Here is a sample of a podcast I have just listened to and read at
the same time. Text is there as well. It is long but I feel very
worthwhile. The debt Gail Tverberg and Chris Martensen are talking
about I believe is total debt, government, business and personal.
An extract:

Gail Tverberg: Well I think the thing that people don’t realize is
how closely debt – the growth in debt is tied to the growth in the
economy even back many years ago we needed to add more debt to try as
the economy sort of attempted to grow and what you would see very
often back then was you know, some country would add debt to fund a
war.
And if they were successful maybe they would get some increment
into the economy so that the debt made sense.
And if they lost the war then somebody got their bonds written off.

But what’s happened is that as the cost of energy has gone up especially since
about the mid 70’s the amount of debt required to find GDP growth has gone way, way up.
And I think this is because it takes so much more debt, or so
much more – we need a given quantity of energy in terms of BTU’s or
in terms of how far can make a truck go.
And if it costs a whole lot more to do that we’re going to have to
borrow a whole lot more money in order to make the whole system operate.
So we have a seen a spiraling of debt since the mid 70’s and I think
that’s very much related to the higher cost of energy since then.

http://tinyurl.com/hwn9nch

So read it and wonder how much of this is understood by our politicians.

Their understanding of debt is far from complete. The problem isn't too much debt, it's an irrational fear of debt (particularly in the public sector).

They also misunderstand the energy situation. The link between economic growth and energy use has started to break down.

They also misunderstand efficiency. Solar panels that are expected to produce electricity for the next twenty years or more are a good investment now when interest rates are low.

Dear Aidan,

If I bought you a great birthday present, say a tree that will grow in 10 years to produce great nuts that you like very much, but I told the seller (without your knowledge): "Aidan will pay you later", may I not assume that you will be upset about it?

I am proudly debt-free: what I cannot afford, I do not buy and go without, thus when I leave this world I will do so with a clear conscience and never have to return and be reborn in order to repay my debts.

Tell the Greeks that debt is great.

As for solar panels being a good investment, I thought it was only the greenie fairies down the bottom of the garden, & that fool Turnbull, who actually believed that fairy story. The production rate of all I've known is below useful, long before they have earned their, & their batteries replacement cost.

Hasbeen since when does solar panel's have a use by date. The pilot solar panels built in the early 60's are still in operation. Your guarantee runs out at 25 years but still none knows how long they can produce power.

Yuyutsu,

I wouldn't be as upset about it as the seller would be, for I would not be liable for the debt.

BTW I think you missed my point: putting solar panels on your roof is not like getting a tree that will grow in 10 years to produce great nuts; 'tis more like getting a mature tree that will immediately produce great nuts and is likely to do so for the next twenty years.

As for debt, if nobody borrows then nobody could save, as there wouldn't be any money available to save. And nations do not die like humans.

And do you really think you're liable for debts incurred before you were born?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

Your mention of batteries indicates poor comprehension.
I was referring to putting a few solar cells on your roof to cut your electricity bill.
I was NOT referring to disconnecting your house from the grid.

The former is likely to be a good investment; the latter is currently a very poor investment, though technological improvements may eventually change that if the ripoff pricing for electricity connection continues.

As for Greece, it's in the situation Queensland would be in if it took on a trillion dollar debt while refusing to raise its tax rate. Now at last its raised its tax rate but its creditors aren't letting it spend more even though tit could do so profitably in this economic climate.

Fortunately Queensland doesn't have a trillion dollar debt and can afford to borrow more (as can all Australia's states). And Australia itself is financially sovereign; it has unlimited credit. That doesn't mean borrowing more is always the best option. Sometimes it's better to run surpluses and have lower interest rates instead. But if you doubt borrowing more is the best option in the current economic climate, please carefully consider the following question:
How low would interest rates have to be before borrowing more becomes worthwhile?

So Aidan, what you are actually saying is, "now is a good time for those with a few bob, who can afford the almost useless solar panels on their roof, to rip off those who can't by cashing in to the crazy subsidies governments in their stupidity have offered".

Like our ratbag PM Turnbull, who bought some greenie kudos by banning proper light bulbs, in favour of the very dangerous to us & the environment, compact fluorescent bulbs, governments have totally lost the plot on energy.

Stupidity & rip off merchants are alive & well in Oz today.

Those expensive 'green' electric light bulbs,

Cleaning up a broken CFL or fluorescent globe
http://www.zerowaste.sa.gov.au/your-questions/4770

That information must have been known prior to their introduction. So why was't anything said? There were no warnings on packs either, apart from the get out of gaol free card for the sellers, 'Dispose of sensitively'.

Solar home generation
Hasbeen is right again. For eventual cost recovery and 'low' power usage bills, solar power relies on the taxpayer and other non-solar users to subsidise. Just think, the power generation is when everyone is out of the house, at work, school and play.

It was always slick political populism and still is.

Solar hot water makes some sense. Makers (maybe their accountants) design for frequent replacement though.

Dear Aidan,

<<BTW I think you missed my point: putting solar panels on your roof is not like getting a tree that will grow in 10 years to produce great nuts; 'tis more like getting a mature tree that will immediately produce great nuts and is likely to do so for the next twenty years.>>

Perhaps so, but I won't do either. I will not purchase even a mature tree until and unless I have the money (or exchange-goods/services) to pay for it. Otherwise I would just do without (or with less) power or food. Perhaps all I can afford is to purchase a seedling and wait 10 years.

<<As for debt, if nobody borrows then nobody could save, as there wouldn't be any money available to save. And nations do not die like humans.>>

Why, there is real tangible wealth going around, commodities and products that others need and/or trust, so one can always save those. The alternative to borrowing is to hand over some of what you already saved in exchange for the goods/services that you want. Now money can still be used because it's more convenient to transact, so long as it ultimately represents something real such as bags of rice, barrels of petrol, land or gold.

<<And do you really think you're liable for debts incurred before you were born?>>

Why then would you agree to be born to such a situation where you are already in debt? Or once you find out about it, why don't you commit suicide?
You don't have to be born and you don't have to stay alive. Yes, bodies are constantly born, but you don't have to associate yourself with one of those unless you agree to (and then you are responsible).

Yuyutsu,

If you're so debt averse that you'd pass up good investment opportunities just to avoid borrowing, that's your business. But it would be irresponsible for a government or a corporation to do likewise.

I did not say the solar panels would require you to borrow money; I merely said they were a good investment. With interest rates this low, savers are also looking for things to do with their money, and this doesn't look like a good year to for the stock market.

Yes there is real tangible wealth. Hoarding it is not virtuous!

Apart from the small proportion of money that's kept as cash, all money is debt; it wouldn't exist unless someone borrowed it. And if you save money in a bank, that bank then has a debt to you.

For most of the 20th century, government deficits enabled the private sector to save. Now there is opposition to government borrowing from people who don't comprehend that money has to go somewhere and has to come from somewhere. It doesn't make sense to want to use new money yet oppose bringing new money into existence.

"Why then would you agree to be born to such a situation where you are already in debt?"
I didn't. I don't share your weird beliefs.

"Or once you find out about it, why don't you commit suicide?"
Life is a gift from God. It's worth living, and debt wouldn't change that.

"You don't have to be born and you don't have to stay alive."
Reminds me of the old song...

Original version:
# Why was she born so beautiful?
# Why was she born at all?
# Because she had no say in it
# No say in it at all

...and the Aussie variant (to the tune of Advance Australia Fair):
# Why was she born so ugg-er-ly?
# Why was she born at all?
# Because she had no say in it
# Her parents did it all!

onthebeach and Hasbeen,

CFLs only have a small amount of mercury in them, and are recyclable. The amount of mercury released into the environment from them is tiny compared to the amount released by burning coal to generate electricity.

Solar power is no longer subsidised by the taxpayers. There's still some cross subsidy from other electricity users, but as the solar power has the direct effect of driving electricity prices down, a lot of the benefits flow to the other users.

Dear Aidan,

Just to clarify, I do not recommend suicide, I just left this example for those who do not believe in reincarnation. What I do recommend instead is that one should not die with debts, then they will not be born with debts the next time around where even bankruptcy/insolvency would not help. And no-one can tell when they will die.

You claim that hoarding is not virtuous and I partially agree. The highest option is to be a sannyas: go about careless doing only spiritual practices, so if others feed you then you eat and otherwise you go hungry and eventually starve.

Yet if you are not up to it and unwilling to go hungry (and let's be honest, most of us aren't), then in a society like this which does not appreciate sanniasins, the next alternative is to receive tax-payer money, in which case hoarding your own money is far superior than that!

So unless you are saint, it is good for you to hoard enough to sustain yourself in a reasonable manner for the rest of your expected life. You don't need to actually hoard useful but perishable goods - you can instead hoard gold or money which represent those goods and you may also keep it in a safe in the bank so it doesn't get stolen.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, the government deliberately creates inflation, so you cannot keep your wealth in cash-in-the-safe, but are forced to deposit it in a bank with interest just to maintain its value. You cannot even keep it in gold, or in a stable foreign currency, etc. because when you sell that gold or currency, you would be required to pay CGT on the nominal-only increase in the price of gold.

Yes, the amount of money is currently way beyond the actual goods that it represents. That's fraud, it is wrong and the bubble is bound to explode sooner or later.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"Just to clarify, I do not recommend suicide, I just left this example for those who do not believe in reincarnation"
But you seem to have failed to notice it would only make sense for those who do believe in reincarnation.

"What I do recommend instead is that one should not die with debts, then they will not be born with debts the next time around where even bankruptcy/insolvency would not help."
So you really do think you're liable for debts incurred before you were born!

So how do yo think this dying with debts thing works? Does it count if your assets are subsequently sold to pay your debts? What if your creditors sold life insurance for that purpose? What if there's no specific life insurance but the risk of your dying before you can repay them is priced into the interest rate of the loan?

To me it looks an awful lot like a scam by the rich to justify their oppression of the poor by holding them liable for other people's debts.

Hoarding real tangible wealth is generally a bad thing because it prevents other people from accessing it. However, saving up money is usually a good thing because the total amount of money is not fixed; the less you spend, the more others can spend without it increasing inflation. Although if others also refuse to spend, it becomes a bad thing.

Currency does not represent goods. Up until the 1970s it represented gold, but thankfully we'll never make that mistake again. And the total value of assets greatly exceeds (but also depends upon) the amount of money in circulation.

Dear Aidan,

If you caused anguish to others by borrowing their money and not returning it in one way or another, if you took from others more than you gave, then you must eventually face a similar situation from the other end. Unlike the laws of man, the law of karma, just as the laws of physics, cannot be by-passed by clever accountancy tricks.

However, as I'm aware of others who don't believe the above, to them all I can suggest is to count together their gifts which they received by birth, including their body, subtract all their liabilities, and if the balance for them is negative then they don't need to remain, but could instead opt out. If however they choose to stay, then they shouldn't complain of not being responsible for their situation.

You happen to look at this law of nature as a scam by the rich, but it could just as well be a scam by the poor, saying: "if you take more than your share in this life, then you will have less than your share in another, so better give it all away". In fact, it is not a scam by anyone, but simply something that sages observed long before the use of money and has vast applications that aren't even financial or economic.

You claim that inflation is caused by hoarding, but inflation could never occur if money represented real-goods.

That money is not tied down to actual-goods is very wrong and sad and it will blow up one day in our face, making many of us destitute in a moment. Nobody became richer and happier just by counting more 0's in their pocket while the actual amount and quality of goods and services around has in fact been declining. Every person who sits in an office shuffling paper (or electronic bits) in their work-life to manipulate ever more complex financial schemes, is plainly unproductive, wasting petrol to get there and electricity for the office's air-conditioning, so the overall happiness would only increase had they stayed at home instead, say on the dole.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no law of karma in nature. Human nature may sometimes make it appear that there is one, but in reality many people are innocent victims no matter how much you blame their plight on their actions in a past life.

Why should the decision whether to opt out be contingent on a gifts-liabilities calculation? And why shouldn't people complain when their situation is controlled by others?

Would the rich even listen to a next-life explanation of why they should help the poor? A victim-blaming excuse for the rich to do nothing seems far likelier.

I didn't claim that inflation's caused by hoarding. Although now that you mention it, hoarding of commodities can cause inflation. But hoarding of money is deflationary, which is good when it counteracts inflation, but bad when it causes stagnation.

"That money is not tied down to actual-goods is very wrong and sad and it will blow up one day in our face, making many of us destitute in a moment."
THE TRUTH IS ALMOST THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM!
Trying to tie money down to actual goods is what caused the Great Depression.

When the amount of money in circulation's based on the present value of goods, it harms our ability to invest in the things that boost future productivity. Whereas without that restriction, the government is able to intervene to keep the economy productive.

"Nobody became richer and happier just by counting more 0's in their pocket while the actual amount and quality of goods and services around has in fact been declining"
Some people who were in debt got richer and happier as their debt was inflated away. I'd be surprised if that had never ever coincided with a goods and services decline, though it's an unusual situation.

"Every person who sits in an office shuffling paper (or electronic bits) in their work-life to manipulate ever more complex financial schemes, is plainly unproductive,"
On the contrary, the work they do is quite productive. Although disruption (removing the need to do that work) could sometimes boost productivity more.

Dear Aidan,

You are correct when you say that "many people are innocent victims", but that's a statement about people (which would also be true for dogs, cows, etc.), rather than about us. It's just incidental that currently we temporarily happen to identify as people.

Nobody claimed that the law of karma applies to nature: what applies in nature are the laws of physics, such as Newton's famous "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". Karma is the equivalent of Newton's law in our subjective experience. Simplified, when we do something good we desire a reward and when we do something bad we desire to suffer, so if our desires are not fulfilled within our current lifetime (in your words, because "Human nature may sometimes make it appear"), then they drive us to identify with a foetus/newborn in a situation where those can be fulfilled.

Q. Why should the decision whether to opt out be contingent on a gifts-liabilities calculation?
A. For those who consider themselves to be humans, this is human nature: humans like to enjoy and humans don't like to suffer, so do your maths, then decide whether to take that package or leave it.

Q. And why shouldn't people complain when their situation is controlled by others?
A. Because complaining doesn't get you anywhere: you cannot change the past. Moreover, it dis-empowers you into believing as-if you are powerless. Others may perhaps have certain control over your body, but it was your own choice to identify with that body.

Q. Would the rich even listen to a next-life explanation of why they should help the poor?
A. The rich-and-wise would listen, the rich-and-stupid would not. Similarly, the poor-and-wise would lovingly accept their situation and the poor-and-stupid would not. Interestingly, Jesus said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" and "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God", but I add that these respectively apply only to the poor-and-wise and the rich-and-stupid.

Dear Aidan,

<<Trying to tie money down to actual goods is what caused the Great Depression>>

How could banks collapse unless they failed to back up their depositors' money with actual goods?

The people of the time were speculating. They did not use what they actually had as securities, but rather the airy-fairy profits which they hoped to gain.

<<Whereas without that restriction, the government is able to intervene to keep the economy productive.>>

Whether or not it is OK for governments to intervene in the economy is a discussion for another day, but on the assumption that it is OK, all they need is to levy taxes, openly. Cowards that they are, they collect "inflation tax" instead, so that most people will not notice the theft.

<<Some people who were in debt got richer and happier as their debt was inflated away>>

Yes, in the short term, but it made them feel guilty and to, consciously or otherwise, desire to suffer from it.

Television SBS1 PBS Newshour did a review promotion on several latest movies up for 2016 Oscars Award nomination. Mad Max was the first movie mentioned, second movie mentioned was Leonardo Di Caprio movie.

As Mad Max was being shown, PBS narrator said Mad Max “is something we're all trying to avoid”. “We're all trying to avoid”, as though Humanity's future direction leads humanity towards a Mad Max scenario.

When Genesis god returns from that non-literal god's day of rest, which I say is a length of time, that God's return is the bible “end of time”; “Jesus' “Judgement Day”, Jewish' “Apocalypse”; and several other titles in several other religions.
The problem with humanity is that humanity becomes out of balance with nature.

My point being that Hollywood movie stories are bible replacement stories. Hollywood top movie star actors and actresses are modern day apostle bible replacements, warning of the end of time god returns from god's day of rest.
The many space alien invading earth movies: War of Worlds; Independence Day; Mars Attack; Battle Ship. Several television series: Under The Dome; V. There are the many: virus Apocalypse stories; Zombie Apocalypse; meteorites end of the world movies.

Stories that don't often happen are economic crash horror stories. In all the media stories, very few detailed history's of economic declines become media stories.
American 1860 to 1865 Civil War sometimes mentioned as having to be about slavery, was in my past history media suggested to me' causes had to do with States rights to print their own currency and currency forgery. Trading goods between states paid for by whatever currency was trusted. Combined states federal government wanted to use the then called green back currency notes. Southern States wanted their own currency independent from the Northern States. My assumptions are, northern states were industrious while southern states were trading goods with Europe as cotton was sold to Europe, Europe having a large population to clothe.

What I am getting to is that what's important to workers, currency, is not that important for entertaining distractions, keeping people ignorant about history's complexity of money and trade. That if by pointing out that media stories are not only entertainment, serious looking entertainment are distracting prediction, fictional story examples of past history made up character of past economically imposed, god's end of time suffering.
That both Mad Max futuristic no police society prediction we all want to avoid and that past fur trappers were hiding away from an “end of time” “Judgement day” bad economic environment. In a no police society fur trappers were hunting each other. Allowing people to easily understand once after being attracted to a radio media program, to hear a radio guest speaker state that the long awaited Apocalypse is about to happen. That radio listeners should sell all property and head North to where fewer police are present. That in time, nothing happens.

My idea is if by watching such movies Mad Max and Leonardo Di Caprio Titanic, wilderness survival movies, that as movies aren't that entertaining, movies do have a survival of the fittest message.

more ideas on economy booms and busts cycles.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7117&page=8

page 9 works as well.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Newton's laws were based on observation. Karma (beyond people's reactions based on what they know of others' behaviour) is not.

Gifts and liabilities are seldom a factor in why people choose life or death.

Complaining's probably much more effective (and certainly not less effective) than doing nothing. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. And a choice to identify with your own body isn't much of a choice when the alternative option is to identify with nothing.

The poor-and-wise would lovingly accept their situation, they'd try to do something about it.

"How could banks collapse unless they failed to back up their depositors' money with actual goods?"
Liquidity crises: there'd be a run on the bank and it would run out of money. Also the value of the actual goods might decline.

Anyway, banks wouldn't be much use if they backed up their depositors' money with actual goods. Their main function is to lend money.

"The people of the time were speculating. They did not use what they actually had as securities, but rather the airy-fairy profits which they hoped to gain."
The businesses of the time were overwhelmingly profitable... until the banks stopped lending and the people stopped spending.

"Whether or not it is OK for governments to intervene in the economy is a discussion for another day,"
The fact that you have any doubt about it whatsoever shows you're driven by anti-government ideology at the expense of practicality.

"but on the assumption that it is OK, all they need is to levy taxes, openly."
Rubbish! Levying taxes will not result in people spending more money. It will not result in more employment. It will not result in lower costs for business, nor a lower cost of living (apart from the short term effect of things being nominally cheaper but less affordable).

Governments do levy taxes, and they do so openly. But when an economy's stagnating, governments need to spend more then they collect in taxes. And for best results, they need to spend that money on things that make the economy more productive.

"Cowards that they are, they collect 'inflation tax' instead, so that most people will not notice the theft."
Spoken like a true Austrian School economist: ignoring the facts because they don't fit your blinkered ideology!

Inflation is a phenomenon not a tax. It is never regarded as an alternative to taxation, and not since the Weimar Republic hyperinflation has it been primarily the result of a lack of taxation (though taxing more has been part of the solution of every hyperinflation episode).

However that's of little relevance to our current situation, as Australia does not have hyperinflation and never will. Normal inflation is not so destructive to the economy. Indeed a small amount of inflation is beneficial - partly because without it some workers would have to settle for pay cuts, making it harder to pay off their debts. And that's likely to cause a lot of industrial relations problems. Hence the RBA aims for an inflation rate between 2% and 3%.

"<<Some people who were in debt got richer and happier as their debt was inflated away>>
Yes, in the short term, but it made them feel guilty and to, consciously or otherwise, desire to suffer from it."
Most people do not feel guilty about benefitting from circumstances that are beyond their control.

Dear Aidan,

It was not my intention to expand this discussion into the legitimacy or otherwise of the state. As it currently stands, I consider the state illegitimate because it is a coercive body of people that imposes itself on others involuntarily. However, if done differently then potentially there would be nothing wrong with states, including their intervention in economies, so whether we agree or not about the legitimacy of existing states, we can still continue this discussion on the presumption that state intervention is OK.

On that assumption, governments would be doing something good (without any cynicism) by collecting taxes and diverting wealth into infrastructure that would also support future generations, including health, education, roads, bridges, dams, power-stations, medical-research, etc.

Yes, there is a culture of debt. That is a fact, but it doesn't make it right. The only justification you have for preserving existing structures (including inflation and banks as we currently know them) is that "it's practical". In other words, had the scaffolding been removed, the building would collapse. It may be so, but what about asking oneself whether it was right to have that building there in the first place?

The king is naked and debt is wrong: debt means that people live beyond their means, that is beyond what they physically earned, which in turn means that other people are bound to lose some or all of what they rightfully earned. If that's done consensually, than while I have every contempt for this practice, I have no right to forbid others from doing so. But when people are unwillingly forced into this debt-culture, then it's a serious crime.

Currently in Australia, people ARE forced into the debt-culture against their will. This is because the Australian government deliberately creates inflation (by printing more money that is paid to banks through the RBA), then taxes people for "investing" their savings merely in order to preserve their value. Even if one tries to keep their savings outside the debt-system (say in gold or foreign currency), they are taxed on the increase of their savings in nominal dollars.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Whether or not poor-and-wise people who lovingly accept their situation would seek to do something about it, depends on many factors which I think go beyond this discussion. Suffice that nothing should prevent them if they, being wise, found it wise to do so. Complaining is always about the past and would reduce the complainer's self-esteem while asking without blame to be oiled is about the future and stems from a very different attitude.

Is it true that most people, like the famous three monkeys, do not feel guilty about benefiting from circumstances that are beyond their control, even at the expense of others? That would only indicate the fragility of contemporary morals.

In the face of greed, morality is next to impossible unless people have either spiritual values, or in the least an understanding of spiritual principles. Newton's laws are observed by those scientists who care to look outside at the objective world, while the law of karma is observed by those scientists who care to look inside and investigate the subjective experience, of which our conscious conscience is but the tip of the iceberg.

Getting back closer to the subject an interesting article has appeared on Resilience.
The US oil production has always included lease condensates.
These are gases that turn to liquid at the well head.
It seems that true oil production including the tight shale oil has
been on a plateau since 2005 after you delete the condensates.
The condensates cannot be used by the refineries as oil.

Normal crude oil has been declining at 4.5% to 6.5% per day per annum.
Now that tight shale oil has just started to decline it appears that
the peak is now history and the decline has just started.

Read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/gtsbanx

Quote:"Why would refiners continue to import large--and increasing--
volumes of actual crude oil, if they didn’t have to--even as we saw a
huge build in [U.S.] C+C [crude oil plus condensate] inventories?"

Bazz, I think you underestimate the oil refineries: they can turn one type of hydrocarbon into another. Although of course doing so has its costs.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

Debt itself is neither right nor wrong. But it enables things to be done that could not otherwise be done, benefitting businesses and individuals alike. If debt is not available, those who are already rich can exert much more power over everyone else.

Debt enables businesses to invest in equipment that makes them more productive (and cuts their cost of production). And the lower the interest rate is, the lower the ultimate cost of production is, which benefits customers, workers and shareholders.

Debt enables people to afford to buy their own homes, rather than having to continue with the false economy of renting.

Without access to debt, people have to settle for an unnecessarily low standard of living for much of their lives.

As for that metaphorical building, of course it should be there in the first place. Without it there'd be far less opportunity to make money, and millions of Australians would be much worse off.

It is good that the RBA encourages people to make themselves more productive rather than to try to get rich lending money.

I hope you are aware that because technology is improving, increasing the money supply is essential just to avoid deflation. Although most of the money supply increase is done privately and does not directly involve the RBA.

Taxation is not a crime. Failure to guarantee money won't decline in value is not a crime.

Complaining is often about the present. Self esteem is greatly overrated.

There's nothing immoral about benefitting from circumstance, and no need to feel guilty about it even if those circumstances disadvantage others. What's important is to help those who need help.

Scientists haven't observed any law of karma.

That is right Aiden they do use it to thin out heavy crudes but there
is a limited amount they can use and it does not produce the grades of fuels that they want.
The upshot is it cannot be counted as crude oil.
The figures that have been quoted for production over the last few years are incorrect.

Bazz, although it can be mixed with heavy crude to thin the crude, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to catalysed chemical reactions that occur in most large oil refineries, enabling them to vary their output according to requirements.

Going back to 1996: low interest rates; cheap crude oil, 1970s came the OPEC oil shock, became the excuse at the time for run away (stagnant growth) inflation.
Present day low crude oil futures based on US reserves are merely setting up future excuses for run away inflation and stagnant retirement saving based on declining share markets and rising bond yields, destroying current bond holders asset valuations.

Retirement savings are little more than delaying money from being spent until a period of stealing and or destroying the value of money with inflation.

By increasing GST, buying labour costs by increased GST percentage causing higher unemployment, to pay for higher unemployment; Medicare; pensions, spoken about now.