Chris Martenson on the Fiat Money System and Exponential Resource Depletion (12/14/11)

[KrunchyJD]

Why do few people talk about the biggest waste of energy, namely the transport sector. Why do people need to drive around in oil guzzling SUV's, and why cannot we look to the Dutch who have a high standard of living and ride around on bicycles. Energy conservation is the solution, and its not as painful as people think.

[hitssquad]

@KrunchyJD "Why do few people talk about the biggest waste of energy, namely the transport sector."

...Because it's subject to natural market laws. If driving around in oil guzzling SUV's really were a waste -- all things considered -- people wouldn't be spending as much money on it. It's not like people get paid to do it. *They* pay. Maybe there's a logical economic reason why.

[hitssquad]

@KrunchyJD "Energy conservation"

People *do* conserve energy The market guides them to do this. If you want them to conserve more, people will die. You're advocating homicide.

[KrunchyJD]

@hitssquad People will NOT die, if they have to conserve more energy. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. People do not need huge cars. Many of the Dutch don't even have a car and instead ride around on bicycles and are very happy. People, also do not need to live in suburban sprawl, and we don't need cars as much as people think. Sure oil is used for other things other then transport, but transport could be miles more efficient.

[KrunchyJD]

@hitssquad People in a sense do get paid to drive around in oil guzzling machines, because billions of dollars are spent on roads for this rediculous and inefficient transport, while bugger all, in comparison, is spent on rail, and other more efficient modes of transport.

[hitssquad]

@KrunchyJD "People [...] do get paid to drive around in oil guzzling machines, because [...] dollars are spent on roads"

Even if the roads were free (and they aren't; there are road taxes on gasoline, and bridges charge tolls), nobody could be said to be getting paid to use them just because another part paid for them.

.

"[little] is spent on rail"

There's a reason: rail is a waste.

.

"and other more efficient modes of transport."

You need to look up rail inefficiencies.

[hitssquad]

eetweb. com/energy-scavenging/energy-i­nefficiency-light-rail-201007

"If you quizzed the general public about what modes of transportation were the most energy efficient, you'd likely get back an answer mentioning rail lines or trains. But the idea that rail lines are the most efficient way of getting people from place to place is an urban myth. The truth is that a variety of factors make rail energy inefficient when compared with other modes of transportation."

[Ape65]

@hitssquad The energy efficiency of rail depends on the capacity utilization rate. However the main advantage to rail in highly congested or densely populated areas is you conserve land as compared to a highway handling the same traffic as a full commuter train, and unlike road traffic, the efficiency of rail (in terms of both time and energy) tends to increase as traffic increases.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "The energy efficiency of rail depends on the capacity utilization rate."

Yes, and that's one of the reasons rail can't be efficient for moving humans. Humans can't be packed tightly the way coal, or logs, or ore, or steel can be packed tightly. We come the closest to optimum human-packing in Japan, where "pushers" are used to cram people together in rail cars so tightly the doors are just barely able to close. Is that what you want for the US? Do you think it would be accepted?

[Ape65]

@hitssquad Tokyo's an extreme case. Many people in Montreal, where I live, have to choose between being stuck in a traffic jam for 20 minutes twice a day and spending a fortune on gas and parking, or being crammed in a moving sardine can for 10 minutes, but saving a lot a money. It's not the happiest of choices, but that's the nature of life in a big city, especially if you want the bungalow in the burbs and the interesting job downtown.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "especially if you want the bungalow in the burbs and the interesting job downtown"

People who work in the city don't necessarily move out by their own choices. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in Economic Facts and Fallacies, people are forced out of cities by homelessness-generating laws such as construction-restrictions, height restrictions, rent restrictions, setback requirements, tenants rights, solar rights, minimum apartment-size laws, etc. If you let them live there, maybe they would.

[Ape65]

@hitssquad And some people want a detached house on a quiet street with a yard. You can't get that close to downtown unless you are able and willing to spend over a million dollars.

[Ape65]

@hitssquad I never said Montreal had pushers, and public transit is subsidized to about the same extend as cars (have you seen the costs of building urban highways?). Taxis cost a fortune, compared to using your own car or taking public transit, and don't reduce the number of rush hour cars, they just reduce the need for parking. They're used mainly by visitors, old women and people returning home drunk from parties or bars.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "Taxis cost a fortune"

I just said that: "Many cities have laws that restrict taxi service."

That makes taxi service expensive. Legalize taxis, and then they might not be so expensive. Also, a private "taxi" doesn't have to be the car you're imagining. It can be a bus, Are buses inefficient?

.

Another thing to consider is that not only are people forced out of cities, they are also forced out of buildings. It would be more efficient to allow multi-use buildings.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 Multi-use buildings could mean that people would be able to live, work, recreate, and shop, without ever leaving a single building. That would mean they wouldn't need a car, or taxis, or mass transit; and they wouldn't have to put up with traffic congestion on the street.

As it is, high-rise buildings are usually only approved to have a single given activity going on in them. Does that make sense? Does it sound efficient? Do you think that minimizes commute costs?

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "Taxis cost a fortune"

There's no parking cost, and it's door-to-door service. It's a response to your claim: "being stuck in a traffic jam for 20 minutes twice a day and spending a fortune on gas and parking". Taxi medallions are restricted in NYC to about 13,000 total, and they trade for about a million dollars each. Do you really think it needs to be that way?

.

Liberalization of taxi markets is well-established to reduce the costs.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "I never said Montreal had pushers"

Yes. I said pushers was the reason Japan had the closest thing to en efficient commuter rail system. The fact that Montreal doesn't have pushers, is the reason Montreal has such grossly inefficient rail. Do you really thin that western Caucasian nations are ready for rail pushers? I don't think that they are, so perhaps we'd be better off looking for more workable and efficient solutions such as liberalized taxi service.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "And some people want a detached house on a quiet street with a yard."

There are myriad people in each metro housing market. The laws of large numbers therefore apply. We need not concern ourselves with the last hard-case hold-out. The point was that if we make it marginally less hard to live in a city, naturally there will be a marginal increase in the proportion of the total metro population willing to live in the city, rather than the suburbs (or exurbs).

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "And some people want a detached house on a quiet street with a yard."

Private and semi-private apartment spaces can be made large, quiet, and even somewhat outdoorsy (while being protected from the weather). It need not be expensive, if the markets are liberalized.

.

For example, this is an enabling technology of apartment quietness: google. com/search?q=Green+Glue+Sound+­Dampening

It's cheap, and it works. The number one reason people don't like apartments is the noise. This solves that.

[Ape65]

@hitssquad Thanks for the reference, it may come in handy

[Ape65]

@hitssquad Agree, and I wasn't referring to hold-outs, but rather the vast number of middle-aged middle-income people with kids who want nice quiet green suburban neighbourhoods where their kids can play in the street. It's all about street hockey ;-)

[Ape65]

@hitssquad I couldn't find that reference, but I read the one about the energy efficiency of train-based mass transit. He acknowledges that NYC's system is efficient, and they don't have pushers.

[Ape65]

@hitssquad I agree on liberalization, but taxis don't reduce road congestion. It doesn't scale up the way commuter trains or subways do. Taxi-buses only make sense on a few limited routes (such as airport to downtown).

[Ape65]

@hitssquad I'm all for multi-use buildings, and also for liberalizing zoning laws. At it happens, Montreal (and especially Toronto and Vancouver) are in the midst of a condo construction boom, especially downtown. I think the biggest reform to be made is to allow people to have home offices and businesses, but instead of regulating use, cities would have to regulate impacts, which is more complicated.

[Ape65]

@hitssquad Montreal's taxis were almost completely deregulated until about 20 years ago, when a licensing system was introduced to restrict the number. BTW I'm opposed to that system, but even before, taxis were far more expensive than using public transit or your own car. As to taxi-buses (or more realistically, mini-vans), that does exist for heavily used routes such as between the airport and downtown.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 On taxis, I forgot to mention that another key efficiency improver is the legalization of shared taxi rides. Public mass transit holds an unfair efficiency advantage over private taxi service when the latter is restricted to unshared rides.

.

"He acknowledges that NYC's system is efficient"

When Teschler referred to "the NYC system", I believe he meant the *entire* system, which would include buses -- especially since he mentioned it with Honolulu's system, which is bus only.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 A potential improvement to taxi efficiency would be electrification. A city-wide on-the-fly recharging system could help with this. It makes a lot more sense for a taxi -- a vehicle that is used all day and/or night -- to have a large efficiency-driven sunk cost, than for a private vehicle to do the same. It's difficult for a commuter to justify the cost of an electric vehicle if he's only going to drive it 10-30,000 miles per year. A commercial vehicle can be put to far more use.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "who want nice quiet green suburban neighbourhoods"

I'm aware of that desire. In my mind, neighborhoods can potentially be stacked -- indoors. It's interesting that the advocates of O'Neill cylinders (huge spinning space habitats holding thousands of people each in spacious California-suburb-style environments), tend not to acknowledge that similar habitats could potentially also be stacked on Earth -- to indefinite heights.

Just add artificial sunlight.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 A 400x400' building might potentially have a neighborhood on each floor, and the floors might be separable far enough to give a sufficient feeling of "outsideness". So, that's what I meant by private and semi-private spaces. You could have private houses sharing a semi-private neighborhood floor of a high-rise building. Include landscaping and, perhaps, gentle hills. 10 such neighborhoods at 50' height each would stack to 500'.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 I forgot streets. Streets -- and bike and walking paths -- complete the neighborhood effect. People wouldn't need to drive around, though. They could just use push-scooters and bicycles. Perhaps golf-carts and NEV's (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) could be used, but I'm not sure people would see those as necessary for such short distances.

[hitssquad]

@Ape65 "but even before, taxis were far more expensive"

OK. But I would suspect they weren't allowed to combine fares, which should radically reduce the cost per fare. Plus, they offer fast door-to-door service (something public transit rarely provides, and when it does it's by accident of location, rather than because of any inherent flexibility of the system), and they allow passengers to use productivity- and distraction- devices while being transported -- an advantage over the private car.

[KrunchyJD]

@hitssquad Nonsense..

Rail is only non efficient when everybody drives a car and nobody uses rail, because bugger all money is spent on rail and vast sums is spent on roads.

Your suggestion that people need to use as much energy and oil as they do now to live is also absurd.

[KrunchyJD]

@hitssquad Every mode of transport is subsidized by the general public. Single occupant motor vehicles, particularly large ones are one of the least efficient forms of transport in more ways then one. They are one of the least efficient in terms of energy expended to move from A to B, behind only a few things like short haul planes.

Rail is one of the most efficient and is only inefficient when road transport is favoured to such a degree that few people use rail.

[hitssquad]

9:43 [Chris Martenson] "energy is the Master Resource"

Yes: masterresource. org/2009/07/energy-as-the-mast­er-resource-where-left-right-a­nd-center-agree

.

9:50 "oil is the Master Resource"

You're contradicting yourself. You just said: "energy is the Master Resource".

So, which is it -- energy or oil?

[KrunchyJD]

@hitssquad Oil is energy

[LiberaLib]

"sirplus"?

i like hearing i'm doomed better when it's a sexy woman telling me i'm doomed.

[HerrLT]

Lauren's slophole is overrated (and smells like Black Sea caviar)! OTOH Chris Martenson is spot on his thesis.

[dinche1]

'Word of the day' segment has got to be the biggest insult to viewers' intelligence since fox news

[Marcussness]

@dinche1 I think word of the day is useful actually, the economic terms that get bandied around thesedays are deliberately misleading or at best obscure. I'm an electronics engineer not an economist, where else would i learn how to understand thier doublespeak?

[dinche1]

@Marcussness

Investopedia (.com) is good for explaining financial jargon.

If you are a newbie, check out some vids from steve keen, jim rogers and kyle bass. They speak well and in a way everyone can understand.

[txmacdude]

Something else that is very interesting is over Thanksgiving I spoke with a cousin who has been in the oil industry for over 35 years. We were hunting out in southeast Texas in the Eagle Ford Shale region. I asked him how much it costs to extract a barrel of shale. He said around $60/barrel. While the talking heads say we have lots of shale to extract, at some point, it does NOT make any $ extracting it.

[ElCaballeroDelMonte]

And the new technologies more efficiently extract resources from the planet. So we are effectively stripping away the resources to create the new technologies... Plus All previous leaps in technologies depended on a readily available set of resources. At some point you hit a wall

[ElCaballeroDelMonte]

A factor not often pointed out by the proponents of resource depletion, is the exponential advance of technology. Scientists point to the fact, that the state of the art of technology doubles exponetially every 10 years. History proves, inventions that defy the predictions of the logic of imagination, await on the horizon. Hopefully, inventions that will illiminate the current resource depletion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All these new technologies depend on resources... And the new technologies..

[mamboero]

Dimitri, I applaud your response on gold and I'm fully with you on that!

[rlidrazzah]

"It comes from something like OWS." Dr. Chris Martenson!

[AppalledBC]

Second, having been a producer, I can tell you they're not good TV. Keep your producer and the control booth person off screen. They're contributing nothing, and their amateurish appearances on screen undermines the effectiveness of the show as a whole. Let's say you have a great interview, and then these two show up: there goes the wham. Find something else for the second, shorter segment

[AppalledBC]

Lauren, you consistently break from interviews very awkwardly. Your interviewees are frequently still on screen, and you shift to your viewer without allowing your guests closure. Allow them the last word and then switch to the viewer.

[MarcusCMarcellus]

Martenson is wonderful. No ideology, just good formulation of questions and attempts at solutions.

And yes, Roubini is a fraud - and a mean-spirited one at that.

[withnonamemarketing]

Never really read these comments for capital account. It's like one of the only YouTube feeds that is not pure fucking hate. I wish I had this many complements everyday.

Sucks being a guy only time I get complements is when a girl wants something.

[RTProducer]

@withnonamemarketing Well, you will be featured on our show tomorrow, so we'll see what the comments are Matthew!

[withnonamemarketing]

@RTProducer Ha! That pic of me in suspenders gets my good side. Whats Capital Account without some fashion. Till then I got to make this fiat currency.

[kaianttila73i]

If we get nuclear fusion technology it will solve liquid fuel problem, because you can then make liquid hydrogen more cheaply.

[cxrodformrx]

Lauren has a cool voice.

[ashtavideo]

Lauren is awesome! =) Please, make an interview with Max Keiser!

[RTProducer]

We have interviewed Max. Have you not seen it?

[ashtavideo]

@RTProducer Really? I will search it on YouTube then.

[AustralianLeprechaun]

Lauren your so sexy!! Would you consider wearing a skin tight leather skirt and boots in a future show. I think we'd all like to see that.

[optionsupdate]

Lauren the whole see through table idea does not work if you wear trousers

[activereasoner]

A factor not often pointed out by the proponents of resource depletion, is the exponential advance of technology. Scientists point to the fact, that the state of the art of technology doubles exponetially every 10 years. History proves, inventions that defy the predictions of the logic of imagination, await on the horizon. Hopefully, inventions that will illiminate the current resource depletion.

[wooyooing]

I always hear gold n' silver markets have been manipulated to keep their prices low. Now people believe the gold n' silver markets were just having a correction. However, this “correction” was handing south which was exactly what manipulators wanted. So, how could the experts have confidence to believe this is a normal correction not a manipulation? I just find this is weird to see this kind of correction after all debt crises have been reported.

[turbotrana]

I really should be getting back to doing some work but I think I will watch this episode of Capital Account

[1998awest]

RT continues to demolish US MSM. Excellent show, great job Lauren, Demitri, et al.

Roubini is a typical academic jag -- lots of knowledge of incredibly complex models that don't work. Schiff, Rogers, Faber, and Keiser comprehend economics that actually works in the real world.

[RTProducer]

@1998awest Roubini has valuable insights, and I would respect him more if he wasn't so arrogant and so utterly dismissive of people that don't share his view. He also has this nasty tendency, that i have seen before amongst people who don't have the cajones to put their money where their mouths are, to get angry when the market doesn't do what they want it to do.

and thanks for the kind words!

[1998awest]

@RTProducer I agree. If he's going to be arrogant and dismissive, he better damn well be right. Gloating because gold hasn't hit $2000 doesn't mean much when he's stated in the past there's absolutely no way gold will ever eclipse $1500.

Great to have another Austrian out there. Keep up the great work.

[gavinjengel]

This is my favorite Capital Account, well done

[louis12346]

he is wrong no shortage of forest . his solution is more government taxes and laws such as Global carbon tax 10 trillion in CME derivatives Fraud ! We should try freedom instead

[andrewade68]

...thanks!...

[Seemorerocks97]

Thanks, that was a very clear exposition of the predicament humanity finds itself in. Thanks RT and thanks Chris Martenson.

[getOccupiedtheMovie]

i truly wonder what you'll wear for me around christmas, probably something woven on the bases of oil probably, but make it flashy color striped for me or something rather lovely.... and throw me a little white christmas tree there

[inforatnik]

Before 2015 gold will hit $7.000.

[Smitty1714]

Great show guys. Love the topics and daily guest. Keep up the good work. The sheeple are slowly starting to wake up and realize that we don't live in the perfect world where Apple iPhone commercials are made thanks to shows like yours.

[RTProducer]

@Smitty1714 thanks for the support Smitty!

[arr4gtr]

What a boneheaded explanation of exponential growth. thumbs down

Exponential growth or depletion, simply: When the rate increases/decreases by a factor each measurement. From a prime (2) to a square(4) to a cube(8), a cube to a factor of four(16). By 100+% of the previous figure each measurement. The growth/depletion does not equal an additive/subtractive constant of accumulation/depletion but a rather a snowball effect. The bigger it grows the faster it grows

[RTProducer]

@arr4gtr thanks. Now, why don't you go out on international television and try to say that on camera and see how it sounds?

[arr4gtr]

@RTProducer it works with graphs, lol

[RTProducer]

@arr4gtr My point is that we have to find a way to make the content work on TV, and that's tricky. I wanted to explain the compounding effect, but every time we went to do it, it got too complex. That was my one regret, that we couldn't break down the math more.

[MrFmmcosta]

@RTProducer Maybe Mike Montagne author of the "Mathematically Perfected Economy" series here on youtube might help to explain it better. His series is great. It sure helped me.

[wooyooing]

@arr4gtr I have no idea what are you talking about. I think I like RT's explanation better.

[bullshit3118]

Exponential is when the growth of production speeds up per a growing population and becomes unsustainable. Also known as the hockey stick of death and destruction!

[bullshit3118]

Lauren, get Jacques Fresco on there! Now there's a futurist of real merit! This is man that gets beyond the typical analysis and provides a creative means to resolve these issues. Martenson is an academic with the sale ole stuff, Fresco and the Venus Project are going to "exponentially" make technology a liberator for the human race than this doom and gloom shenanigans.

[bullshit3118]

HA! just to go to Gold Money.com and you'll find many of these researchers, such as Chris Martenson, being called in. Chris is telling us everything mots of us know already. We know about peak oil, we know about debt, so he WILL sell books. He talks about economics which is ONE view of the situation, but there is war, natural disaster, and other features of calamity that define our "future." However, Martenson is not a "futurist" like Jacques Fresco, he is a predictor, not an inventor.

[mannyvelo]

I hope Lauren is under my tree this Christmas. I've been good all year and I'm ready to be naughty!

[linharesvids]

@mannyvelo thumbs up; but back off, I wrote to Santa earlier dud

[MrJimjack2]

quite a delicious little thing

[kno1self]

Lauren is fast becoming a top shelf interviewer. RT has all the guests I would want to talk too I love all the RT women but Lauren grrrrrr. smart n hot

[capucchan8]

come on Lauren, with the leadership the world has why worry?

[heckler73]

Now that you've taught those "very smart viewers" about exponential functions, teach them about LOGISTIC FUNCTIONS and how they tend to rule in nature.

[accd1d]

great show and good job explaining the exponential curve. I would have used the rabbits example though, easier to understand.

[capucchan8]

Lauren I love you