“The era of cheap & abundant energy is long gone. Money supply & debt have grown faster than real economy. Debt saturation is now a real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”"We are now in new era of expensive unconventional energy

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Part one of this has to do with sources of natural gas. A lot of natural gas/methane is formed from decaying plant matter, whether in swamps, landfills, or animal stomachs. There are also methane seeps in various parts of the world that are venting methane into the air, some being on land and some underwater. I don't see any problem these sources as a feedstock for hydrogen/ammonia production. Methane will always be with us.

I would say that volume requirement is your biggest concern here.

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Part two has to do with electricity prices. The gist of your arguments tend towards commercial scale, always-on production. Your calculations are based on the idea that someone runs a plant 24/7 based on a contract from a third party power provider. This is not the way a lot of large scale operations run - low rates are often offered in exchange for peak cutoffs, so if the power grid nears saturation the transmission provider can shut down various bulk users

My calculations are based on the necessary production figures yearly, and based on that average things don't look good for current technology. It seems to me that in this section you're suggesting that facilities are already overbuilt to account for down time. Is that correct? Otherwise, how do these plants meet their yearly figures consistently?

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Within that context, many large scale plants are 'cogenerators', meaning that they generate their own power and sell their excess to the grid

I wasn't aware of power plants being built for ammonia facilities. I've looked at presentations for their construction with no mention of such things. Guess I'll expand my search view. 

 

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

This arrangement guarantees both power reliability and rock bottom cost - factories aren't subject to PUC rate structures.

Yes and thank god for that. 

 

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Nitrogen fixation is as old as plant life. Nature is far more efficient at producing nitrates than Haber-Bosch, since the grass in your yard doesn't depend on some process that runs at 300 atmospheres of pressure. As more and more is learned about how nitrogen chemistry works, means will be developed to produce ammonia directly from sunlight with catalysts, skipping the solar power phase entirely.

This is why I've primarily focused on the hydrogen production power demand. Regardless of how we synthesize the ammonia, we'll still need a set power requirement for hydrogen. If we had some sort of panel that could produce ammonia directly from water and nitrogen, we'd still have a need for a huge area to place these in, and since this is a theoretical machine, we can't compare costs or viability yet. Hard to simply say "this won't work", hard to simply say "this will work". 

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

What 'you're interested in' is only tangentially important in all this Fertilizer value in places the the Philippines or Japan is different from the 'lower 48 in the US' since we have natural gas supplies and they don't. Island nations don't have vast areas of land that can be consolidated into large farms.

As far as to when and if power prices will drop to .7 cents per Kwh, I am predicting that solar cells will be priced at one penny per watt by 2025. Right now the cheapest one I'm seeing advertised is about 7 cents per watt. .7 cents per Kwh x 1.8 (Kwh per year) x 7 (years) = 8 cents per watt. I'm seeing solar cells priced at 7 cents per watt now. This is not the price of panels, and not the price of panels installed into a working farm.The cost of solar would have to come down one order of magnitude. It might take roughly ten years for that to happen.

Well, if we can export to Japan then aren't we more competitive than what they have access to by default? They'd buy our chemicals instead of whatever is produced there. 

As for the rest, it's difficult to argue since it's just speculation. Only time will tell. If it's anything like Moore's Law then we have lots to look forward to. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

15 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Thanks

Where is your Economics discussion forum? spent a few minutes looking and didn't find it. 

For all the positives about this site, navigation isn't one of them. Took me awhile to find it myself, and I even knew where to look

Titled - everything you think you know about economics is wrong

[Otis11 + 551]

46 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Right. I need to demonstrate why I think that the ROI isn't sufficient for the installation, or do a calculation based on some scenario. If the percent return is high, an extreme startup capital can be justified. 

Yeah, I shouldn't be so certain. The correct position is "As of now, I am not at all convinced that this is a practical approach to the problem. However, I understand that advancements in technology may one day make it feasible". And I will take this position.

Which goes back to the first statement of yours. I need to demonstrate why the ROI isn't sufficient to justify an overbuild. 

These could show some good results, depending on the yields. 

At this point I'll need all kinds of information and numbers if I care that much about dissing solar; but I really don't. In fact, generally the burden of proof goes to those who claim that we need these new systems, so it shouldn't be necessary for me to offer proof of why it doesn't work. 

Overall, I'm content with waiting another ten years to see where things go. In the meantime, when I reach college I'll be searching for a way to electrify steps of the haber-bosch process where it makes sense. (different from going full electric, where hydrogen would be produced from water and creating the energy demand I've been talking about). I'm interested in this not because of climate change, but because it would be nice to not rely on a finite material forever. I simultaneously hope that nuclear will become the dominant source of cheap power, but that's a whole different discussion. 

 

Ah, you dont have to take all that responsibility of showing everything through a formal proof... (though I'm sure many would appreciate it). If we all did that we'd never have time to actually discuss things.

Your level of evidence is sufficient if you soften your claims to 'electricity isnt a viable economic solution due to poor economics'

And awesome! Best of luck! In my experience many of these long established processes are ripe for disruption. Often it's been done one way for so long no one has examined how changing conditioned and new technologies have changed the landscape. Think critically and challenge people's assumptions! (Including mine)

And keep up on industry forums - this and others. There's often more experience freely accessible than people imagine... (ok, I'll get off my old man lecture mode now. Seriously, excited for ya!)

Last thing - if you pursue what you love you'll love what you pursue! I changed majors 5 times in college and then went to grad school... and now I work on things not at all related to what I did then! (But still benefit from that knowledge!) But because i love what I do, I have my fingers in a lot of different pies- some might consider them multiple jobs, but I just do what I enjoy! This isnt because I need the money, but truly just because I enjoy doing it (most of the time... haha!)

34 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 It seems to me that in this section you're suggesting that facilities are already overbuilt to account for down time. Is that correct? Otherwise, how do these plants meet their yearly figures consistently?

I wasn't aware of power plants being built for ammonia facilities. I've looked at presentations for their construction with no mention of such things. Guess I'll expand my search view. 

Some facilities are over built to accommodate swings in production, others that's not economically viable so they run pretty much constantly. Every process and even facility is different. Look at facility uptime/capacity factor and seasonal capacity factors. I have no idea about ammonia.

And many industrial facilities have power producing capabilities. A few facilities I work with have power generating capacity... they need steam for industrial processes and so we run cogens. That power never goes to the grid as were aren't licensed as a utility, however we do work with the utility to balance their grid by ramping our production to satisfy our own load (whether power or steam). Sometimes it makes sense, other times it doesn't. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I would say that volume requirement is your biggest concern here.

My calculations are based on the necessary production figures yearly, and based on that average things don't look good for current technology. It seems to me that in this section you're suggesting that facilities are already overbuilt to account for down time. Is that correct? Otherwise, how do these plants meet their yearly figures consistently?

I wasn't aware of power plants being built for ammonia facilities. I've looked at presentations for their construction with no mention of such things. Guess I'll expand my search view. 

 

Yes and thank god for that. 

 

This is why I've primarily focused on the hydrogen production power demand. Regardless of how we synthesize the ammonia, we'll still need a set power requirement for hydrogen. If we had some sort of panel that could produce ammonia directly from water and nitrogen, we'd still have a need for a huge area to place these in, and since this is a theoretical machine, we can't compare costs or viability yet. Hard to simply say "this won't work", hard to simply say "this will work". 

Well, if we can export to Japan then aren't we more competitive than what they have access to by default? They'd buy our chemicals instead of whatever is produced there. 

As for the rest, it's difficult to argue since it's just speculation. Only time will tell. If it's anything like Moore's Law then we have lots to look forward to. 

I would expect that what you would want to do is produce a more generally useful and easier to transport product with energy production use with the excess electrical production while the wind or sun are too intense for your grid to absorb the production. My go to thought is electrogas (CH4, CH2OH, C2H6, C2H5OH) you can use that as an input for ammonia, other chemicals, or a fuel to use on legacy NG capacity, etc..

Added:

The idea is that you don't care what the electricity costs because it would be something the electric producer does opportunistically and not a commercial product in itself. Just a way to produce income from unmarketable electric production that has a negative market value (grid blowout risk - see Germany) 

Edited February 8, 2020 by 0R0

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 hours ago, Otis11 said:

For reference I work in optimization. My original training was in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, but I also have training and experience in business, law, chemistry, biology, and a few others. Worked in defense, tech, service, and energy (including both renewable and convensional) as well as for a few startups. I've seen laws of physics broken and literally rewritten (not by myself, but been fortunate to work with some incredible people). Just if that gives you any better understanding of why I push back on absolutes and 'impossibilities.

That is seriously impressive.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

38 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And awesome! Best of luck! In my experience many of these long established processes are ripe for disruption. Often it's been done one way for so long no one has examined how changing conditioned and new technologies have changed the landscape. Think critically and challenge people's assumptions! (Including mine)

And keep up on industry forums - this and others. There's often more experience freely accessible than people imagine... (ok, I'll get off my old man lecture mode now. Seriously, excited for ya!)

Last thing - if you pursue what you love you'll love what you pursue! I changed majors 5 times in college and then went to grad school... and now I work on things not at all related to what I did then! (But still benefit from that knowledge!) But because i love what I do, I have my fingers in a lot of different pies- some might consider them multiple jobs, but I just do what I enjoy! This isnt because I need the money, but truly just because I enjoy doing it (most of the time... haha!)

Thank you for the encouragement and kind words. Sounds like you've had a very interesting experience in various industries. Are you self employed at the moment?

40 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

And many industrial facilities have power producing capabilities. A few facilities I work with have power generating capacity... they need steam for industrial processes and so we run cogens.

One example I'm already familiar with is steel mills that use the EAF. With that sort of power draw there's bound to be some incentive for home grown power 😁

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

20 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

I would expect that what you would want to do is produce a more generally useful and easier to transport product with energy production use with the excess electrical production while the wind or sun are too intense for your grid to absorb the production. My go to thought is electrogas (CH4, CH2OH, C2H6, C2H5OH) you can use that as an input for ammonia, other chemicals, or a fuel to use on legacy NG capacity, etc..

Gas for legacy systems... hmm. That might be a potential investment for me in 30 years. 

[Otis11 + 551]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

That is seriously impressive.

Yeah, some of those guys are seriously impressive... 

(Hope you weren't referring to me Tom - would hate to think I misled ya! I'm just a bit player that's been very blessed to work with some very incredible people!)

Besides... work in startups and you become a jack of all trades, master of none. I might sound smart until you actually get an expert in the room... haha!

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Gas for legacy systems... hmm. That might be a potential investment for me in 30 years. 

If you can forecast 30 years out you're a better man than I!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I just want to thank you all for such an excellent discussion. This is why I'm attracted to this site. 

@Otis11 @KeyboardWarrior Thanks for the civil and intellectual discussion. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

30 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

If you can forecast 30 years out you're a better man than I!

Absolutely not. I can make obvious predictions for five years at most. I'll just keep tabs on electrogas to see if any potential develops. 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

On 2/5/2020 at 3:43 PM, Tomasz said:

“The era of cheap & abundant energy is long gone… Money supply & debt have grown faster than real economy. Debt saturation & paralysis is now a very real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”"We have entered a new era of expensive [unconventional] energy that is likely to trigger a long-term economic contraction."

Report containing 510  pages is published by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), which operates under the government’s Ministry of Economic Affairs. GTK is currently the European Commission’s lead coordinator of the EU’s ProMine project, its flagship mineral resources database and modeling system.

http://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/70_2019.pdf

 

Unfortunately I don't read quickly enough.  I downloaded the original report this morning - which is 400 pages - but still have a way to go. I like these kinds of reports because I signed onto peak oil in 2006 and refuse to give it up in the face of overwhelming evidence (so far) to the contrary. The few things I have learned from my peak oil fetish are:

1. It's easy to take information and come up with outlandish predictions (from the world collapse due to oil disappearing to the idea that West Texas Shale is really a new Saudi Arabia). The Finns are late to the party but they certainly like doing what they're drinking. 

2. When flooded with TRILLIONS of dollars anything is possible. The Great Financial Collapse of 2007-8 should have been the demise of western capitalism, instead it was the doorway to a new post-capitalism Utopia! So every prediction is inevitable until it isn't. 

3. Every day a few hundred more people come to the conclusion that "money isn't real" and they act like they just invented the idea. So the whole "economic" aspect of any of these predictions is laughable. Here's a secret... No money has ever been worth anything... including GOLD.  Why did kings use gold (a metal with no functional value) as money thousands of years ago? Because they could control PRODUCTION and they OWNED the mines. So the rulers "printed" gold ... which was a worthless, useless metal. And they used it to pay stupid people for Grain, Work, Land, Oxen, etc.  Those idiots!  It turns out that "money" not being worth anything is a Ponzi Scheme that will last for another 10,000 years. So get used to it. 

4. Over a long enough time line we will run out of oil, coal and natural gas.  That's a given. Are we past the half way point? I dunno. The answer in 2005 was YES.. but then "they" threw so much "worthless" money at the problem that it went away. So the predictions were invalidated. My guess is the same will happen again. Since money is made up, it turns out governments can throw as much as they want down the bottomless pit, call it GDP and move on with their lives. The result is some energy comes out, some people have jobs, and there's no revolution. So I would bet on that continuing. 

I keep hoping for the end of the world - energy wise - but damn-it if other people are working harder to make it not happen. I made up a story to explain it.  Two guys are about to go across a deadly river on a boat.  One guy says, "I don't think the boat will make it." Half way across the boat breaks in half. As they both drown the guy, smiling, says, "I told you so." Some people who rather be right than alive. I'm one of those guys. 

No point to this... I have insomnia. Disaster fantasies are the only thing to help me go to sleep at night. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/7/2020 at 2:36 AM, Ward Smith said:

As usual Mr @0R0 I'm impressed with your insight. I'm sorry you're too deep for @BLAbut please continue. I can't believe you're an economist because they're inevitably wrong from consuming so much of their own bull shiff. You seem to have a clear eyed view of what's happening, which I for one appreciate. 

Elsewhere I started a thread about economics but I don't think you came by to visit. We're in alignment on this but I can see how others, swallowing the usual BS they've been fed can't see this particular Forest for the trees. 

As for prices, recalculate today's oil prices accounting for inflation, and in 1960's money we're about the same, roughly $2.50 a barrel. The contribution of fossil fuel to the world's economy is about 25%, but the benefit to the fossil fuel industry is peanuts. It's like farmers barely staying solvent to produce wheat for $2/bushel while a loaf of bread goes for $5. The goods and services made possible by fossil fuels has multiple multiplier effects on the world economy. 

Spot on Ward. Oil dirt cheap right now and most producers either can't make profit or cannot make enough profit to sustain govt spending. Same for most commodities (you mention farmers), and also true for copper and aluminium. What I disagree with is the notion that central banks had something to do with it, load of crap. Everyone just got greedy and overproduced everything, whether it was oil+gas companies wanting to sell to China, or Chinese manufacturers wanting to sell their wares to the West? Just a global Ponzi scheme if you ask me. Sure, central banks added fuel to the fire, but it up to individuals and business not to jump into it? 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 2/7/2020 at 10:38 AM, RichieRich216 said:

If anyone is really interested look up the TOTAL DEBT of all the Countries of the World, The reset is either going to be a Global Pandemic ( Check any newspaper ) or a Global War, Money as we know it is no longer real, Yes you can go to McDonalds and still buy a 1/4 pounder for about 3 bucks but The Globalist that want a True Global Economy run buy the idiots of The UN or The IMF and World Bank and have been pushing that agenda to the end of Sovereign Nation’s. Want to fight Globalization and the small goup of people behind it look to Davos each year. These are the people behind the curtain that want to control everything from the top down world wide....

And they call us "populists, deplorables, racist, xenophobic...". I am just grateful we have Trump + Johnson. Nice to see common sense prevail for the first time in decades?!?

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/6/2020 at 8:20 PM, Gerry Maddoux said:

Expensive oil, eh? Try rolling an oil barrel into Starbucks and load it with your favorite latte. It'll cost you $3,700--despite the fact that while oil requires a million years to mature, coffee beans get right to it. Peasants grow most of them. They're easy to harvest, ship, roast and brew. Then drive out to an oilfield--ANY OILFIELD--and see what goes into harvesting a cup of oil. 

I have heard so much bullshit about expensive oil that I think I'll throw up the next time. And "expensive oil" had very little to do with the financial crisis. As I recall that was taking about a hundred million mortgages, slicing and dicing them into tiny pieces, putting them together in packages that no one could undo and selling them for a massive profit. No one went to jail. 

I don't know where you're from Geoff, or how old you are or even what level of education you have. And I'm not trying to pick a fight. But before you go talking about "expensive oil," at least visit an oilfield. I suspect you use plastics. Maybe pharmaceuticals. You likely learned to drive an ICE vehicle. Maybe you've had a surgical procedure. You couldn't have done any of those things without oil products. Please! For Christ's sakes, I don't mind if you go say this stuff at a cocktail party, but try not to insult us, will you.

The subprime mortgages were not the actual problem, it was the structure of the investment in mortgages in general. The financing came from outside the US, and the main driver of the global leverage buildout was China's externalization of its credit and monetary bubble. Regulatory interference from applying  the Basel III regulations made a small crisis into a huge one by amplifying distressed market signals into the marks of bank balance sheets, essentially disabling the bank's mechanism of stabilizing financial markets by trading discounted assets of distressed institutions on thin markets and marking them up to fair value on their balance sheets. 

The system as a whole was way overleveraged. Insufficiently capitalized and nearly entirely unreserved in the US. It was setup for a fall. But the capital flows of 10% of GDP annually and above 2004-2007 were the real culprit and were funded from China's activity in the Eurodollar markets and by China's suppliers reinvesting their petrodollars and other commodity revenues into the system. 

The subprime section was tiny compared to the overall mortgage market. There are still 15 million out of the original 25 million dead Jumbo mortgages that are still non performing and still on the books. Most of them in CA. They are kept from foreclosure in order to save bank balance sheets. It is called, extend and pretend. It is similar to Chinese financial policy that is zombifying their economy. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

16 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

 

3. Every day a few hundred more people come to the conclusion that "money isn't real" and they act like they just invented the idea. So the whole "economic" aspect of any of these predictions is laughable. Here's a secret... No money has ever been worth anything... including GOLD.  Why did kings use gold (a metal with no functional value) as money thousands of years ago? Because they could control PRODUCTION and they OWNED the mines. So the rulers "printed" gold ... which was a worthless, useless metal. And they used it to pay stupid people for Grain, Work, Land, Oxen, etc.  Those idiots!  It turns out that "money" not being worth anything is a Ponzi Scheme that will last for another 10,000 years. So get used to it. 

I like this! In Canada people all pretend to know money isnt real so they can guiltless spend it like it's going out of style Lol. My veiw on money is that it's a liquid energy ( kinda like oil ) exchange system. The only way to turn anything into anything - crazy example of something currently purchasable is like owning a distant star more of an idea currently than an asset . Funny how the most valuable things (the sources) of current assets are usually devalued.  Nat gas, oil, electricity, farm products, labour. Not always but pretty often. 

I'm a huge fan of Warren Buffett because hes a complete square from what I've read of him. One of his famous quotes was something along the lines of owning all the gold in the world roughly a football field size brick or all the farmland and oil producing lands that could be bought with all the gold. Another was along the lines of not liking money because it does nothing as opposed to producing assets but needing it to not have to rely on debts (negative producers) or goodwill (with negative/unfavorable terms). 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

I like this! In Canada people all pretend to know money isnt real so they can guiltless spend it like it's going out of style Lol. My veiw on money is that it's a liquid energy ( kinda like oil ) exchange system. The only way to turn anything into anything - crazy example of something currently purchasable is like owning a distant star more of an idea currently than an asset . Funny how the most valuable things (the sources) of current assets are usually devalued.  Nat gas, oil, electricity, farm products, labour. Not always but pretty often. 

I'm a huge fan of Warren Buffett because hes a complete square from what I've read of him. One of his famous quotes was something along the lines of owning all the gold in the world roughly a football field size brick or all the farmland and oil producing lands that could be bought with all the gold. Another was along the lines of not liking money because it does nothing as opposed to producing assets but needing it to not have to rely on debts (negative producers) or goodwill (with negative/unfavorable terms). 

There's no such thing as money. It's currency. No numismatic value and only worthwhile when it's "in motion". Ultimately though, the worldwide economic system is a game of musical chairs. 

There's no mystery why things of real value are being exchanged constantly for things of no value in a system manipulated by very smart people whose interests do not align with value producers. You really think spot and futures prices represent real consumers? They're all being manipulated, all the time. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/6/2020 at 11:34 PM, 0R0 said:

That has been around for a while, still expensive as all getout. 

My son in law is an architect and says the said the same, when I asked him why he didn't use another window glass in his new ultra modern house. I am thinking about the type that you can turn opaque for privacy though. It use electricity though. It actually seems like it would be easier to produce, than solar windows though. 

My sister had a home, in Colorado, that used the sun coming in the windows to heat a mass wall and special coolers similar to "swamp coolers" in her large home. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/5/2020 at 1:43 PM, Tomasz said:

“The era of cheap & abundant energy is long gone… Money supply & debt have grown faster than real economy. Debt saturation & paralysis is now a very real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”"We have entered a new era of expensive [unconventional] energy that is likely to trigger a long-term economic contraction."

Report containing 510  pages is published by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), which operates under the government’s Ministry of Economic Affairs. GTK is currently the European Commission’s lead coordinator of the EU’s ProMine project, its flagship mineral resources database and modeling system.

http://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/70_2019.pdf

 

Oil will probably be used a hundred years from now, very much as it is now. I would prefer that we use natural gas which will replace most of what oil does. It is far more abundant and cleaner. I can go into detail but just about everyone on this site has seen my information already, including you, if you bothered to look at it. Eventually people will come to realize it just makes more sense to use cheaper, more abundant, cleaner natural gas rather than oil. In the meantime renewables will do whatever they can and I don't want to underestimate them due to improvements always being made in technology. 

Basically the article you use only looks at oil and oil price while not seeing oil in the context of energy as a whole. That is the only sensible way to look at it. 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

12 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Oil will probably be used a hundred years from now, very much as it is now.

There is absolutely ZERO percent chance of that being the case. ZERO. You can call it peak supply, peak demand, peak population. You can call it whatever you want. We don't hunt buffalo's anymore. We don't use whales for oil anymore. Resources end. The more popular they are the faster they deplete.  Hundreds of years from now?  I don't care if you have a PHD from God Almighty Himself, that's a stupid statement. 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

There's no such thing as money. It's currency. No numismatic value and only worthwhile when it's "in motion". Ultimately though, the worldwide economic system is a game of musical chairs. 

There's no mystery why things of real value are being exchanged constantly for things of no value in a system manipulated by very smart people whose interests do not align with value producers. You really think spot and futures prices represent real consumers? They're all being manipulated, all the time. 

You haven't thought about it enough.  The reality is that NOTHING other than work and land are "real". Companies aren't "real." They are conjured out of thin air by lawyers (modern priests) reciting an incantation (incorporation documents) and filing them with God (the court system). Nations aren't real. They are just Declared by people with enough guns to defend them.  Everyone inside the boundary is instantly "a Croatian," "an American," "an Iraqi." All financial instruments of every type aren't "real." Stocks, Bonds, The World Bank, The IMF, Visa, the loan you got on your house. 

But the 2nd reality... the Human Reality... is that ALL human endeavor has been derived from SHARED DELUSIONS that we treat as real. The "Valley People" are one tribe.  The "Hill People" are not "us" they are "them." This turns into nations. Whether you want to call seashells money, gold money, currency money, bitcoin, or IMF vouchers, they are real because we all agree that they are real. 

The delusion that individuals have is that somehow "people" will realize that "money isn't real." The delusion is the idea that PEOPLE aren't what MAKES MONEY REAL. The idea of god makes religion real - in all it's stripes.  The idea of tribe or nationality makes Nations real the world over. The idea of money makes currency real in all it's forms. Bitcoin is Sort-of real because only a small portion of people believe in it. Those who do believe in it TRADE in it, which makes it real! Right now the highest number of people in the world BELIEVE that the dollar is real. It will remain the world currency as long as that is true.  When they change their mind and make the IMF's SDR currency real, then that will be used for international trade.  But as long as Americans think the dollar is real then it will be used in America at least. 

If all the American's decided that the dollar isn't real then they would just replace it with some other shared delusion... the SDR?  The North American Dollar?  BitUSA coins. It doesn't matter. YOU can declare the dollar not real and stop using it.  You can make up your own personal currency. Your family will starve and you'll be kicked out of your home unless other people buy into your Personal Delusion and it becomes a Shared Delusion. 

So yea, money's not real. And yea Money is So Absolutely real that you can't live a single day without it. You are as dependent on money, stocks, nationality, spot futures prices, etc as any surf or peasant has ever been dependent on the people who really own the two things that matter ... Land and Work. 

The land is not owned by you, never has been never will be. Every year in Texas people pay about 2.5% in property taxes.  That means every 40 years they have to repurchase their land ... if they skip the payment for just one year the land will be taken from them by people with guns and given to someone else who will pay the 2.5% rent to use the land from the real owners (the people who own America) you can call it the state if you want. But TEXAS owns every inch of land in TEXAS and if you don't pay rent they will take it back. Your work is exactly the same. You don't own it, you don't control it. And even if you do (like I do since I work for myself) you don't own the MONEY that is used to convert your work into anything useful. The people who own America control the money. Just like they land they take a piece of it every year through inflating the currency. Taxes go the government... Inflation goes to the MONEY people. You don't know them. You've never heard 99% of them. They are generational billionaires. They own you, me, all the land and all the money. We are very comfortable surfs with air conditioned homes and good food. 

You can control 100 people with a single soldier.  You can control 1000 people with a single priest. You can control 10,000 people with a single banker. We don't need soldiers on the streets in America. We don't need state sponsored religion. We are all controlled by bankers. Doubt it?  Try living without money for a month or two and see what happens. You die the same as if you were shot in the head by a soldier. 

In high school you are taught how to follow directions and are given the basic skills to be a basic worker. In college you are taught advanced skills to be an advanced. worker. You are NEVER taught how to control society. But there are institutions of higher learning where people ARE taught how to control SOCIETY financially, institutionally, governmentally, religiously. These lessons teach the children of the people who really control things how to use those institutions to control the masses.   "Go vote for the candidate of YOUR choice..."  Really?  No one ever thinks for a split second that electing "leaders" is why you have no personal autonomy. No one questions the IDEA of leaders. Which is as imaginary as the idea of money. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[specinho + 467]

On 2/7/2020 at 3:30 AM, Ward Smith said:

The only problem with Socialism is when you run out of other people's money. 

That's a pretty big problem though…

The key emphasis is hence to find a socialite that can save at least two bucks for next year, from a yearly ever present incomes from national treasures.

What is the reason for that??

Just to show the people - it's a profiting budget, not a deficit.

Why not more than 2 bucks??

Now.......... (whispering mode)..... guys...... let's get closer in a circle for this top secrete........... (whispering) "because the money is just sitting there and ___________________________"

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

There is absolutely ZERO percent chance of that being the case. ZERO. You can call it peak supply, peak demand, peak population. You can call it whatever you want. We don't hunt buffalo's anymore. We don't use whales for oil anymore. Resources end. The more popular they are the faster they deplete.  Hundreds of years from now?  I don't care if you have a PHD from God Almighty Himself, that's a stupid statement. 

I said a hundred years from now, and that gasoline or diesel can be made from coal or natural gas also. There are many technological options and resources that can be used interchangeably. Natural gas is my favorite, it can come from biogas, methane hydrates, coal processing etc. There is enough to last several hundred years if you include all the options. I assume that renewables can make an increasing dent in the basic need for fossil fuel and I am for that as long as the price to the consumer is comparable or just a little more. Right now Europe is paying two to three times as much for fuel as America does. Only Denmark has lower pollution than America, and it is a tiny country with high energy prices. We are the best by replacing coal with natural gas.  

Opposing natural gas because one wants cleaner air is a really stupid idea IMHO. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

13 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

There is absolutely ZERO percent chance of that being the case. ZERO. You can call it peak supply, peak demand, peak population. You can call it whatever you want. We don't hunt buffalo's anymore. We don't use whales for oil anymore. Resources end. The more popular they are the faster they deplete.  Hundreds of years from now?  I don't care if you have a PHD from God Almighty Himself, that's a stupid statement. 

Sounds like you've got a PHD from God Almighty Himself, asserting absolutes like that. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

13 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

There is absolutely ZERO percent chance of that being the case. ZERO. You can call it peak supply, peak demand, peak population. You can call it whatever you want. We don't hunt buffalo's anymore. We don't use whales for oil anymore. Resources end. The more popular they are the faster they deplete.  Hundreds of years from now?  I don't care if you have a PHD from God Almighty Himself, that's a stupid statement. 

Also, you'd better hope that electricity will become VERY cheap. Otherwise you're going to pay the price for materials synthesized from water and carbon dioxide. The numbers I gave in the ammonia discussion earlier outlined this sort of crisis. Not to mention the opportunity cost of building solar to synthesize gas instead of selling the power for twice the profit. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

13 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

You haven't thought about it enough.  The reality is that NOTHING other than work and land are "real". Companies aren't "real." They are conjured out of thin air by lawyers (modern priests) reciting an incantation (incorporation documents) and filing them with God (the court system). Nations aren't real. They are just Declared by people with enough guns to defend them.  Everyone inside the boundary is instantly "a Croatian," "an American," "an Iraqi." All financial instruments of every type aren't "real." Stocks, Bonds, The World Bank, The IMF, Visa, the loan you got on your house. 

But the 2nd reality... the Human Reality... is that ALL human endeavor has been derived from SHARED DELUSIONS that we treat as real. The "Valley People" are one tribe.  The "Hill People" are not "us" they are "them." This turns into nations. Whether you want to call seashells money, gold money, currency money, bitcoin, or IMF vouchers, they are real because we all agree that they are real. 

The delusion that individuals have is that somehow "people" will realize that "money isn't real." The delusion is the idea that PEOPLE aren't what MAKES MONEY REAL. The idea of god makes religion real - in all it's stripes.  The idea of tribe or nationality makes Nations real the world over. The idea of money makes currency real in all it's forms. Bitcoin is Sort-of real because only a small portion of people believe in it. Those who do believe in it TRADE in it, which makes it real! Right now the highest number of people in the world BELIEVE that the dollar is real. It will remain the world currency as long as that is true.  When they change their mind and make the IMF's SDR currency real, then that will be used for international trade.  But as long as Americans think the dollar is real then it will be used in America at least. 

If all the American's decided that the dollar isn't real then they would just replace it with some other shared delusion... the SDR?  The North American Dollar?  BitUSA coins. It doesn't matter. YOU can declare the dollar not real and stop using it.  You can make up your own personal currency. Your family will starve and you'll be kicked out of your home unless other people buy into your Personal Delusion and it becomes a Shared Delusion. 

So yea, money's not real. And yea Money is So Absolutely real that you can't live a single day without it. You are as dependent on money, stocks, nationality, spot futures prices, etc as any surf or peasant has ever been dependent on the people who really own the two things that matter ... Land and Work. 

The land is not owned by you, never has been never will be. Every year in Texas people pay about 2.5% in property taxes.  That means every 40 years they have to repurchase their land ... if they skip the payment for just one year the land will be taken from them by people with guns and given to someone else who will pay the 2.5% rent to use the land from the real owners (the people who own America) you can call it the state if you want. But TEXAS owns every inch of land in TEXAS and if you don't pay rent they will take it back. Your work is exactly the same. You don't own it, you don't control it. And even if you do (like I do since I work for myself) you don't own the MONEY that is used to convert your work into anything useful. The people who own America control the money. Just like they land they take a piece of it every year through inflating the currency. Taxes go the government... Inflation goes to the MONEY people. You don't know them. You've never heard 99% of them. They are generational billionaires. They own you, me, all the land and all the money. We are very comfortable surfs with air conditioned homes and good food. 

You can control 100 people with a single soldier.  You can control 1000 people with a single priest. You can control 10,000 people with a single banker. We don't need soldiers on the streets in America. We don't need state sponsored religion. We are all controlled by bankers. Doubt it?  Try living without money for a month or two and see what happens. You die the same as if you were shot in the head by a soldier. 

In high school you are taught how to follow directions and are given the basic skills to be a basic worker. In college you are taught advanced skills to be an advanced. worker. You are NEVER taught how to control society. But there are institutions of higher learning where people ARE taught how to control SOCIETY financially, institutionally, governmentally, religiously. These lessons teach the children of the people who really control things how to use those institutions to control the masses.   "Go vote for the candidate of YOUR choice..."  Really?  No one ever thinks for a split second that electing "leaders" is why you have no personal autonomy. No one questions the IDEA of leaders. Which is as imaginary as the idea of money. 

Love it!  That is one helluva rant, er, comment!  I'm being serious.  There is so much in those few paragraphs.