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 ?]

Daniel,
Thank you for your views.
I think you’re being a little over simplistic in your criticism.
For a ‘scientific’ theory to be valid it must be objective, measurable, predictable and repeatable. Sadly economics is one of those disciplines that don’t often meet those criteria. e.g. There has been a history of mass failures in economics.
I suspect that the flaw in both economics and weather dynamics are currently too complex for our current level of technology/science to be able to deal with sufficient rigor.

Extending your example you with a PhD in Modern art Sculpture (without a degree in meteorology) be at a disadvantage debating the merits of global climate dynamics if all you have to offer is ; hearsay, anecdotal or selective evidence.
Experience teaches me that many disciplines are so complex as to give a specialist in their area of expertise an advantage.

NB I did not say I would dismiss them out of hand. They need to prove their credibility in the topic under discussion. The same as anyone else.

I do tend to hold Authors to a higher standard of credibility/proof than those who profess no particular expertise (posters).
I have a conviction that if you argue a point through an article you are claiming that increased credibility.
I hope that help

I agree with the basic thrust of the paper, which is about EROI and net energy analysis (NEA)- of course the Earth is not infinite, although most economists use marginal costing analysis- which amounts to the same assumption. Very little fundamental work has been done on NEA since the 1970s, so any recent assertions need to be treated accordingly. One group that has done some very solid work- on nuclear power and uranium supplies is Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen http://www.stormsmith.nl/. I have submitted a paper to Online Opinion on NEA- which sets out the situation in summary. A longer paper is available from me jedbarker@iinet.net.au.

The Magic Pudding is similar to the idea of infinite resources ... there will always be some left no matter how much we use.
First you have to define what you mean by a "resource".
e.g., a resouce is something useful to man.
If something is not useful to man then it is not a resource .. forget it.
Therefore: Resource = (entity) X (technology)

The entity may be the absolute total amount of oil on the planet Earth, which is finite. Technology, however, depends on man's intelligence, which is his brain power. There is no reason to believe than man's brainpower is finite. If our brainpower is infinite then so too is the resource.

With your Magic Pudding idea maybe you have underestimated man's intelligence to invent new technologies?