The NYMEX has light sweet crude at $85 in Dec 2013; you should get on that!

I don't know any cornucopia economists, the author has two quotes from the oil industry and has no obvious basis to generalise to the economics profession.

I second that faustino. Curious to know of these economists who believe in infinite resources, which would seem to eliminate the very need for the profession to which they claim to belong. On the contrary, it is idealists with little economic understanding who seem to know the value of everything and the cost of nothing.

This argument has been around for many decades, and the more vigourously it is propounded, the more it is disproved by practical evidence.

The flow of oil will reduce slowly, and other forms of energy will be found, as will more efficient ways of extracting oil, or producing it from coal etc.

Same old same old.

I am wary of PhDs who write ‘authoritively’ out of their field and don’t necessarily agree with all the extrapolations encompassed in this piece (and its supporting citations); it does raise a valid discussion point.

The historical series of Market ‘crashes’ should have taught us that:
• The financial markets ARE deeply flawed
• Capitalism as practiced has deep perversions and is therefore flawed.
• Economics as practiced is also more a series of educated guesses based on the above and consequently it too is flawed, often unpredictable. What ever it is it is not a Science at least in any real predictive sense.

In this context the author’s view shouldn’t be dismissed without counter evidence.

If as he states we add the above imponderables and then an act ‘World weather dynamics’ and the environmental issues we face it would be an act of extreme arrogance on our part to believe/state with any reasonable surety that we can predict the conclusion.
i.e. Practiced Capitalism + flawed Market dynamics + practiced economics + weather dynamics+ environmental derogation issues =”?
If we then substitute’?’ for non empirical (non predictable to a high degree of confidence) items in the equation (based on historical evidence) we get.
“?”+”?”+”?” +”?” + environmental derogation”?” = What ever it is it logically can’t be a case of ignoring/dismissing.

OC617
On reading I’ve done your date is wrong in the context of Saudi Arabia at least. Can you give me sources?

Faustino
Literal interpretation and the ‘over statement’ (?) by the author surely recent events show my contention that economic opinion is exactly that and depends on the criteria used in its formation. I am reminded of GIGO.

Fungochumley
Perhaps the problem lies in the non empirical nature (lack of both agreement and predictability) of the discipline that allows business and governments to ignore them.

NB I do not claim to be an economist, despite some Uni training. Therefore all my conclusions (as always) are base on reasoning. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Well using that logic, if I tell you its raining outside - Im drenched - but unable to show you a diploma in meteorology, my summation lacks credibility ... an interesting and somewhat anal reasoning process ... [are you one of those for whom the words printed on the base of a cereal packet 'open other end' are for ?]