My caution would be that established industries iterate. Once you have, say, a dozen companies, in a few countries, working on something for twenty years ... you know the growth curve. For some things the curve is steep (semi-conductors) but for others it is gentle (automobiles).

You know, there used to be a saying ... ah, here it is:

"Gordon Moore, one of the early integrated circuit pioneers and founders of Intel once said, "If the auto industry advanced as rapidly as the semiconductor industry, a Rolls Royce would get a half a million miles per gallon, and it would be cheaper to throw it away than to park it."

http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/integrated_circuit/history/

The thing to ask yourself, as you count on a long shot, is why Rolls Royce didn't build that amazing disposable luxury car.

My answer is that the personal transportation industry has a difference set of fundimental constraints.

Right now 2.8 billion people live on $2 a day and 1.2 billon of those live on $1 (www.worldbank.org). No problem, it is quite possible to live on $2 a day, maybe you should go out and try it Steve. Just don’t count on eating three healthy meals a day… or feeding your six kids with three healthy meals a day. I guess if you haven’t actually starved to death there is no overpopulation.

I see the concept of logic escapes you Rowan. The above in no-way rebuts what I wrote. Sure its sad people have to live on $1/day. But that does not dispute the fact, one you admitted by the way, that we grow enough food to feed everybody. The problem is not growing food, but the distribution of food. You are wrong, get over it.

The exact predictions of Malthus (an economist) and Ehrlich were wrong, yes I freely admit that (again). The problem they were raising-overpopulation-has however proven to be real. So if by your reckoning these theories should be junked because they made some false predictions, then economics should also be junked, it’s track record is about the same as astrology.

Sure, so says the guy who refutes his own arguments. Malthus wasn't saying over-population is bad because food distribution systems aren't good enough. Neither did Ehrlich. Further, it isn't clear there are too many people vs. really rotten institutions in places like Africa that really fuck things up.

So no, I haven’t destroyed my claims, you have misinterpreted them. By the way, you really need to get over using the straw-man argument, you are starting to look like a one trick pony.

Coming from a guy who

1. Misrepresents my position.
2. Discredits his own.
3. Can't seem to come up with a valid response

I don't find the above all that impressive.

Please explain why another economic theory (ie the Phillips Curve) being proved to have no empirical underpinnings, has to do with anything? First you must prove why high oil prices were not the fundamental cause of high inflation. It sounds like you are trying to make history fit your favorite economic theory! Really I’m intrigued, please tell me more…

I already did. It isn't my fault that you

1. Don't understand the topic
2. Aren't willing to learn.

The bottomline, once more, is that based on the Phillips curve the government would try to lower unemployment by increasing inflation. When people figured that trick out, the relationship between unemployment and inflation went verticl (i.e., no matter how high inflation got, unemployment wouldn't go down). Thus, we wound up with high inflation. The higher oil prices probably didn't help, as I noted, since many people look at the CPI as an indicator of inflation and high oil prices would result in an increase in the CPI (never mind that the CPI overstates both inflation and the cost of living). But to reduce inflation the Federal Reserve basically brought about a sharp recession in 1980. The idea it was only oil is dubious at best.

I’m sorry I’m using plain old conventional wisdom mate, but I didn’t realise that higher oil prices doesn’t cause the cost of transport, farming, petrochemical manufacturing, mining, etc, ad nauseam, to increase and I didn’t realise those cost would be passed onto consumers… who would have less money to spend on fewer goods… who would demand higher salaries… causing higher inflation… hmmm?

Are you stupid or what? Where did I write anything that indicated the above? Hint: I didn't. Sure, higher oil prices would drive up prices, which in turn would drive up the CPI. Is it the only factor? No. Which has a bigger effect, loose monetary policy or oil?

Granted oil was probably a factor, but was it the pivotal factor or a combination of things. Bad policy for years, higher oil prices, tightening of credit by the Fed, or just oil. Notice that right now, oil prices have risen quite a bit and economists in general are revising upwards their estimates as to what oil price would lead to recession.

No, you had a reliable and cheap source of energy then, as Hubbert predicted, your domestic production peaked and you were at the mercy of an international Cartel who disagreed with your policies in regard to Israel.

Oil is still cheap. It is cheaper than its high point back in the last oil shock.

Unless you have reason to suspect this of present company, how about you stop using this issue as a smokescreen?

I think it is most adequate to describe Bruce.

Steve, I’d like to see you address the issue of progress in mature industries, and how the hope for “something” is different that a “hail mary pass” downfield.

As I've noted, one should approach this in a probabilistic way, IMO. That is

Prob(bad|peak oil,other historical information)

or

Prob(not bad|peak oil,other historical information).

My contention is that the second probability is larger. I don't deny that Hubbert is right in theory. I do question some of the conclusions and forecasts. Also, are all "hail mary passes" the same? Doesn't it depend on the QB and reciever? 1,000 years ago with the insitutions and social norms at the time running out of an important resource could have been devastating. Nowadays with different social norms and instiutions it might not be a big deal?

[I said that Engineers] generally ... don’t seem to have a good grasp of undirected processes.

Unless you have reason to suspect this of present company, how about you stop using this issue as a smokescreen?

The claims of Malthus and Ehrlich are false. That there is not a distribution system in place or that the distribution system in place is not allowed to work to eliminate famine was not the issue. The claim was that we simply could not grow enough food. We can grow enough food, we do grow enough food, but for other reasons (again usually political) in some places famine does occur.

Right now 2.8 billion people live on $2 a day and 1.2 billon of those live on $1 (www.worldbank.org). No problem, it is quite possible to live on $2 a day, maybe you should go out and try it Steve. Just don't count on eating three healthy meals a day... or feeding your six kids with three healthy meals a day. I guess if you haven't actually starved to death there is no overpopulation.

Auther Russ Finley writes on this subject...

Another important variable is time. It only takes a few weeks to starve to death. Any interruption in food supply that lasts more than a few weeks is a disaster. However, malnutrition that leads to reduced disease resistance is the cause of most hunger-related deaths, not actual starvation.

We have all learned to associate overpopulation with famine. This may come as shock, but like population density, famine by itself has little to do with overpopulation. People who have made that connection usually draw the wrong conclusion, which is that overpopulation is a myth. The problem is the fuzzy definition most people have in their heads of overpopulation. Overpopulation is a concept that embodies poverty, malnourishment, and environmental degradation, and when the right factors all come together, one of the results can be famine. Also population density can be the final straw that tips a population into famine, but without the other variables-a failed crop for example-it cannot stand by itself as the sole cause.

The exact predictions of Malthus (an economist) and Ehrlich were wrong, yes I freely admit that (again). The problem they were raising-overpopulation-has however proven to be real. So if by your reckoning these theories should be junked because they made some false predictions, then economics should also be junked, it's track record is about the same as astrology.

The problem is, as Finlay puts it:

... and always will be, that the food is not where the hungry people are. The hungry people cannot afford the food and farmers can't afford to grow food and then give it away. That is the reality of the world. Somebody has to pay to grow and move the food. As harsh as this sounds, it is not part of human nature to sacrifice our homes and the wants of our children to feed strangers on the other side of the planet.

So no, I haven't destroyed my claims, you have misinterpreted them. By the way, you really need to get over using the straw-man argument, you are starting to look like a one trick pony.

Which of course discounts the role the Federal Reserve played in the recession. Interest rates were sky high because inflation was sky high. Now some might suggest that inflation was high because of oil, and to some degree they’d be right. But also a problem was a complete break down of the Phillips curve inflation-unemployment trade off. Basically the curve went veritcal implying that increases in the inflation rate would not reduce unemployment, not that the government didn’t try. So you had higher inflation mainly because people figured out the governments gimmick for increasing inflation to lower unemployment. Along comes Paul Volcker who breaks the cycle and sends the country into a severe recession.

Please explain why another economic theory (ie the Phillips Curve) being proved to have no empirical underpinnings, has to do with anything? First you must prove why high oil prices were not the fundamental cause of high inflation. It sounds like you are trying to make history fit your favorite economic theory! Really I'm intrigued, please tell me more...

Either way you define inflation (an increase in price of goods and services or an increase in money relative to goods) oil seems to be the culprit. If you can prove otherwise I'd be grateful. To your credit, bungling on the parts of Government and the FED must have played a major hand in the ensuing recessions.

I'm sorry I'm using plain old conventional wisdom mate, but I didn't realise that higher oil prices doesn't cause the cost of transport, farming, petrochemical manufacturing, mining, etc, ad nauseam, to increase and I didn't realise those cost would be passed onto consumers... who would have less money to spend on fewer goods... who would demand higher salaries... causing higher inflation... hmmm?

And then this little gem:

Let me see. We have and have had a cheap reliable source of energy: oil. But Rowan here thinks it is smart business sense to spend money on alternative technologies. And this is good business sense because…we’d spend lots of money on more expensive alternatives. Sheer genius.

No, you had a reliable and cheap source of energy then, as Hubbert predicted, your domestic production peaked and you were at the mercy of an international Cartel who disagreed with your policies in regard to Israel. Really smart? Really smart, to think that alternative supply to the middle east would last forever when the vast majority of reserves are located in that region of the world. Really smart to have to spend billions of dollars and more importantly the blood of your children to ensure a major source of that oil makes it to the market (unsuccessfully I'm afraid).

Adieu.

And then I gave a cute little personal anecdote about our beryllium problem and then listed some societies that had resource issues. It doesnt matter whether they were command economies (which is an oversimplification none of them were anything like the soviet style command economies.) The important thing was, they were based on resource extraction from a finite area.

Yes, it does matter because in a culture with property rights and a market mechanism the price of the good will go up as it is used up. This does not have to be the case in a command economy. That you don't understand this implies strongly that you don't understand this issue. At all.

When the resource was used up, the societies collapsed. As an engineer, (realizing that I stand no chance of being an economist) I concern myself with these little problems of what will we do when the well runs dry? I am they guy economists are talking about when they say that We will find an answer in new technologies.

In some cases maybe, but generally I doubt it. You are the guy who will implement the solution, not invent it.

As for the societies collapsing, lets not put the cart before the horse here. Our society hasn't collapsed despite repeated erroneous claims to the contrary. Hell there was supposed to be a nuclear war in the 1980s. Fortunately most policy makers ignored the Club of Rome, Ehrlich and their ilk.

And dont bullshit me with something about how our society is different because of the market or how they could have become fishermen because they did become fisherman.

So you are an archaeologist too? Is that your weekend gig? How about many ancient civilizations developed rigid social structures and that often prevented change, innovation, and progress? No, you don't like that? Too bad.

Also, different methods of allocating resources have different outcomes. Most people know this. This is why the Soviet Union collapsed despite an abundance of natural resources. Institutions and processes matter. That you can't see this also strongly implies you don't understand the topic. At all.

Reallywhat is so hard to grasp about this.

Don't worry Bruce, I've already grasped that you aren't up to speed on this issue. Aside from drawing crude analogies that when examined at a more detailed level fall apart I don't see anything else you've brought up for me to consider.

By the way, have you read any research on the collapse of the Easter Island economy? Well if you had you'd note that one thing that tends to fit the data well is that an open-access to resources. I'm sure most people here are familiar with the free-rider problem and tragedy of the commons. Well, one way around the latter is via property rights. It isn't the only solution, but it is one. So ignoring property rights in this specific case is what is leading you astray.

Actually, lots of companies go Tango Uniform because they refused to believe what “those dumb engineers” were trying to tell them, or never understood it; the ones who get it late may still have a chance if their competition doesn’t.

Ahhh the strawman tango continues. I didn't say Engineers were dumb, but that generally they don't seem to have a good grasp of undirected processes. For some reason you find engineers who tend to be fascinated by intelligent design over evolution.

Should a company listen to its engineers? Sure on engineering issues. But should an engineer offer advice on marketing, accounting, or how to run the cafeteria I think listening politely, then turning to the accountants, cook and marketing guy would probably be the wise strategy.

Again, looking at best of breeds for fuel economy ... the Insight makes that 100% improvement, as does the Smart, but they both drop two passengers off the Model A ... and I'd suspect drop some cargo capacity. I believe they both weigh less. This, more than 75 years later.

And so I think I'm being optimisitc when I say that we can get another 100%. As I mentioned before, I think that will take a change to safety (and possibly emissions) rules.

odograph: Very interesting, but compare vehicle weights (Google shows several repeats of 2155 pounds for the roadster). My '04 Passat delivers 38 MPG at a speed the Model A could not reach, and weighs more than half a ton more. Your Subaru is many times cleaner than the L-head Ford. There HAS been progress.

"The second Model A was the second major success for the Ford Motor Co. First produced Oct. 20, 1927 but not sold until December 2, it replaced the venerable Model T, which had been produced for 18 years. The Model A was available in four standard colors, but not black.

Prices ranged from $385 for a roadster to $570 for the top-of-the-line Fordor. The engine was an L-head 4-cylinder with a displacement of 200.5 cubic inch (3.3 L). Typical fuel consumption was between 20 and 30 mpg (US) (9 and 12 L/100 km) using a Zenith one barrel carburetor, with a top speed of around 65 mph (104 km/h). It had a 103.5 inch (2.6 m) wheelbase with a gear ratio of 3.77:1. The transmission was a 3 speed sliding gear unit with 1 speed reverse. The Model A had 4-wheel mechanical brakes."

http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-model-a

... a 1927 Model A got basically the same mileage as my current model Subaru. Sure, my Subaru is nicer .. we've heard that before. But where is the best of breed? The current best MPG car in America is the Honda Insight which barely provides that 100% improvement over the 1927 Model A.

But that's still good. If we moved to 70 mpg cars (our current best-of-breed) now, we'd get tremendously more life out of the resource. We'd get more years for engineers to chip away at "known" and "hard" problems.

You want to give me something out of left fiedl? Great, that is where you can see >100% improvement ... but left fields are a bit rare in personal transportation technologies ... it is a valueable and well-researched field.

... all this adds up to something quite a bit more negative than the original article, but then I think the original article is out at an extreme, and not at all the centrist, reasonable, position. The other extreme would be "die-off" and I'm certainly no where near there either.