I'm all for nationalizing the oil industry. Oilfields shouldn't be owned by anyone except the population as a whole, in this specific case I oppose the ownership by the workers working in oil industry. When it comes to rare non-reproducible resources I oppose the ownership of any minority, even if that minority is a small section of the working class.
I think your semi right, there is a decline on sweet oil but there is an abundance of sour oil (high sulfer).. Now it takes longer to process the sour oil and thats why oil companies don't like it..it costs them more money.. Now take other companies that spend billions in R and D on new technology and what has the oil companies done in the last 10 years of record breaking profits? Well they haven't built any new refinaries since the 70s, they haven't found any large oil fields like russia..
They haven't made any new discoveries in technology.. They basically made bank and are gonna continue to drain us without putting any money into lowering the price, they'll just use that money to put into lobbyist hands to keep their hold on us.. Lets face it, after the last major gas problem in the 70s why hasn't the government put into place mass transit systems throughout the US thats like 30 years they could of did that and invested into green energy, but they didn't?
The state's job isn't to make our lives better or greener. It's to protect the "minority of the opulent from the majority" as James Madison put it and to "protect against the leveling effect of democracy." It's up to us to do this.When we are ready to lead, the leaders will follow.
I think it's helpful to think of oil outside of economics and think of it as an energy equation. What's the net energy gain? The net energy gain from pulling some light crude out of the ground in Iraq is tremendous and makes a lot of sense. Then as we go down the line to Tar sands it begins to make less and less sense. Technology probably won't change that equation. The economics can be manipulated. The energy equation can't.
Also... I don't think that Iraq in the short term is about oil, it has seemed to me that it was just a typical scheme to sell a lot of guns to people with other people's labor (cash).
Ahhh I think it's just a natural progression. I've made nice nice with a number of the free markateers over the past number of months. We agree to disagree. Still great people in my opinion.
I'd have to disagree. It takes about ten years to get a nuclear plant up and running. We produce more nuclear energy than anyone (I think) and yet it only makes up about 20% of our energy. So imagine building five times more nuclear plants in your backyard. Not a very likely scenario. I certainly don't want them near me. They haven't gotten any safer. The answer is to move towards consuming less energy.
You made a good point that few people think about; oil is more than just fuel. I am horrofied to think of My beloved feild of medicine without plastic! In modern medicine, the absence of plastic would be disasterous. I only hope the chemicle engineers can come up with a solution before we hit disaster.
The bitter truth is: industrial civilizations are not sustainable at all and will immediately collapse as soon as a certain level of supporting energy cannot be maintained anymore. The high level of population density in many industrialized countries will lead to widespread social unrests if shortages and hunger become reality because of peak oil. We must prepare ourselves NOW to live a different life with much less energy.
I understand the problem. But what you're talking about would require a reduction of the human population by 95% or more. No species has ever successfully done such a thing and I'm not arrogant enough to think humans can do such a thing in an orderly fashion. The real bitter truth is that life is inherently unsustainable. We will go extinct. The sun will go out. We do our best while were here.
We had a wakeup call over 30 years ago. But there has been no political will to replace oil where possible with solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, etc,... As long as there is a buck to be made by manipulating supply & demand there is no incentive to migrate to a free or cheaper energy. That is the business. The government side is that as long as it gives them tax revenues, and allows them to subjugate peoples they will keep oil as their tool to keep you believing in them.
Well I'd really urge you to think about this because none of the alternatives you mention can compete with oil. There is nothing on the horizon that can compete with oil. Oil is more than cheap portable energy, it's also amazing properties that allow us to make plastics and other synthetic materials, fertilizers and pesticides. Our entire civilization is based on hydro-carbon energy. It's everywhere you look. Wind and solar can't possibly replace that.
I highly recommend an article in the latest edition of the London Review of Books, "Past its Peak," by Michael Klare. The article explains in very clear terms the origins of the oil crisis that we are experiencing.
more on the end of capitalism? making a video might be kind of tough for me right now, but i can explain somewhat. from my perspective it seems that as we depend so much on oil based commodities that our economy will crash and we will see as marx said, the common ruin of all classes.
i understand you are an anarchist, i of course am not, but i can say that i respect you far more than most others i've encountered in my real life and especially on youtube.
that is of course, not trying to be said in jest in any way, i really do enjoy your videos and your mind. great video! i still have trouble making a video with a steady stream of thought, i tend to do better with an outline/written dialogue, i of course, do understand what you're saying about peak oil, and i agree with you about industrialization.
Yeah no need to hung up on labels. I really appreciate your voice here on YT. I see what you're saying about the fall of capitalism and I definitely agree it's a possibility. I think it (peak oil) will end up forcing us back to economies of scale and that will hopefully lead to opportunities for the working class to take power. I remain hopeful.
I grew up in a small farming community, and most farmers there are having a tough time just making ends meet. The price of fuel, especially diesel, and all other inputs affected by transportation costs are making it hard for most to pay the bills (most farmers with small operations anyway). Of course, being a small rural community, there aren't a lot of options aside from selling out and trying to find work elsewhere.
Under existing capitalism there are two main ways a the oil industry (or any other heavy industry) can be run: by the state itself or by the people who buy and control the state. Essentially they end up being run by the same class of people but when it's run by the state it's run by a tool our oppressors use and not directly by our oppressors themselves. Both are far from ideal but nationalization is at least more efficient for the average person.
Well I wasn't trying to say speculation was no factor, but the fact is the dwindling supply and the lack of any new major finds is the real culprit. Oil supplies are decreasing while demand continues to increase.
Actually it's not, at least not in this world. Most major advances in technology are initially made by state institutions then sold to private industry when profits can be made from them. That way the risks are socialized and the benefits are privatized.
The last 50 years of American history sort of undermines that myth. Every major technological innovation of the last 50 or 60 years has been developed in the public sector. So much for the profit motive. I realize puppyhate already said this...but I'll repeat it anyway.
So-called "green capitalism" is an oxymoron, no matter the size. Capitalist models require constant consumption to stay afloat, thereby assuming infinite resources to sustain their production. True sustainability is only possible in a non-capitalist society where capital is not the driving force. I don't agree with the primitivist notion that we need to be hunter-gatherers either, but becoming more self-reliant is a necessity.
I'm all for nationalizing the oil industry. Oilfields shouldn't be owned by anyone except the population as a whole, in this specific case I oppose the ownership by the workers working in oil industry. When it comes to rare non-reproducible resources I oppose the ownership of any minority, even if that minority is a small section of the working class.
FreakishDonQuixote 3 years ago
oil products are also
in your shampoo and such.
what i don`t get, is, oil is destillated and
the products in between are also sold.
stuff thats filtered out still is being sold to the chemical- industry.
Realizalize 3 years ago
Buddha we should talk about collaborating on a video, I just got started on youtube, but that shouldn't be any kind of indication of my knowledge.
patient0Studios 3 years ago
great video...Down with Capitalism!!!
RokonFan1988 3 years ago
I think your semi right, there is a decline on sweet oil but there is an abundance of sour oil (high sulfer).. Now it takes longer to process the sour oil and thats why oil companies don't like it..it costs them more money.. Now take other companies that spend billions in R and D on new technology and what has the oil companies done in the last 10 years of record breaking profits? Well they haven't built any new refinaries since the 70s, they haven't found any large oil fields like russia..
funeralsong34 3 years ago
They haven't made any new discoveries in technology.. They basically made bank and are gonna continue to drain us without putting any money into lowering the price, they'll just use that money to put into lobbyist hands to keep their hold on us.. Lets face it, after the last major gas problem in the 70s why hasn't the government put into place mass transit systems throughout the US thats like 30 years they could of did that and invested into green energy, but they didn't?
funeralsong34 3 years ago
The state's job isn't to make our lives better or greener. It's to protect the "minority of the opulent from the majority" as James Madison put it and to "protect against the leveling effect of democracy." It's up to us to do this.When we are ready to lead, the leaders will follow.
buddhagem 3 years ago
I think it's helpful to think of oil outside of economics and think of it as an energy equation. What's the net energy gain? The net energy gain from pulling some light crude out of the ground in Iraq is tremendous and makes a lot of sense. Then as we go down the line to Tar sands it begins to make less and less sense. Technology probably won't change that equation. The economics can be manipulated. The energy equation can't.
buddhagem 3 years ago
There does not need to be a net-energy gain in order for hydrocarbon extraction to be economical. Energy can be added via nuclear fuel.
hitssquad 3 years ago
Also... I don't think that Iraq in the short term is about oil, it has seemed to me that it was just a typical scheme to sell a lot of guns to people with other people's labor (cash).
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
That was a good video... are you intentionally changing the language you use?
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
What do you mean by that?
buddhagem 3 years ago
I don't know,maybe it is me, but you seem a lot less belligerent to my free marketer ears.
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
Ahhh I think it's just a natural progression. I've made nice nice with a number of the free markateers over the past number of months. We agree to disagree. Still great people in my opinion.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Oil is only a renewable resource if you have 500 million years to wait and an entire population of wildlife to be crushed.
patient0Studios 3 years ago
Yeah he wants to get rid of skateboards! Can you believe that guy? Let him pick his own berries.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Nuclear energy might be our best option at the moment. At least until we can make solar viable.
atypicalguy 3 years ago
I'd have to disagree. It takes about ten years to get a nuclear plant up and running. We produce more nuclear energy than anyone (I think) and yet it only makes up about 20% of our energy. So imagine building five times more nuclear plants in your backyard. Not a very likely scenario. I certainly don't want them near me. They haven't gotten any safer. The answer is to move towards consuming less energy.
buddhagem 3 years ago
Most Americans want nuclear power plants near them:
world-nuclear. org/info/inf41. html#opinion
hitssquad 3 years ago
You made a good point that few people think about; oil is more than just fuel. I am horrofied to think of My beloved feild of medicine without plastic! In modern medicine, the absence of plastic would be disasterous. I only hope the chemicle engineers can come up with a solution before we hit disaster.
IWW610 3 years ago
The bitter truth is: industrial civilizations are not sustainable at all and will immediately collapse as soon as a certain level of supporting energy cannot be maintained anymore. The high level of population density in many industrialized countries will lead to widespread social unrests if shortages and hunger become reality because of peak oil. We must prepare ourselves NOW to live a different life with much less energy.
Bernd1964 3 years ago
I understand the problem. But what you're talking about would require a reduction of the human population by 95% or more. No species has ever successfully done such a thing and I'm not arrogant enough to think humans can do such a thing in an orderly fashion. The real bitter truth is that life is inherently unsustainable. We will go extinct. The sun will go out. We do our best while were here.
buddhagem 3 years ago
hahahaha
nuclearnight 3 years ago
Fantastic video! You explained that very well :D
jakluk4 3 years ago
Thank you so much.
buddhagem 3 years ago
We had a wakeup call over 30 years ago. But there has been no political will to replace oil where possible with solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, etc,... As long as there is a buck to be made by manipulating supply & demand there is no incentive to migrate to a free or cheaper energy. That is the business. The government side is that as long as it gives them tax revenues, and allows them to subjugate peoples they will keep oil as their tool to keep you believing in them.
tenagliac 3 years ago
Well I'd really urge you to think about this because none of the alternatives you mention can compete with oil. There is nothing on the horizon that can compete with oil. Oil is more than cheap portable energy, it's also amazing properties that allow us to make plastics and other synthetic materials, fertilizers and pesticides. Our entire civilization is based on hydro-carbon energy. It's everywhere you look. Wind and solar can't possibly replace that.
buddhagem 3 years ago
I highly recommend an article in the latest edition of the London Review of Books, "Past its Peak," by Michael Klare. The article explains in very clear terms the origins of the oil crisis that we are experiencing.
rmacias 3 years ago
thanks for the info! I'll check it out.
buddhagem 3 years ago
ahhh, you're right! i did convolute!
more on the end of capitalism? making a video might be kind of tough for me right now, but i can explain somewhat. from my perspective it seems that as we depend so much on oil based commodities that our economy will crash and we will see as marx said, the common ruin of all classes.
i understand you are an anarchist, i of course am not, but i can say that i respect you far more than most others i've encountered in my real life and especially on youtube.
nuclearnight 3 years ago
that is of course, not trying to be said in jest in any way, i really do enjoy your videos and your mind. great video! i still have trouble making a video with a steady stream of thought, i tend to do better with an outline/written dialogue, i of course, do understand what you're saying about peak oil, and i agree with you about industrialization.
nuclearnight 3 years ago
Yeah no need to hung up on labels. I really appreciate your voice here on YT. I see what you're saying about the fall of capitalism and I definitely agree it's a possibility. I think it (peak oil) will end up forcing us back to economies of scale and that will hopefully lead to opportunities for the working class to take power. I remain hopeful.
buddhagem 3 years ago
oh yes, i'm always hopeful, but i do think we all need to get ourselves as educated as possible and also all of our loved ones.
nuclearnight 3 years ago
I grew up in a small farming community, and most farmers there are having a tough time just making ends meet. The price of fuel, especially diesel, and all other inputs affected by transportation costs are making it hard for most to pay the bills (most farmers with small operations anyway). Of course, being a small rural community, there aren't a lot of options aside from selling out and trying to find work elsewhere.
Pananarchist 3 years ago
Under existing capitalism there are two main ways a the oil industry (or any other heavy industry) can be run: by the state itself or by the people who buy and control the state. Essentially they end up being run by the same class of people but when it's run by the state it's run by a tool our oppressors use and not directly by our oppressors themselves. Both are far from ideal but nationalization is at least more efficient for the average person.
PuppyHate 3 years ago
Speculation is a factor. The price rises and falls responding to good news and bad news. Notice how the price dropped without any off shore drilling?
Peak oil is real. Time to make plans. Rationing the oil, solar, wind etc.
citizenkong 3 years ago
Well I wasn't trying to say speculation was no factor, but the fact is the dwindling supply and the lack of any new major finds is the real culprit. Oil supplies are decreasing while demand continues to increase.
buddhagem 3 years ago
I think nationalizing the oil industry would be quite detrimental. It's the drive for profit that spurs innovation.
ace625 3 years ago
Actually it's not, at least not in this world. Most major advances in technology are initially made by state institutions then sold to private industry when profits can be made from them. That way the risks are socialized and the benefits are privatized.
PuppyHate 3 years ago
The last 50 years of American history sort of undermines that myth. Every major technological innovation of the last 50 or 60 years has been developed in the public sector. So much for the profit motive. I realize puppyhate already said this...but I'll repeat it anyway.
buddhagem 3 years ago
wow a buddhagem video.... sweet.
Chomskyan 3 years ago
So-called "green capitalism" is an oxymoron, no matter the size. Capitalist models require constant consumption to stay afloat, thereby assuming infinite resources to sustain their production. True sustainability is only possible in a non-capitalist society where capital is not the driving force. I don't agree with the primitivist notion that we need to be hunter-gatherers either, but becoming more self-reliant is a necessity.
ManilaRyceTLM 3 years ago 3
Some industrial economy of scale might be acceptable and could survive peak oil but nothing like what we have now, which I think is a good thing.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
I always recognized that you were an undead zombie. That was a very quick response, BTW.
CapitalFailsUsNow 3 years ago
The green skin and red eyes are freaking me out, haha.
Love to see a new video up, and a good one at that.
Irtidad 3 years ago 3