By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Greece Defaults. What now?

Helloplite said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

what ther tasks? shuld i buy another car just because my car needs 4l/100km and not 10 like 10 years ago? should i by another fridge because my new one just needs half the energie the old one needed?

100$/b is still cheap oil if your car just needs 4l/100km...  

 

you should better look at food and water. those are far bigger problems in the future.

Building infrastructure first and foremost instead of wasting it on rampart consumerism, and therefore essentially wasting your future. Food and water are functions of energy availability, so I have those covered.

but we allready have the best roads in the world.  no other country lets you drive with good speed on the roads because they know their roads suck.  could you imagine driving 240km/h(150mph) on a highway or a road in russia? and sure public transportation could be a bit better, but its allready good.  and if we improve such things we will need less energie.    there is just no way europe can consume more energie, we all have fridges and cars, and we cant buy a 2nd and 3rd fridge just because the 1st one consumes so little energie. there is just no need.   

and water isnt a function of energie. it comes for free out of the sky, no need for energie as long as you dont life in a desert.


Not sure if you are missing fundamental bits of science, but to clarify a couple of things:

1. Modern fridges consume less energy -- the proliferation of devices that consume energy however offsets any such benefits. Overall, we use more energy now than before, despite more effective consumption of energy per device.

2. The water cycle is fundamentally related to energy -- in this case the energy of the sun and the average temperature which affects the rate of evaporation.


1. not in europe, europes consumption went down.   and there are no new devices that need alot of juice, AND they replace other devices.

every laptop replaces an old PC, every tablet reduces the time spend on a laptop or watching TV. my mom changed from a 200w pc to a 4w tab and a 2,5w smartphone for checking her email.

 

2. thats right, but doesnt matter te sun isnt running on cheap oil...



Around the Network
generic-user-1 said:

but we allready have the best roads in the world.  no other country lets you drive with good speed on the roads because they know their roads suck.  could you imagine driving 240km/h(150mph) on a highway or a road in russia? and sure public transportation could be a bit better, but its allready good.  and if we improve such things we will need less energie.    there is just no way europe can consume more energie, we all have fridges and cars, and we cant buy a 2nd and 3rd fridge just because the 1st one consumes so little energie. there is just no need.

*shrug shoulders* as you say, but for some reason a great deal of said infrastracture has been built elsewhere, but surely Germany has the best roads out there, perfect for speed driving :D

generic-user-1 said:

and water isnt a function of energie. it comes for free out of the sky, no need for energie as long as you dont life in a desert.

Ok, you drink THAT :D Half of the planet lives in not exactly deserts but in places that have problems with melioration and drinking water if not for existing infrastracture like pump stations, channels, storage reservoirs etc., which all require neverending investment to build and support. If investment are no more said places might not be able to support current population densities, like California, for example.

//You happen not only take every word I say somewhat personally (as if I pissed on German flag, even though I didn't even mentioned Germany, nor implied it most of the time), but do it in incredibly twisted way. Well, if in your world resource peaks don't exist, oil production are just holes in the ground that could stop and go at will (apparently the word 'capex' is not part of your vocabulary), infrastructure revolves around highways, then I'm doing a sisyphus work here.



mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

but we allready have the best roads in the world.  no other country lets you drive with good speed on the roads because they know their roads suck.  could you imagine driving 240km/h(150mph) on a highway or a road in russia? and sure public transportation could be a bit better, but its allready good.  and if we improve such things we will need less energie.    there is just no way europe can consume more energie, we all have fridges and cars, and we cant buy a 2nd and 3rd fridge just because the 1st one consumes so little energie. there is just no need.

*shrug shoulders* as you say, but for some reason a great deal of said infrastracture has been built elsewhere, but surely Germany has the best roads out there, perfect for speed driving :D

generic-user-1 said:

and water isnt a function of energie. it comes for free out of the sky, no need for energie as long as you dont life in a desert.

Ok, you drink THAT :D Half of the planet lives in not exactly deserts but in places that have problems with melioration and drinking water if not for existing infrastracture like pump stations, channels, storage reservoirs etc., which all require neverending investment to build and support. If investment are no more said places might not be able to support current population densities, like California, for example.

//You happen not only take every word I say somewhat personally (as if I pissed on German flag, even though I didn't even mentioned Germany, nor implied it most of the time), but do it in incredibly twisted way. Well, if in your world resource peaks doesn't exist, oil production are just holes in the ground that could stop and go at will (apparently the word 'capex' is not part of you vocabulary), infrastructure revolves around highways, then I'm doing a sisyphus work here.


CA wouldnt be able to support the current population even if energie was  free, and its not just CA, allmost the entire southern USA is dry as bones.  and drinking rain is no problem anymore.

resource peaks do exist, but fossil fuels arent at the peak and will not be for a long time.

i am way more scared about Rare earth elements.

 



generic-user-1 said:

resource peaks do exist, but fossil fuels arent at the peak and will not be for a long time.

How much is "long time" for you? Years? Decades? Centuries?



mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

resource peaks do exist, but fossil fuels arent at the peak and will not be for a long time.

How much is "long time" for you? Years? Decades? Centuries?


decades.



Around the Network
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

resource peaks do exist, but fossil fuels arent at the peak and will not be for a long time.

How much is "long time" for you? Years? Decades? Centuries?


decades.

Even following historical trend doesn't spoil your optimism? :D



 

Helloplite said:

Are you mixing up 'free' with 'true'? There is more plurality of opinion in countries higher up on the index, and less government interference. But that is all this is saying: It is not an indicator of how accurately, or truthfully, citizens are being informed. Just because media is more free, it is not necessarily the case that it is better media.

When the media are free, lying or hiding something from the populace is a lot harder. And when they're politically neutral, which they are here, they rarely have a reason to lie in the first place.

But no, I'm not conflating "free" and "true". I merely said that because his (and your, I presume) media are corrupt and there's a huge crisis going on (so they would have every reason to misinform people), chances are I'm better informed about the situaction in Greece than Greeks are.

Helloplite said:

At the end of the day, what matters the most is what kind of media people listen to. If, for example, you have plenty of objective media outlets, but most people decide to be 'informed' via Fox News, then they will not be receiving objectively fair or accurate news, regardless how free the media in overall are.

That's always a problem. The thing is, media in America are extremely political and act likie echo-chambers. Everybody gets informed by the outlet that tells them what they want to hear.

I wonder why is everyone picking on Fox News, though. I mean it's bad, but not THAT bad... have you ever watched some far-left media? The Young Turks, for example? Whay worse than Fox News.

Helloplite said:

One of the main reasons the Greek index is so low, is exactly because of media corruption. During the last 5 months, and especially in the weeks up to and after the referendum, the vast majority of TV channels -- run by rich supporters of the prior two big parties (ND, PASOK) -- continuously bombarded the people with inaccurate and terrorizing information regarding the meaning of the referendum, the potential outcome, and the anticipated results in Greek economy and society. The people were continuously being told to vote 'YES', as otherwise this would result in 'Grexit'. 

Despite all media propaganda, and there were tons of it, Greeks voted 'NO' regardless -- and guess what? 'Grexit' has yet to occur.

And it will not, because economics may be one aspect of the coin, but politics is always the other.

What are you talking about? Tsipras openly admitted that the referendum was just a show to strengthen his position. He wanted to pass the austerity measures, regardless of whether the Greeks say NAI or OXI and he did. Of course, it failed to give him a better deal in the end anyway, so... this referendum was a waste of time.

Europe doesn't want a Grexit because it would have dire financial consequences for the Euro. So we will bail Greece out time and time again. BUT it will hurt them. A lot.



mai said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

resource peaks do exist, but fossil fuels arent at the peak and will not be for a long time.

How much is "long time" for you? Years? Decades? Centuries?


decades.

Even following historical trend doesn't spoil your optimism? :D


i dont see any probles with the historical trend.  the only problems are the proections and they ave to adust them every year so i dont real care about them.



This discussion has drifted quite a bit. Oh well.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

generic-user-1 said:

i dont see any probles with the historical trend.  the only problems are the proections and they ave to adust them every year so i dont real care about them.

Projections might differ, but I don't see how you could expect it to last for decades with this trend. The fact that in most major local markets the oil production is stagnating at best or quotes from oil companies officials who expect it to decline do not raise any doubts in your prognosis?

Here's another litttle chart for you, was done before that little dive in oil prices. It's not intended to represent any actual data, purely illustratory, to give an idea how the scissors of solvent demand decline and cost of production growth kills cheap oil-based prosperity at accelerated rate. In debt-driven economies the decline in demand is almost a given, so if you expect that some actual oil that's in the ground will be put to a good use, forget it, it stays in the ground -- not enough solvent demand for excavation. That's why btw companies are cutting capex (aka investment into future productive work, long-term goal) in favour of buybacks (aka supporting financial pyramid, short-term goals). Do you expect oil production to grow with cuts in capex, even though before it barely was kept afloat by increasing capex?

BTW just got updated -- peak of EU's electricity generation -- but surely that's because how home appliances and cars got energy efficient these days, not a red flag of nearest future at all :D Not sure in what world you're living in but my water boiler is almost as twice power hungry as this good old buddy from the 70s. Cars and home appliances are indeed more energy efficient in their main tasks, but they do so much more these days at cost of more energy used, and there's so much more of them that I'm not sure how electricity generation could decline without underlying economic problems causing it. It's like saying: hey, we've got more food efficient by eating less food! :D