engage in more travel seems unlikely.
  3. Much reduced wage disparity. If everyone, rich or poor, can afford nice homes, automobiles, and cell phones, commodity prices will tend to be high because buying and operating goods such as these requires the use of commodities. Governments can attempt to fix wage disparity through more printed money, but I am doubtful that this approach will really work because other countries are likely to be unwilling to accept this printed money.
  4. More debt, sometimes leading to collapsing debt bubbles. Spending can be enhanced if it becomes easier for citizens to buy goods such as homes and vehicles on credit. Likewise, businesses can borrow money to build new factories or, alternatively, to continue to pay wages to workers, even if there isn’t much demand for the goods and services sold. But, if the economy really is not recovering rapidly, these approaches can be expected to lead to crashes.
  5. Getting rid of COVID-19 inefficiencies and fearfulness. Economies around the world are being depressed to varying degrees by continued inefficiencies caused by social distancing requirements and by fearfulness. If these issues could be eliminated, it might boost economies back up to the already somewhat depressed levels of early 2020.

In summary, the issue we are facing is that oil demand (and thus prices) were far too low for oil producers because of wage disparity before the COVID-19 crisis arrived in March. Trying to get demand back up through more debt seems likely to lead to debt bubbles, which will be in danger of collapsing. There may be temporary price spikes, but a permanent fix is virtually impossible. This is why I am forecasting the severe drop in energy consumption shown in Figures 3 and 4.

[5] We humans don’t need to figure out how to fix the economy optimally between now and 2050.

The economy is a self-organizing system that will figure out on its own the optimal way of “dissipating” energy, to the extent possible. In physics terms, the economy is a dissipative structure. If the energy resource is food, energy will be dissipated by digesting the food. In the case of fossil fuel, energy will be dissipated by burning it. We may like to think that we are in charge, but we really are not. It is the laws of physics, or perhaps the Power behind the laws of physics, that is in charge.

Dissipative structures are not permanent. For example, hurricanes and tornadoes are dissipative structures. Plants and animals are dissipative structures. Eventually, new smaller economies, encompassing smaller areas of the world, may replace the existing world economy.

[6] This is a recent video of a panel discussion on “Energy Is the Economy.”

Chris Martenson is the moderator. Art Berman, Richard Heinberg and I are panelists. The Peak Prosperity folks were kind enough to provide me a copy to put up on my website.

Video of Panel Discussion “Energy Is the Economy,” created in October 2020 by Peak Prosperity. Chris Martenson (upper right) is the moderator. Richard Heinberg (upper left), Art Berman (lower left) and Gail Tverberg (lower right) are panelists.

A transcript of this panel discussion can be accessed at this link:

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Financial Implications and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2,764 Responses to Energy Is the Economy; Shrinkage in Energy Supply Leads to Conflict

  1. Malcopian says:

    I’m thinking of Neil Howe’s insightful concept of ‘The Fourth Turning’, which first came to my notice via a link in the comments here a few months back. Neil Howe says that this decade most resembles the 1930s, and he’s right. The economy is flailing and the oil industry is failing, after these darn lockdowns. We are staring into the abyss of a economic Depression, with a capital D.

    Given that, let’s have a medley of 1930s songs. Be sure to add your favourites. How did they do CGI-like effects in the days before computers? Just watch and smile:

    • Malcopian says:

      Depression or not, life went on, and performers still sang of love. A joyful yet wistful song, this:

      Al Bowlly – Love Is The Sweetest Thing 1932

      • Xabier says:

        The escapism of the 1930’s.

        Aldous Huxley rightly pointed out that it served to relieve the misery for a while -if you could still afford to get into the cinema – and there would be ever more of that sort of thing to control a totalitarian society.

        In the popular literature of the day, readers wanted either exciting crime thrillers or mushy romance.

        The musicals made by the Nazis while their armies were raping Europe are worth a look.

        • Robert Firth says:

          And don’t forget “Triumph des
          Wllens” (1935), a masterpiece of film making: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uajey

        • Malcopian says:

          Nothing wrong with escapism. We all need some. And the better the aesthetics and the bigger the spectacle, the more interesting it is. Ad the Olf and his cohorts understood that well and leveraged the developing art and technology of 1930s cinema to their advantage, to help hypnotise the population.

          As a young man, Ad the Olf spent some time in Vienna. Apparently he was fascinated by the marches and rallies of the Social Democrats and trades unionists and the way in which they projected power and impressed the onlookers. He also visited the opera multiple times to listen to his favourite composer, Wagner. You can just imagine him listening to ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ – it was probably the only time his fifth limb managed to do a Na – ahem – zi salute. I expect he went home with soiled underpants. 😉

          He later synthesised his experience of the power of rallies with the spectacle of grand Wagnerian opera to produce his Nuremberg rallies, as captured in the film that Robert Firth references below.

          • Malcopian says:

            Here’s a German military march to add a bit of musical flavour: Der Königgrätzer Marsch (The Königgrätzer march), Königgrätz now being the city of Hradec Králové in the Czech Republic. Back in the 1930s, there were more ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia than Slovaks.

            The first 45 seconds of the tune (flutes) are a bit boring. Then comes the brass and bit of oomph, then from about 1 minute 50 seconds there is a racier secondary tune, which is the bit I particularly enjoy.

            • This military march theme however seems to refer to late mid 19th century war – battle in which invading Prussia crushed Austro-Hungarian forces on NE Bohemian dominion. I guess at that time Bavaria further down south western direction was still ~independent and friendly to Austria. Prussia attacked from the North.

              From that embarrassing defeat Austrian Empire was locked into severe subordinate position to Prussia and later German Empire be it during WWI or WWII or EU..
              The latter part being debatable as the living standard is becoming higher in Austria vs DE (avg)..

          • Robert Firth says:

            According to “Hitler’s table talk”, his favourite composer was Engelbert Humperdinck (1854 to 1921), famous only for “Hänsel und Gretel”. The problem with Wagner;s operas is that the good guys nearly always seem to lose. Rather like Nazis, in fact.

            • Malcopian says:

              ‘Engelbert Humperdinck’ – oh, no – not that dusky dandy with his frilly sleeves and collars. Apparently the Soviets found a stash of Der Phewrer’s Shirley Bassey records when they excavated his Bunker. Such a hypocrite, he was. 😉

              ‘The problem with Wagner’s operas is that the good guys nearly always seem to lose. Rather like N.z.s, in fact.’

              You implying that the ‘sizaN’ were good guys, Robert? Or just saying that they lost?

            • Robert Firth says:

              Malcopian, I was implying, perhaps a little too obliquely, that Wagner’s “good guys” often resembled the Nazis of a century later. No moral judgement was intended.

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      “Neil Howe says that this decade most resembles the 1930s, and he’s right. The economy is flailing and the oil industry is failing, after these darn lockdowns. We are staring into the abyss of a economic Depression, with a capital D.”

      there is at least one huge difference, and that is in the 1930s the world had about 7 decades of cheap FF still to come.

      from what I have gathered, Mr. Howe is clueless about this FF discontinuity. Yes? No?

      after this Fourth Turning thingie, there will be no future surge forward of progress and prosperity.

      just because it might have been true after the first three turning thingies, doesn’t make it anywhere near possible that it’s gonna be all well and good this time.

      • Malcopian says:

        You’re quite right, of course. Yet hope springs eternal in the human heart, and still I pin my hopes on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. But in reality how can we undo all this pollution of 200 plus years of the industrial technological revolution?

        • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

          I feel like I have a lot of hope.

          I pin my hopes on a very slow decline in energy resources, which I hope will equate to a very slow decline in quality of life, and then death before things get much worse.

          so far so good.

          • it doesn’t seem to work that way

            human civilisations runs flat out, needing constant increasing energy input

            we can withstand short term hiccups–depressions–but not long term

            long term depression. i.e. 20% of people out of work for a long time produces social chaos.

            20% is too big a proportion for the other 80% to cope with, so society ‘goes over the edge’ and resets itself. this transition is always violent because those involved don’t know whats happening.

            and even if they did they would still react violently.

            • This reminds me about the recent events in France. Two days ago (?) new incoming migrants propped up tent city on major square in Paris. Clashes of malcontents (~antifa like) vs Police resulted in violent scenes, then in turn called by sitting french govs as abhorrent. This nicely illustrates the collapse in slowmo.

              I recall, Alain Delon few years ago proclaiming today’s world to be a cesspool, disgusting place (incl. his FR) – yearning to be out of it for good soon.

            • Erdles says:

              People only remember the 20% who suffered in the great depression, the other 80% did very well indeed. With negative inflation and stable salaries their buying power increased considerably. I guess that is what is happening now.

            • the depression of the 30s was ended by WW2

              impossible to say how long things would have gone if that hadn’t happened–in any event it was all due to fuel burning because jobs can only come from that.

              I’ve often thought about it, but it seems to me that only the energy-burn of war ends mass unemployment, maybe that’s an ongoing human condition—who knows.

              this time round though, the world doesn’t have the energy-means to put millions of men on battlefields for years on end.

              that said, as collapse kicks in, increasing small regional conflicts seem inevitable, just as is happening now

            • JesseJames says:

              “the other 80% did very well indeed”
              …a bit of a stretch it seems to me….almost an entire generation impacted for life due to the scarcity of money….given that most people lived on farms, tell me how they did “very well indeed”. They scraped their basic needs from the earth, with little market that would provide them wealth.

            • Yorchichan says:

              @Norman

              “the depression of the 30s was ended by WW2”

              WW2 started in 1939. Germany experienced strong economic growth from 1933 onwards.

              https://i.insider.com/5807694fc5240225008b5595

              You can easily find a similar chart for the US, with significant growth starting in 1933 with the “New Deal”. Your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

            • Germany from 1933 to early 40s was essentially a Ponzi scheme

              ie–The economy was funded by deficit financing—issuing bonds (promises) to cover expenditure over income. Those at the top profited greatly, those at the bottom of the pyramid didn’t.
              Essentially the German government embarked on a program of rearmament, which created jobs.

              But wartoys have no purpose other than destruction. Without a war, collapse becomes inevitable.

              There are 2 ways out: collapse or war expansion to cover the growing deficit.
              (Japan was on a similar track in the 30s) The expansion of both nations was ultimately a grab for oil.

              Hitler chose war to grab resources of weaker nations to keep his Ponzi scheme going. He had to maintain war factory output.
              Slave labour was his other energy resource.

              ******

              Roosevelt chose another way of doing the same thing. But he built peace toys

              He had one advantage Hitler didn’t: Oil so cheap and abundant it was virtually free.

              He sucked in unemployed labour for vast construction projects, dams, schools roads and so on.
              He had the necessary free energy to do this, but as with Germany and Japan, it couldn’t cease, because that would end the jobs program.

              Roosevelt was paying construction wages with borrowed (taxpayers) money, just like Hitler did.

              If you build a dam, the output of that dam must ‘create’ wealth by energising more and more jobs. Real wages cannot be created until energy is turned into stuff that people want and need.

              Had ww2 not started, most of those projects would have petered out through lack of purpose. Ongoing prosperity must have demand, not just output. Workers on the ‘new deal’ projects couldn’t get rich by buying their own output.

              As it happened, the USA could use the output of oil wells, mines and dams to build wartoys by the millions, far outstripping any enemy power. As long as energy remained in surplus, the factories could keep humming. Hitler was on a loser from the start.

              they ran on after the war. Factories just switched to peace goods stuff after 1945.

              That lasted until 1970.

              So what happened in 1970?

              The USA hit peak mainland oil discovery, and began the slow decline into oil deficit.

              That was when the American Dream ended, and the nightmare began.

            • Yorchichan says:

              @Norman

              A quick check for the UK shows that it too experienced economic growth from 1932 until the end of the 1930s (at least). Could you point to one example of a country that was in a depression until WW2 lifted it out of depression? Or any evidence at all that WW2 ended the depression of the 1930s?

            • Germany was in terrible shape. I am sure that was the reason for all of the persecution of the Jews. There was a famine at that time, according to a museum I visited in Israel. It was reaching peak coal (the cost of extracting coal was rising too high relative to what it could be sold for). I am sure that Germany’s huge problems were really energy problems that it was trying to solve.

            • that was my main point

              all wars about resource grabs

              Hitler’s Ponzi scheme was becoming unstable, so he had to invade Poland to deflect attention from it

              all dictators reach the same end-problem. They must divert attention from their own inadequacies and blame others for their nation’s problems.

              Trump did this at the start, then when he knew he was likely to lose in 2020, he blamed criminal elements in the Democratic Party for rigging the voting system against him before polling day

              And so we see the same nonsense being touted over and over (even in OFW) —all convinced that the vote was ‘stolen’ despite there being impartial scrutinisers from both parties in every counting hall in the country. (maybe they had been bribed to go home?)

              but that’s all fake news of course.

              There is evidence that before Hitler invaded Poland, he dressed up dead poles in army uniform and had them strategically ‘placed’ on the German side of the border (or something like that)

              Fake news is nothing new

            • I thought I just did

              Germany ‘lifted itself out of depression and created growth’ on borrowed money

              The USA did the same.

              The builders of the Hoover dam were paid by the government

              therefore ‘growth’ was in effect created on borrowed (taxpayers) money—which is the same as going to the bank, borrowing money, and using that money to give yourself a pay rise.

              To anyone not knowing you had taken out a bank loan, your ‘growth’ would be all they were aware of.

              War made the Germans go bust and the Americans lifestyle to vastly improve—so much so that they we able to pump money into Europe in order to prime the economic pump of Europe itself.

              The UK had to borrow money from the USA to keep itself clear of the German threat after 1939

            • believeeverythingyouread says:

              Trump is the same as hitler. Hitler invaded Poland. Trump brought all troops home from endless wars of previous administrations. Obviously the same.

            • believeeverythingyouread says:

              Norman. Observers were stopped from observing in those places.
              Does that mean that their was election fraud? No
              Does that mean there was not election fraud? No. In the absence of a system where the ballot has a chain of evidence where a random sampling can be done to see whether the ballot had legal origin and status It comes down to trust. Scouts honor

              Same system as before.
              Yup.

              Two things have changed

              One the incredible hate generated by the false acusations and compromised media. This brings peoples motives into question. After all we have heard over and over and over.

              “ALL THATS IMPORTANT IS TO BEAT TRUMP”

              Oh ethics dont matter?
              Oh fair play doesnt matter?

              Knowing this and witnessing all sorts of violence by the radical left i certainly believe there are people out there who would cheat in the election in a heart beat. The democratics selection of Harris clearly demonstrates that they dont care whatthe vote is at all. She got 6% of the vote in the primary. This characterizes the attitude of authoritarian power the democraticparty has cometo represent. That papa knows best attitude does not inspire trust in me.

              2. These elections were very close. Look cheating has gone on forever in Philly and Detroit politics. Ask anyone. Even as big as those towns are By themselves their cheating just doesnt matter in a nationwide election usually.This one is so close it did matter. And can a small county input a significant amount of stuffed votes no. But a big city can. And theyare corrupt. And they are blue. Not saying all blue is corrupt.

              3You have not addressed the fact that poll watchers were effectivly stopped by being corraled in philly and detroit. Does that prove the election was stolen? No. Its certainly not provedits honest by disabling measures intended to keep it so.

              4Statistically the anomalies surrounding the votes that arrived at are astronomical. Along the same odds as evaluating DNA evidence. Does that prove the election was stolen? No. It certainly doesnt prove it honest.

              5 Covid. for the first time ever theres a lot of ballots unatached to people. A recipe for stuffing. Does this provefraud? It certainly doesnt disprove it

              6 Trump said there was going to be fraud.
              Thedemocratic party could have responded to these claims if they were basless. They could have put measures in place where people felt confidant about the results. They fight measures for voter accountability tooth and nail. They characterize efforts at ensuring election jonest as voter suppression. Does this prove the election is slolen? No
              Does it prove it was honest? No.

              So we have lot of factors that could indicate there was fraud. Without a system in place where random sampling of ballots can be done to verify legal origin and legal ballot we are asked to believe in the honesty of the vote count based on the morals and ethics of the vote counters and more importantly those who guard the votes against stuffing.

              We are asked to trust them.

              I grew up in Chicago.

              My momma didnt raise no fools.

              I dont trust them.

              Ive given my reasons why.

              You havnt addressed any of it you just keep on regurgitating trump hate propaganda. This forum values informed analysis and you provide little to none. You havnt been in these environments. you dont know what these places are like. You climb back on your soapbox patting your self on the back a german warning the yanks about hitler. No reason to actually address the concerns of the people that actually live there. Show me somthing please that indicates anything other that you have bought into a argument that fufills your selfish needs and that you dont care anything about the facts. If i wanted to read comments from people unwilling to look at facts id be over at the huffington post reading comments.

            • Lidia17 says:

              Norm has such a case of TDS that it may require hospitalization.

              The election was clearly stolen.

              [In 2019] Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Amy Klobuchar and congressman Mark Pocan warned about reports of machines “switching votes,” “undisclosed vulnerabilities,” and “improbable” results that “threaten the integrity of our elections.”
              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election

              Anyone interested in following election-fraud stuff should check out “The War Room” podcast by Steve Bannon. I know he has been discredited, but the material presented is gold, imo. He’s an anti-CCP guy who doesn’t hide his bias, but the people he has on who present the legal strategies and the statistics surrounding the wonky vote sound extremely credible. Too many points to list here of improbable things happening that one would have to swallow to accept the mediatically-hawked outcome.

              ===
              I think what people should keep in mind is that this is all taking place in the context of the “Great Reset” and that the GR is a monetary power-grab above all. I don’t fully understand Trump’s recent actions w/r/t the Federal Reserve, but that has to have something do with this end-game-for-all-the-marbles. They are not playing this game for the “children in cages”, for the GND, or for domestic politics, imo.

              Trump supposedly hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson when he arrived in the WH. Jackson famously fought wars against bankers.

              Also not to be ignored is Trump’s Executive Order declaring the seizure of assets of anyone tampering with US elections. While it does sound theatrical, it’s quite possible a trap could have been set.

              It’s also possible Trump is playing a role (against Klaus Schwab, the Bond villain from central casting) and the game will fall to some player yet unseen.

            • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGGlnHe3Rgc

              Penn State Legislature panelist’s body language: “.. eh, this is getting seriously uncomfortable, I don’t want to be seen around here, they told me this is going to be easy, cushy job .. ”

              🙂

            • Lidia17 says:

              believeeverything.. excellent comment.. although I don’t believe the election was really “very close”.

              I recall Harris as having withdrawn during the primaries after getting 1-2%.

              Here’s her Senate voting record, anyway:
              From Jan 2017 to Nov 2020, Harris missed 350 of 1,265 roll call votes, which is 27.7%. This is much worse than the median of 1.8% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving.
              https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678

              Again, I think the Harris/Biden slate was presented in order to humiliate us..

              Biden couldn’t even draw a crowd of 50 people with Obama out there as that guy trying to get passersby into the peep show.

            • Lidia17 says:

              worldof.. this is a great clip.. Thank you!

            • Tim Groves says:

              There’s no point arguing with Norman because Norman is a True Believer on the issue of Trump’s Horribleness. Everything about Trump is anathema to Norman. And no rumor or insinuation or accusation against Trump is too nasty for Norman to believe.

              If Trump clinches re-election and gets four more years—which we are all waiting to see if he can do with the trepidation with which we would await an attempt by Harry Houdini to get out of a sealed box dumped in a river, or by Evel Knievel to cross the Snake River Canyon in a rocket—then I fear for what is left of Norman’s sanity.

              It’s pretty clear to any unbiased observer—not that there are a great many of them around these days—that this election has been even more mired by fraud than usual. The courts are going to rule on whether various instances of fraud invalidate various parts of the count—just like in 2000 only on a much wider scale—but regardless of how that plays out, it is certain that Trump won the actual count by a landslide of electoral votes and that Biden stated clearly and unequivocally that the Dems put together “the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization in the history of American politics”—so make of that what you will.

              But go on Norman, be my guest, check with Snopes and debunk THIS!

              https://youtu.be/MA8a2g6tTp0

            • and that video was meant to say/prove what exactly?
              I accept that my level of intellect is not on a par with yours, so I would appreciate being let in on the secret message contained therein.

              I would be grateful to any of my Trumpisms pointed out that are/were not attributal to the man himself

              from my observation point—and I do like to stand wwwwwwwaaayyyyy back to look at stuff

              the last potus election, in certain quarters at least, is starting to take on the same aspects of hoax/fraud/scam nonsense as previous exchanges on the moon landings, WTC collapse, climate change (Chinese) hoax and covid (Chinese) hoax.

              Plus others of minor interest.

              Insistent name repetition was a characteristic of dear departed FE, it always came to the fore when he was on otherwise shaky ground. I used to notice that a lot before the aliens re-abducted him and seeded the world with covid dust in thanks–or was it retaliation?

            • Tim Groves says:

              Insistent name repetition was a characteristic of dear departed FE, it always came to the fore when he was on otherwise shaky ground.

              Would this be anything like your insistent repetition of the name “Trump” in connection with the name “Hit*er”? And does this amount to an admission that you are on shaky ground with your half-baked inuendos and evidence-free accusations?

            • during my writing career, when faced with a problem that was both difficult to put over and impenetrable for people who might want to read my waffle—I invariably stood wayyyyyy back and tried to analyse it from the long perspective.

              Was there a common thread of explanation here that would accommodate the lowest common mental denominator?

              (always my benchmarks when nothing else works.)

              So I look at the fraud-scam-conspiracy thing. Not just this one, but previous favourites of the late lamented FE, and his senior henchperson (your misguided self)

              And I spotted that common thread.

              Remember the moon landing—Always ‘me’ that was too stupid to accept ‘the truth’ which everyone else could see.

              Then the WTC—ditto above—another conspiracy scam fraud. ‘Me’ too stupid to see the truth (again), Plus those 20 muslims who set up the hologram of the planes crashing into the WTC towers and elsewhere. Spectacular. For the moment we will ignore the unforgivable disrespect to the men who attacked the hijackers in the fourth plane. And died as part of ‘the conspiracy’.

              Then the great climate change hoax, no such thing as global warming. (that used to be favourite too—it was a Chinese hoax to shut down American factories) Both the don and FE said so.
              ditto above (again)

              Then the virus appeared—it was another Chinese hoax, a fraud, didn’t exist. NP the idiot once more. I had exclusive rights to stupidity again. Luckily I was vaccinated against contact with idiots years ago. My immunity is long lasting fortunately. Idiot-vaccine produces laughter as an unavoidable side effect.

              Then ‘vaccines’ came up.

              Surely I wasn’t so idiotic as not to see it was Bill Gates plotting to take over everybodys brain because he was messing with the vaccines. Vaccines killed people!!!

              and now we arrive at the Trump voting fraud….again ditto above.

              All of the above have been debunked time and again, throughout the world, at every level.
              I’d hate to be stupid AND lonely..

              *******************

              So—-the common thread I mentioned?

              Obvious really. I needed to stand back to see it. That for all of the above ‘incidents’ to be somehow fraudulent, would require the co-conspiracy of literally thousands of individuals, all working together to a common goal (on each hoax) in absolute secrecy, where not one of them has broken ranks to reveal ‘the truth’.

              Scientists—vote counters–moon scenery makers–, explosives experts. an endless list.

              I worked out that if all the main elements of the above were mixed up, and re hashed, they could be re written at random onto any ‘conspiracy’ thread, and no one would notice any real difference.

              *******************

              Still. One bit of creativity arose out of it all, which I’m quite pleased with.

              I came up with a new collective noun:

              A humour of conspiracies.

        • Numa says:

          The 4th Industrial Revolution is a project of the WEF, Davos and Global Elites.

          Contrary to what people think, they know things are going down, and are ACTIVELY trying to depopulate the world and reduce the population’s access to energy – that’s when the 4IR comes:

          – No commutting, no cars, no buses, no vehicles. The EV wave is just bogus to bankrupt the Auto industry. EV’s are an impossibility due to batteries (and there’s no solution to that, billions are being spent on it), sheer price and safety regulations.
          – Indebt everyone, and seize all property – goodbye small business, hello again monopolists. “You’ll own nothing and be happy”
          – The Coronavirus: more and more I think it was their project and their game. China was just colluding and moving along.
          – Population division and chaos: increase racial hatred, religious hatred and cultural hatred. Create a blame-game on people and they’ll be the ones responsible for the coming crash, not the elites, not them.
          This will create the justification needed for the return of authoritarianism and the end of democracy.
          – Global Warming/Climate Change: justify the huge stimulus packages for the Green Industry (themselves), while preventing the Third World to industrialize with schemes such as Carbon Credit, just so that their Oil isn’t spent on them, but on the First World.
          – Destroy Third-World countries who were doing well and consuming more energy locally. Do it economically (Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, etc) or militarly (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc).
          – Export the First-World manufacture base (it’s not coming back ever), to deindustrialize these countries and prepare for a return of agriculture.
          – Turbo-boost China, make it polluted and heavily dependent on industry so that it crashes and burns violently in the future energy scarcity.

          I could keep on going, but that’s basically it – the elites know it very well and everything you see, watch and read is their effort to deal with it and create a Neo-Feudal society.

          • Denial says:

            trump lost the election! get over it! Trump is an idiot Biden is an idiot! There I said it! Those of you that sit and beat this dead horse are only showing your ignorance of the situation. You probably bought in to the whole Americun exceptionalism as well. The U.S has funded everything with debt…..they added more to the deficit in this last year than they did from 1876 to 1996….
            I am still trying to convince people that no we can’t just stick a straw in the the ground and pull out tons of oil with no problem. Its people like you that are trying to shift the narrative to super man trump made everything work easy! I never thought I would say this but the U. S will lose its reserve currency status soon and when that happens you will see some crazy crap….or maybe you won’t because you are too busy being lazy complaining about the election…

            • Lidia17 says:

              Trump didn’t lose the election. Your other points are valid. This *is* about currency.. this *is* the “crazy crap”!

            • Paradoxically US loosing its reserve currency status won’t be as bad as imagined, comparatively speaking.
              Still, the purchasing power per capita (and more importantly broader living-health standards) will drop profoundly at least by ~40-80% only in first stage though.

              What was unique historically speaking though about the latest run of this global fin settlement arrangement was the timely coexistence run with the permeable globalization mega trend. So, while Europeans or now China and Asians tried to build up some inner corralling seclusion structures of breathing space for themselves – they achieved more or less just a mere refuge for their oligarchs than some standalone structural advantage.

              In simple terms, “the final US crash” will be sinking all boats in ~synchro..

              And this strange factor will in turn alleviate the true pain for the US, also depending on the level of newly gained local / regional independence vs the former center (and its twisted priorities) it could be also a healing, beneficial process.

              Obviously, the above is a high horse macro and long term attitude analysis, the realities on the ground will be horrifying.

            • Wolfbay says:

              How about trying to improve the election process for the future. Computer programs are routinely hacked all over the world.There has to be at least verified back up paper ballots if a recount is needed. Tulsi Gabbard introduced legislation last year to do just that but like every other good idea she’s had it was totally ignored because she doesn’t precisely follow the script of the war mongers.

          • Tim Groves says:

            Numa, that was an excellent comment. I couldn’t agree more with it.

            Denial, your reply to Numa was not about anything Numa was talking about.

            In Latin, the term non sequitur means “it does not follow.” The phrase was borrowed into English in the 1500s by people who made a formal study of logic.

            Perhaps you might benefit from a formal study of logic 101, as your comment, excellent though it may have been in some ways, was one long string of non sequiturs IF it was in reply to Numa’s comment above it.

            On the other hand, IF you were replying to some other comment, it might have been apposite.

        • whatever the fourth industrial revolution brings, let’s hope we can eat, drink and breathe it

          because if we can’t we’re screwed

      • Howe has been recently employed (or consulted part-time) w. Canadian hedge fund guy, who had been to some extent exposed (via communicating to all spectrum of investment people) to depletion/surplus issues, although it’s certainly not his main thing or focus.

        For my purposes I proposed tweaked offshoot of “4th turning” based on different demographics of this very late era, especially in terms of more flexible timing and sequencing, basically prolonging – stretching these trends timewise a bit. If I’m not mistaken Howe himself is not that rigid on the concept as well, and allows for broader interpretations for given historical epochs.

      • Duncan Idaho says:

        and that is in the 1930s the world had about 7 decades of cheap FF still to come.

        Bingo!
        I was going to post that also.

    • I would agree that today’s world most resembles the 1930s. But, we don’t have the cheap to produce oil in the ground, and our debt levels are a whole lot higher. We also have a lot of women working, so we don’t have the big piece of the labor force that was added in the 1930s. There were also low-hanging fruit when it came to increasing food production per acre.

      • Denial says:

        Yes but the majority of americuns think that they created this massive new technology called fraking to open massive oil fields!!! Remember Americans are energy independent meme??? I remember being told that we have 100 years of oil in the u.s !?!? This is a story that is pushed by the left and the right…..

      • Denial says:

        This is where I think you have not done a succinct job in explaining this to the people of the United States! Most of them believe that the U.S has so much easy to obtain oil 100 years worth in fact that the u.s has no problem. I don’t know which is worse the bonehead that tells me this or the idiot that tells me oil will be obsolete because we will all be driving electric cars in the future!

        • Minority Of One says:

          >>This is where I think you have not done a succinct job
          >>in explaining this to the people of the United States!

          ‘You’ who? Neither the inhabitants of the USA nor anywhere else are in the slightest bit interested in being exposed to reality. You / we can explain all we like but the normies ain’t listening.

          I gave up long ago trying to explain our oil predicament to people. The reaction was invariably not-interested or hostility.

          • There is definitely a problem of the majority not being interested at all in listening. But there are definitely quite a few who are interested in listening.

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      It is hard to find any Anglo-American music from the 1930s that I care to listen to.

      Classical was pretty dead too.

      I tried to find some music from that period but I gave up.

      What an awful time for music. It makes one glad that one lives now.

      I would have been Great Depressed too.

      • Mirror on the wall says:

        No wonder they had a war!

        Yep, that music is making me feel flippant.

      • Malcopian says:

        ‘It is hard to find any Anglo-American music from the 1930s that I care to listen to.’

        You sad person. I’m exiling you to Scotland, so you can listen to the ‘skirl’ of the dreary bagpipes for the rest of your life. So what kind of music DO you care to listen to, Mrs. Mysterywoman?

        • Mirror on the wall says:

          Have you ever noticed that your Al Bowlly track, Love is the Sweetest Thing, is musically very similar to the Muppet Show theme track, with the same key and key changes?

        • Mirror on the wall says:

          “So what kind of music DO you care to listen to, Mrs. Mysterywoman?”

          Well, I prefer the Muppet Shows ditties to anything recorded in the 1930s.

          • Malcopian says:

            You MUPPET!!!

          • Tim Groves says:

            Did you watch Pennies From Heaven, by any chance. Lots of good music in there. Admittedly, none of it rocked or rapped.

            Roll along prairie moon
            Roll along while I croon
            Shine above
            Lamp of love
            Praire moon…

            Here’s the Al Bowley version:

            https://youtu.be/iGhSBQ5ZMPg

            • Malcopian says:

              ‘Pennies From Heaven’

              I did watch but wasn’t keen on the songs chosen. Nor did I think Dennis Potter was the great talent some claimed he was.

              From the 1930s, I mostly like the faster tunes with witty unexpected that require a bit of verbal athletics. Example:

              Putting On The Ritz – 1979 cover by
              Peter Skellern & The Grimethorpe Colliiery Band

            • Malcopian says:

              More Peter Skellern from his 1979 album ‘Astaire’:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV9QsEK4uXg

              ==============

              And his version of ‘The Continental’ – a gorgeous tune:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOEhpWgqoXs

              ==============

              And then there’s Bryan Ferry singing ‘These Foolish Things’:

            • Tim Groves says:

              All excellent choices! I recall Peter Skellern for the first time in decades now that you’ve brought the name up.

              As for Brian Ferry, I personally enjoy These Foolish Things—an album of covers—more than any of his very listenable original work.

              And of course the song These Foolish Things is another classic that proves there was some great music composed in the 1930s.

      • Malcopian says:

        Speaking of the 1930s and Germany, how about the pseudo-classical, pseudo-mediaeval ‘O Fortuna’ by Carl Orff? The snobs don’t like it, but it’s a jolly piece. The percussive flavour is similar to something Grieg did.

        When Carmina Burana was first performed, Der Phewrer was present. The German audience waited for his response at the end. Would he consider it to be decadent and degenerate? No. He applauded. The relieved audience joined in.

        • Minority Of One says:

          Carmina Burana – fantastic music. To see live show on my bucket list but probably not possible now.

      • Robert Firth says:

        The Western classical music tradition died on 1911 May 18, with the death of Gustav Mahler. Afterwards there was only dreck, and a few zombie operas being staged with hopeless nostalgia or even more hopeless “updating”.

        • JMS says:

          I would totally agree with you if there were no Bartok and two or three more. In fact, i believe all arts, with the exception of literature, began to die at the end of the century and by 1920 they were already a rotten business.

      • cmon now

        music is a matter of personal taste

        Copeland and Gershwin offer superb stuff, if you care to open your mind and see it

        • nikoB says:

          don’t forget Gypsy Jazz.

        • Robert Firth says:

          Agreed, Norman. Which is why I was careful to use the word “classical”. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on most other kinds of music, of which I am almost entirely ignorant.

  2. Nehemiah says:

    Good News! Global Warming handwringers can breathe a sigh of relief at this WONDERFUL *mainstream* news coming out of Sweden!
    https://youtu.be/JmATGtQbUho?list=TLPQMjQxMTIwMjA9AuSiVVEwFA
    [Time: about 90 seconds]
    So why aren’t Al Gore and Greta Thunberg celebrating???

    • VFatalis says:

      Cherry picking data never gets old.

      • We really can’t do anything about the problem, except what our self-organizing economy provides. We also can move to a part of the world more to our liking, it changes occur. Where would we like to live, without electricity lines in good repair?

  3. Dennis L. says:

    Some thoughts on the price of oil.

    Oil is priced on an average, it includes the least expensive and most expensive to produce, oil is fungible. This appears to be the price Gail is using. But, were oil not fungible(due to the dollar reserve currency?), then it would be priced at the margin in the currency of the area of production.

    The US oil boom was shale oil – $70/barrel? – this is oil at the margin(yes, there is old oil, someone else can work the math on that one).

    The real cost of oil in the US is maybe $50-$60/barrel, all costs in. If we leave the Middle East, what happens to the marginal cost of oil to a US consumer? To get the average price/barrel, add in our exports priced in dollars, do a weighted average and that would give the marginal price of US oil.

    Is this part of the reason for the current US election panic?

    This has some serious implications for various segments of the US economy, discretionary spending disappears, the ability to pay RE taxes declines drastically. It is then a very different world.

    Dollar hegemony hides this, the dollar is sliding, housing prices show that dramatically. Houses in my neighborhood are up maybe 50 or more percent since I purchased mine 6 years ago -houses are on the market about 6 days. Houses are not fungible. Discretionary items are not being purchased – e.g. dress clothing. Closing restaurants whether part of a conspiracy or whatever has reduced that spending and ending with a bit of humor, the eating out discretionary spending has all gone into toilet paper.

    Dennis L.

    • Dennis,

      I don’t think you have this right. It is the laws of physics that controls the prices of commodities. Each refinery offers different prices for various types of oil, based on what it requires, and based on what supplies are available in the marketplace. A refinery that provides substantial upgrading to heavy oil will bid a much lower price than a refinery that does very little processing.

      The reason that this happens is because, when it comes to selling finished products, like gasoline, diesel, and lubricating oil, the two types of refineries (those providing upgrading processing and those without) have to compete in the same markets. So it is really the amount that markets can afford to pay for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products that indirectly sets the markets pay for these fuels. The prices tend to be fairly similar worldwide.

      Two different “benchmark” prices have come into common use. Both of these relate to quite high grade crude oil that does not require upgrading. The European one is “Brent;” the US one is “West Texas Intermediate (WTI).” They tend to provide an idea of what relatively high prices for oil might be. For a long time, these different benchmarks traded at very close to the same level. Then, when US markets were overloaded with oil from shale plays, WTI prices tended to fall quite a few dollars below Brent.

      Historically, actual drilling and processing costs have been very low, relative to the price of oil, say, 10% to 20% of the benchmark price. This has meant that, pretty much everywhere, taxes on the sale of oil has become a big source of revenue for governments. In fact, governments of oil exporters have become very dependent upon it. Other countries have as well. Without the benefits of cheap-to-produce oil, it is very difficult for a country to have money to provide tax subsidies to renewables. Also, some of this money is needed for reinvestment and for dividends to policyholders. Pension plans have historically depended on oil producing companies to provide good dividends, so that they could provide pension benefits.

      It is the lack of understanding of how this process works that has created great confusion. Governments get very dependent on this revenue. So do pension plans.

      EROEI calculations have looked at this and tried to figure out what small percentage of costs go into extraction part of this. At one point, it might have been in the 2% range.

      • Dennis L. says:

        Gail, thanks,

        It seems there are two prices, one determined by physics, one determined by selling price, the first is determinate, the second not so much.

        Fracking is much more expensive than simple holes, it has a definite cost, it is a marginal cost, the same is true of off shore oil, bitumen, etc.

        Oil sold is a market price, once the cost of a well is sunk all that can be done is sell the product as long as cash flow is positive. This is about the same as farming, oil is sold in a price taker’s market, oil is produced from the straight physics view with costs for steel, costs for sand, costs(market) for oil to run equipment.

        Market prices are a blend, one would expect there is considerable financial engineering done, in the end someone gets the short end of the stick.

        A hypothesis is the marginal cost is increasing, old oil is depleting say 6% per year, shouldn’t be that hard a model to make. Fracking became significant in the US when it went over 1MBPD, we use 9 million BPD? Your description is accurate as long as consumption can be cut faster than production declines, when it reverses the price should increase at the margin which in this case would be market. Blending market prices is an average and may obscure the underlying trends.

        If one wants oil, one must eventually pay a price that covers costs one way or another.

        Pensions are a significant problem, I am a pensioner, it is personal. On an earlier post I referenced two instances of how this problem had been handled in the past, when our personal metabolic needs exceed our useful contribution to the group, arrangements are made – young need less energy for maintenance than the old, G. West.

        West, Morgan and you are excellent sources for information. Meadows is good as long as one stays on earth, my guess is we are moving industry off earth, earth is too valuable as a spaceship for humans, so Greta again.

        Dennis L.

        • No, there aren’t two prices. Marginal costs don’t really come into play the same way with energy products, because they act like “yeast” to the economy as a whole. The benefit is far greater than what a person might ever guess, based on the extraction and refining costs. Once the yeast effect starts wearing off, energy prices start falling too low because of too much wage disparity.

          The selling price for energy products has historically been far above what you and I might think of as most company’s “marginal cost of production.” This big difference has been the huge subsidy that allowed governments and economies to grow. Part of the reason for this was the high taxes that energy companies could pay. Oil exporters especially were able to pull oil out of the ground at a low price, and sell it at a very high price.

          It is the fact that the society as a whole benefits so much from oil and other fossil fuels that makes the relationship different. Governments and shareholders are a step away from being “essential” to the production of fossil fuels. The taxes they pay and the shareholder dividends that they pay have been terribly important, especially for oil exporters. Even US states (such as Alaska) have been very dependent upon oil revenues. Without oil in Alaska, how many people would live there?

          Governments tend to collapse after a few years of inadequate tax revenue. The governments in the Middle East look like they are on their way to collapse.

          Pensions look likely to collapse as dividends keep heading down.

          Strangely enough, EROEI calculation seems to show that oil from shale has a fairly high EROEI.

          Whether or not oil is depleting at 6% per year, if the government maintaining order in the country collapses, production can (and will) fall a lot more quickly than 6%. Look at Libya.

          I would watch out with respect to what Tim Morgan says. He believes too much of conventional economics. He does not understand how the system really operates. He started out following Charlie Hall and his EROEI stuff, then changed it somewhat to make his own model.

          Even G. West comes at this, knowing only his piece of the puzzle. He doesn’t know how limits fit into the picture.

          I have also seen an article by Tim Garrett, claiming that the economy operates on momentum (without much of any impact of limits), so we should be able to extract the fossil fuels that seem to be available, making climate change our big problem. Of course, he is a climate change researcher. He gets paid, if he can get grants for climate change research.

          The situation is alway, “Reader Beware.” Some of these folks has amazing credentials. Just don’t expect them to know much outside their own fields.

          • DENNIS L, says:

            “Strangely enough, EROEI calculation seems to show that oil from shale has a fairly high EROEI.”

            If one gets more energy out than one puts in, it is impossible to go broke, why are shale companies going broke? Simple arithmetic, pump one barrel of oil into the earth, get one and half out, free money, $30 down the hole, $45 out of the hole, rinse and repeat.

            I am sticking to my guns, oil is fungible, if enough expensive oil is produced to make a “surplus” the cost of oil will go down as oil is not sold on the margin, it is sold at a dollars /barrel market price.

            If one follows the money, it would be interesting to see where the money for shale oil originated. A guess, the Fed.

            A number of countries have tried to avoid selling in dollars, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. It didn’t work well for them. That is cheap oil, move it out of the dollar pool and one is left with much more expensive oil in dollars – no longer fungible. More simply put, whatever currency the cheap oil is selling in, one has to purchase those currencies with dollars – this is the exact reverse of the petro dollar. If the dollar is exchangeable for gold, people will want gold – this is what happened when American peaked in the seventies, Nixon stopped selling gold, printing dollars in exchange for oil was in danger of stopping.

            There is no moat around the price of oil, fungible as always. `

            Dennis L.

            • The EROEI model is too simplistic. It tells far less than what people hoped it would tell.

              On an EROEI basis for food, none of us would eat berries. We would live on butter and oil products. Our bodies cannot live on just one type of food; neither can economies.

              I am not certain what precisely goes wrong in the fracking calculations, but one of the big issues I see is what I call “calendar year” versus “future model.” Traditional fossil fuel EROEI calculations are based on a calendar year basis. How much energy was required in that particular year (say 2019), versus the amount of oil that came out that same year. Thus, there would be no guess work about how long devices would work in the future, or the amount of repair costs. It is simply a calculation of “Energy In” versus “Energy Out,” for some particular small segment of oil production. This is a project a graduate student can do, by visiting a few oil companies. Of course, the “Energy In” tends to be cheap energy (natural gas), while the energy out tends to be dominated by expensive by selling price energy (oil).

              EROEI of both oil from shale wells and from Wind and Solar are based on more of “Model” approaches. How long do we (or the operators of the shale wells) think that production can continue? How much total oil will be produced? In the case of wind and solar, it is a question of how long the makers of these devices estimate that they will be operable. There is no charge for the fact that debt will be needed for fund these operations, since debt doesn’t “look like” energy that is being transferred out of the system. Oil, in the past and even in the present, has been heavily taxed (even if it is not profitable!), but this isn’t reflected in the calculations at all, either. This is part of why shale operators lose money.

              Wind and solar get the huge benefit of “going first,” and distorting the pricing system for all other electricity producers, but there is no charge for this bizarre situation. They tend to drive nuclear and co-generation out of business; also coal and “base-load” natural gas. Total electricity production doesn’t rise as much as the intermittent wind and solar, without big subsidies by local governments who can see the huge problems that result.

              “Boundaries” are a huge issue in EROEI and net energy calculations. Traditional crude oil experiences most of its costs in drilling and refining, because it can use cheap transportation and storage options. I don’t know to what extent the add-on costs related to all of the water and sand use in fracking are really considered. I presume they are, but the devil is in the details.

            • Tim Groves says:

              I think this issue is a good candidate for a future post. The Real Price of Oil? Gail has covered EROI several times in the past, but this could be a new angle.

              If used in the right way, oil is worth a lot more than its price indicates.

              Can it be worthwhile to use a barrel of oil in order to extract half a gallon? On the face of it, that sounds like nonsense. But start thinking about all the economic activity that this original barrel of oil is facilitating and the answer is not so clear.

  4. Dennis L. says:

    Reading Tom Morgan 11/23/21

    “Third, we have reached – or passed – the limits of environmental tolerance of an economy powered by fossil fuel energy” Basically Greta said politely.

    Say I am a very wealthy man, I got that way because I can look ahead. Say someone else is in the government and in a position to understand the same issues as well as understanding the politics of space exploration.

    If the government comes up with carbon credits, and a certain manufacture has positive cash flow secondary to these credits and happens to have a company staffed with rocket scientists, that individual might be in a place to design and launch rockets much faster than old reliable, NASA.

    The earth is mined out, a simple metal like Zn is done in 17 or so years, what is left? Space, the moon, asteroids. It is a long shot, it is hope and it is politically brilliant.

    Politics is making sausage, it is always messy.

    There might be hope.

    Dennis L.

    • Curt Kurschus says:

      If the Earth is all mined out, then where will we get the minerals from with which to build the probes and mining craft to explore and mine the asteroids without cannibalising what we have already built on a massive scale? If global oil production has peaked and global net available energy has peaked, then where will we get the energy from to build the probes and mining craft, or even to cannibalise what has already been built to build the spacecraft, without deliberately engineering a recession which sends the financial system into a tailspin and therefore cuts down sharply on the funds available for building the spacecraft?

      Mining asteroids makes fire a nice science fiction fantasy movie, but we are not going to do it on the scale required within the time frame required with the degree of affordability required.

      • Malcopian says:

        We’ll use nanotechnology, then fire at a beam at you to make you tiny enough to pilot the spaceship. We’ll pay you $5 and a tin of beans per week as an indentured pilot. 😉

        • Dennis L. says:

          Mal,

          We have been doing that for some time, the inconvenience is the time delay secondary to the speed o light, we have in a sense walked on Mars for some twenty years.

          Earlier I referenced Chris and Isabella. It would be interesting to know what he was paid up front and what were the rewards from Isabella when he returned. Some days on those ships a can of beans might have looked pretty good, coming into port, ah, that could be a great deal of fun, others(beta males) would look on with envy.

          Dennis L.

      • Dennis L, says:

        Curt,

        How can you be so sure? A man is landing boosters on their tail, on a barge in the ocean. This man makes innovative cars that have teething problems, bumpers fall off, sometimes the autopilot goofs, etc, but he seems to make rockets that work and are very large.

        Assume Greta is right, assume it is a finite world and we have run out of materials, what then?

        At the end of WWII, Germany was building jet bombers which could not be intercepted and V-1 rockets falling on Britain. Germany had very little oil, Germany was being blown to bits.

        The US captured Von Braun and twenty years later landed on the moon. Von Braun also found a personal niche and lived an interesting life to a ripe old age.

        Today’s and tomorrow’s problems will not be solved with today’s tools.

        Mankind goes forward as a group, some groups take a wrong turn, some individuals don’t make it, but mankind does. Nature really doesn’t seem that concerned about the individual, that is a blessing of industrial society. Find the right group, get lucky and all is well with the universe. It is not going to be easy or painless.

        Dennis L.

        • What happens is that civilization moves back many steps in complexity. The idea of flying to the moon and other planets will no longer look workable in not many years.

          In fact, we are likely to find that a larger and larger share of the population is no longer literate because governments could no longer afford to pay for education, as the economy starts sliding backwards. Tax revenue falls everywhere. Governments find ways to cut back. Teaching classes online is one of them. It because possible to simply televise lessons to a whole age level of children, with a single teacher, and save a huge amount of wage costs. The wealthy will continue to educate their own children. Most of the poor will fall far behind.

          • Very true, also in terms of cross comparing various societies, it’s perhaps worth look at who made it big in recent decades in terms of bringing about technological change etc. If not most, many such individuals are coming from non US background, i.e. better education acquired at elementary, high school level, then jumping onto selected few top US universities, and after that securing venture capital already sloshing there for whatever goal they pursuit..

            W. Europeans, Indians, Russians, Japanese, .. talent

            So in a way this “way of inoculating progress” via imports seems as one way depletion game as well. Perhaps it could continue way longer than assumed or it’s just about to get exhausted pretty soon.

          • Robert Firth says:

            If the future resemble the past, I suspect otherwise. The poor will put their children into apprenticeships, which pay for themselves, and they will come out productive enough to raise families of their own.

            The rich will send their children to study “transgendered feminist anti racist climate science”, and they will come out card carrying parasites.

        • Curt Kurschus says:

          In order for that progress to happen, we need to have the requisite resources available to us in sufficient quantities and level of quality and at an affordable price. We can no longer rely upon that being the case. Whatever our grand ideas may be, they shall come to nought if we cannot solve the resources issue.

          In addition to that, even if we do somehow solve the resources issue to make it possible for us to keep growing and progressing, that growth would itself exacerbate some of the systems issues that we have – such as pollution and global warming.

          The finite nature of the Earth places hard limits on what we can do. We cannot make Earth infinite.

          When it comes to your statements regarding Elon Musk with his rockets and cars, his accomplishments have so far been from ideas that others have had for a long time. More importantly, his efforts require finite, depletable, nonrenewable resources just like so many other technologies. If the economy crashes due to resources and systems issues associated with a finite world, then so does Elon Musk and his grand ideas.

  5. Nehemiah says:

    “you know i i had a kind of a fortuitous meeting in the mid 2000s uh with some clients that

    kind of led me to search into how the actual monetary system actually works and the way

    it’s designed in the way money moves and you know what i what i came to realize was that

    in my opinion the system itself the design of the system is inherently unstable

    and i find that interesting because you know to the extent that central bankers

    they all have these models and they all have these mathematical frameworks and

    they think if you push this button then this happens and they have these

    complicated models but the very simple model of which the system is based on in my

    opinion is flawed and that is that if you loan money into existence

    the the debt is always going to be bigger than the the capital off of which it’s levered

    and then you get into a system where for it to remain stable it has to grow

    but if if anything grows forever it’ll eventually go exponential and exponential curves never

    end well they either go up and you have huge inflation or whatever it is or it

    crashes and you get the bust and so i i i i i kind of find that con you know it’s a there’s a

    contradiction to me that they have all these you know very incredible um complicated

    models but the very simple model of the exponential system seems to be beyond their

    grasp”

    https://youtu.be/YwK3gcjMFfU?list=TLPQMjQxMTIwMjA9AuSiVVEwFA

    • Dennis L. says:

      Find a good niche where the collapse is minimal. not everything fails.

      Dennis L.

    • All these brainiac theoreticians and administrators inside CBs are merely delegated the task to mop up structural imbalances caused by the true owners – influencers – stake holders of the system and their leveraged games, those top dogs / fat cats living several layers above gov-CBs..

      If you take the conventional-msm narrative how CBs supposedly direct the world economy, you get always everything wrong then.

      • Dennis L. says:

        Okay, what is a model that gets one thing right and can predict tomorrow with some accuracy?

        The only reason to look at models which do not work is to avoid building the same non working model.

        Dennis L.

        • Slow Paul says:

          A model is just a model. It’s hindsight. If a model predicts something correctly that is also hindsight, just think of all the models that fail because something unexpected came along, or it didn’t include variable X which in hindsight would be good to put in. We are always analyzing the past thinking we can predict the future, we can’t.

          Some will make good choices, some will make bad choices. All judged in hindsight.

          • Robert Firth says:

            A planetarium can predict the next lunar eclipse with near absolute accuracy. But then, so could the Antikythera Machine over 200 years ago. The flaw in most current models is that they are not based on hard science, but on the opinions of some dead economist, banker, or (dare I say it) climate “scientist”. Equations not grounded in the hard sciences are worthless, except when applying for research grants.

        • The “Overshoot and Collapse” model is one that today’s researchers never think about looking at. We must be too smart now. This is the one that the 1972 book The Limits to Growth suggested was likely to occur. There are hundreds or thousands of historical economies that have collapsed.

          Even if there is lots of evidence that “Overshoot and Collapse” is the path we are following, people would like to believe the “Peak Oil” story, with oil prices rising and and allowing BAU to continue in a reduce form for a very long time. Alternatively, they believe the “Technology will save us,” model. The “We Can Save Ourselves by Transitioning to Electricity” model puts these two ideas together in one place.

    • tablarosa says:

      What is well within their grasp is that babe has expensive tastes. Its a lot easier to flap your jaw then to move 15 tons of #9 coal. A lot of what education does is paradigm reinforcement. How do they get the huevos to propagate such ridiculous theories? Simple. The ones who wont are weaned out early in the “education” process. Above all the training is chase the $. Academic achievements are part of the motivation equation but they are validated by $. As world of H analyzed someone got to come up with some rhyme and reason to cover the mess. Covering the mess pays well. Talented and artful mess coverers are well compensated.

    • We know that historically economies have collapsed, but most people cannot believe that our own economy could also collapse. I haven’t had a chance to look at the video yet.

      It is fairly much common sense the somehow the system will fail. The government has been trying to hire people to work on approached that might, in theory, provide an alternative to fossil fuels. Unfortunately, they don’t work well enough to be useful.

  6. MG says:

    The real step towards equality:

    Period poverty: Scotland first in world to make period products free

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51629880

    • Erdles says:

      It’s not free, English working men will pay for this through higher taxation.

    • How about making birth control free?

      • Minority Of One says:

        Discussion of birth control seemed to reach a high point in the 1970s and now is a topic few want to talk about.

        I am member of the London-base charity Optimum Population Trust, and they say the data shows that if every woman on the planet who wanted birth control got it, the global population would stop rising. But alas the 200 M or so women that would like birth control but don’t have it have no say in the matter.

        Even in most Western countries, who can and cannot have an abortion is decided by misogynists.

  7. Herbie Ficklestein says:

    Reuters
    Airlines set to lose $157 billion amid worsening slump: IATA

    Laurence Frost
    The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which in
    June had forecast $100 billion in losses for the two-year period, said it now projects a $118.5 billion deficit this year alone, and a further $38.7 billion for 2021,
    ,….Passenger numbers are expected to drop to 1.8 billion this year from 4.5 billion in 2019, IATA estimates, and will recover only partially to 2.8 billion next year. Passenger revenue for 2020 is expected to have plunged 69% to $191 billion.
    ,…..The average airline now has enough liquidity to survive another 8.5 months, while some have just weeks, Pearce said. “I think we will get consolidation through some airline failures

    Boy, this is going to be some upcoming event….

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RFADm6jAfSA

    Can the financial system hold itself together with all the emergencies hitting it on all sides?

    • Dennis L. says:

      Herbie,

      Of course it can, it always has, not everything goes up in smoke and even then it seems to always come back.

      For some time it has been known oil was a finite resource, becoming an airline pilot was perhaps not the best use of one’s time or at best one needed to also learn an additional skill. How things would end was not known, we are finding out.

      Regarding the facts and figures, all one has to do is read Buffett sold airlines, sell airlines, air planes, take what is left and move on.

      It won’t be easy.

      Dennis L.

      • Herbie R Ficklestein says:

        Glad to hear of your optimistic outlook.
        I’m hoping drinking Cool aid myself because I’m knocking on the door of retirement with a 401k, pension and BAU clicking along, at least here in the USA. Perhaps the new branch of the Military Industrial Complex, the Space Force, will keep everyone else in line.
        Sure it will, sure it will…

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s-BgOyfTUfk

        Cause any trouble and we zapp you good..
        Works for me….joking of course😜

      • Lidia17 says:

        Dennis.. WTH? Aren’t all those pilots going to be need to charter space flights back and forth with materials from our future space-based factories?

        • DENNIS L. says:

          Ah, another optimist, full employment for pilots, another vote block in the bag.

          Dennis L.

        • Robert Firth says:

          Lidia, Arthur C Clarke’s “The Sands of Mars” has a brilliant discussion of what those space pilots would look like. As seen through the eyes of 1951 science.

    • Minority Of One says:

      >>Can the financial system hold itself together
      >>with all the emergencies hitting it on all sides?

      Damned good question.

  8. MG says:

    The equality has its costs. The women are handicapped by the nature in the same way as there are elderly or disabled or children who need the care that is often provided by women in the jobs that do not pay well.

    • With less fossil fuel energy, it is pretty much certain that women’s roles will need to change again, back more in the direction where they always have been. Men will need to be strong, and women cannot compete as well in that area.

      • Dennis L. says:

        Ah, I can get the woman’s vote, they are agreeable and the moon has less gravity so upper body strength may not be as much of an issue.

        Always seeing the positive side.

        Some here think this is literally lunacy, but there is nothing left here other than spaceship earth. Building an ore processing plant on the moon is trivial compared to constructing another earth which took say 2B years. We don’t have that much time, we can build plants on the moon in say 100 years, it will cost blood and money.

        Happy Thanksgiving all,

        Dennis L.

  9. Dennis L. says:

    Going to Mars and the human risks,

    It has been mentioned the impossibility of man surviving the voyage. It seems humanity has always been willing to sacrifice itself in some instances. Not that long ago men walked out of open boats, onto the beaches of France and almost certain death. Boat after boat landed until a beachhead was secured. It wasn’t free, Mars, asteroids, the Moon will not be free, people will die, seems it has always been that way.

    Reading here it appears to me there is a certain comfort in nay saying, being part of a very conservative group, it can’t be done, it won’t be done. It does not seem much different than the man with the sandwich board declaring “The End is Near.” Well, for me, hold my beer.

    I write not to convince anyone, but to try and understand the contra arguments, you guys are pretty sharp.

    Dennis L.

    • lol Dennis

      I only write stuff down so that I can try to understand it all myself too

    • Well, one thing is almost certain, the Muskianas have by now all ducks in a row, meaning “low cost” repeatable orbit cargo capability. And that means they can step by step in daisy chain style build up at orbit whatever way bigger contraption for daring mission through the Solar system.

      So should there be any unforeseen problems like in transit “deep space / to Mars” high mortality due to radiation outburst or whatever biologic reaction to such journey away from shielded Earth, they can easily upgrade and send another mission with completely redone space craft with heftier shielding etc. There are millions of volunteers for such “mission” not mentioning fund rising ready public.

      Now, that being sad, we just don’t now for sure where are we exactly standing in terms of the protracted collapse path today. There are many (sub) scenarios with dissimilar probabilities. Some might argue that, for example:

      – the current plandemic is merely a test, how to better understand future arrangements how to optimize human excess consumption and general societal settings etc. aka quasi BAU to stay for a while longer..

      – the current plandemic is the real deal, the salvo to end the world as we knew it, from now it will get only worse in terms of phasing in UBI and food / energy credit – allowance, canceling free movement, and worse..

      – the current pandemic is merely unique in its chaotic unreasonable reaction because of achieved level of spoiled societies and rotten disorganized gov structures

      ..
      .

      There are dozens of such potential scenarios, and [the correct ones], obviously will have also bearing “on your” scenario of Mars colonization, mining asteroids and in general trend of humans always moving ahead.. to become a reality or not.

      • Dennis L. says:

        World,

        “Now, that being sad, we just don’t now for sure where are we exactly standing in terms of the protracted collapse path today. There are many (sub) scenarios with dissimilar probabilities. Some might argue that, for example:”

        What is being described on OFW is overall not very optimistic, so there isn’t much to lose by going for it.

        Having read this site for a number of years, other sites earlier I am convinced things are going to change, I am convinced there are real limits to growth – on earth. Okay, systems which do not grow seem to fail, my bet is mankind will go for it.

        When Greta started screeching I was put off, now it seems obvious. Earth is the spacecraft, it moves very quickly through the galaxy, it is self regulating and through billions of years has designed itself to work for us, time for us to kick it in gear and do our part. Move the damn pollution off this earth by moving the processes that cause it off this earth, save the earth, trash the moon.

        Dennis L.

    • Very Far Frank says:

      Musk has stated that the timeframe for a first colony on Mars is limited to the two-yearly transit windows (2022, 2024 etc.), when the planets are at their closest.

      My question would be, how on (Mars?) are they going to create a self-sustaining human community on the red planet in those two windows? Because god knows they won’t have any other chances: the Limits to Growth forecasts which have been so accurate over time dictate the collapse of our industrial civilisation around 2025.

      While I think Covid histrionics might be an elaborate plan to stall this collapse a few more years, Musk and co would still have the pressing issue of being entirely dependent on a planetary infratructure (Earth’s) that is collapsing at a rapid rate.

      I’d hate to be one of the intrepid Mars colonists up there in 2024 watching helpess as everything goes to hell. It would be as if you were a pilgrim in 1620 getting news Europe had suddenly vanished. As well as all the oxygen.

      • In such scale and time window it’s impossible. They can at best send a big probe to test various propulsion options and get some specific new data from the locale of future landing site, but for full scale human expedition (even fly over) it seems impossible. That’s a huge logistics task about what has to be prepared in advance for the crew, tons of specialized gear and long term habitat systems, ..

        In similar note, they had to in TSLA realm often engineer completely new machines and devices for the factories on their own, and then start the production, followed by improving quality. So, that’s why it is safe to buy their older now heavily updated models, but it’s always not advisable to be impatiently impulse buying newly launched stuff with lot of untidy knots.. say for first 1-2yrs

  10. Mirror on the wall says:

    Re: Brexit, fishing and Scotland

    Brexit trade deal talks are still stuck on EU fishing rights in UK waters.

    Much has been said about how the incorporation of NI has hindered UK from reclaiming its sovereignty – but it is actually Scotland that is causing the present inertia.

    Scottish fishing communities are among the last to favour UK. If Boris caves on fishing then it would be a further boost to independence. But if Boris goes ‘no deal’ then that would also boost support for independence. And Macron and co. will not back down – ‘no fishing, no deal’.

    Boris is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to fishing waters.

    As Gail explained in her article, dissipative structures tend to ‘find a way’ to do what they ‘want’ to do according to the laws of physics as dissipation declines, and Boris is beset with dilemmas on all front as the the UK pulls apart.

    Many Englanders would likely be glad to see the back of the UK, it has become a serious nuisance. Polls indicate as much, with half of TP and LP voters now supportive of English independence even without any serious campaign on the matter.

    > Why Scottish fishing rights are a Brexit deal breaker in EU trade talks

    …. 1. Why is fishing such a big deal?

    Fishing is small fry in economic terms for the UK, only 0.12 per cent of GDP, but it has huge symbolic importance.

    Scotland’s north east fishing fleet, which accounts for almost half the UK total, saw entry into the EU Common Fisheries policy as a historic betrayal.

    That anger was channelled for many years by the SNP which saw most of its gains in the north-east fishing seats. But with Brexit the Conservative promise of leaving the EU and “taking back control” of UK waters saw the Tories take a dozen seats from the SNP in 2017. Though their gains were are halved in 2019 any further “betrayal” of the industry will fuel the independence argument and undermine the principles Brexit was fought on….

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-fishing-rights-brexit-deal-22850163

    • Mirror on the wall says:

      Barnier has given Boris until Friday to cave.

      My advice is to go for no deal and to let Scots do what they want.

      > EU threatens to pull out of Brexit talks if UK refuses to compromise

      Michel Barnier says further negotiations would be pointless if UK does not change stance

      The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has warned David Frost that without a major negotiating shift by Downing Street within the next 48 hours he will pull out of the Brexit negotiations in London this weekend, pushing the talks into a fresh crisis.

      In talks via videoconference on Tuesday, Barnier told his British counterpart that further negotiations would be pointless if the UK was not willing to compromise on the outstanding issues.

      Should Barnier effectively walk out on the negotiations it would present the most dangerous moment yet for the troubled talks, with just 36 days to go before the end of the transition period.

      While Brussels might hope such a move would put the UK prime minister under pressure to give Frost new negotiating instructions, it might also embolden those within the Tory party who believe no deal is the better outcome.

      …. Von der Leyen said legal texts on judicial and social security coordination, trade in goods and services and transport were almost finalised. “However, there’s still three issues that can make the difference between a deal and no deal,” she added.

      She said fishing communities needed “predictability” from year to year over access to British waters, in a reference to Downing Street’s wish to hold annual negotiations over catches in UK seas, with the option of blocking access.

      On state aid, Von der Leyen said the EU was seeking a mechanism through which any breach of agreed principles controlling domestic subsidies could be swiftly remedied.

      The EU is also seeking a mechanism to ensure there are consequences for either side within the trade deal if standards diverge over time….

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/25/von-der-leyen-eu-willing-to-be-creative-to-seal-brexit-deal

      • Robert Firth says:

        Britain has already given the EU predictability on the fisheries issue: no access; not today, not tomorrow, not ever. You promised Edward Heath a fair deal, and immediately broke it, just as you have broken every other deal we have been conned into making.

        And now you want a “level playing field” tilted 89 degrees in your favour. Again, no deal. This is not about trade, not about the economy, not about your tyrannical “rule of law”. It is about sovereignty, and always has been.

    • Malcopian says:

      ‘Many Englanders would likely be glad to see the back of the UK’

      Yes, time to privatise Scotland, sell it to Canada, and give the proceeds to me. That chilly little country should become part of Nova Scotia.

      Meanwhile Ulster is just an ulcer on the British body politic. Remember that little man who Benny Hill used to slap on his bald head? He was a Northern Irishman and probably represented the pinnacle of Northern Ireland’s usefulness.

      • Epic comment, perhaps ytube “AI” has been sending your way lot of unsolicited old Benny Hill videos as of recently as well (to me). It aged well.

      • Mirror on the wall says:

        Yep, NI is well run down for lack of investment. It was the industrial heart of Ireland in 1921, now it is a dependent shell like much of the north of England.

        UK has 9 of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. Investment has been concentrated in London and SE for generations for a quick return.

        It is time for NI to go back to Ireland. It has no future in UK and Englanders are sick of picking up the tab. The N Irish deserve better than that.

Comments are closed.