How About No More Electric Boats?

It is not my assumption. It is, however, the assumption of the economic model where growth is the main goal. The world changes, whether we like it or not.

 

The price of oil has increased because OPEC created a cartel to increase prices by controlling production. 50 years ago, oil was sold at market value.

 

Do you think that De Beers would be happy if large amounts of diamonds were discovered in several places?
Huge areas have been made off limits to even exploration, other known areas are kept "locked up".
If everything was "opened up" and newer more high tech refineries were encouraged we might have 50 cent gas again.
Technology doesn't have to only mean "alternative" energy, tech can also go forward/advance in oil and its uses.
Their are extremely powerful forces operating on a global scale who want more expensive energy costs for "average people".
One of the best ways to get everybody to "fall in line" and accept increasing control of even the more/most mundane areas of life is to make individual transportation increasingly more expensive,, reduce freedom of movement on an individual level, and cram more and more people in mass transit scenarios and higher density housing.
You watch,, it won't be all that long before "boaters" will be seen as "bad" for the "planet" with their wasteful ways,, how dare they indulge their selfish desires using petroleum for frivolous pursuits,, and without emission controls on their engines.
Of course the ultra rich will still have ocean-liner sized yachts and private jets to play with.

 

If we had stayed with the gold standard you would have a more accurate view of the real cost of oil. A 12 ounce cola in a bottle was a nickel plus bottle deposit 80 years ago.

 

I have no relevant experience of 80 year old prices and can't comment. I do know that 80 years ago there was a lot less competition for natural resources because there were a lot fewer people living on the planet. Part of this can be attributed to the progress that has been made in eradicating some unpleasant diseases. Now we need to adapt to a larger and persistent drain on the planet's resources. The scarcer things get, the more they are likely to cost in future. We have to exercise some responsibility.

 

I think this has merit, but not at the scale of each house having its own windmill. Decentralize the grid, yes, but there should be a definable point at which the most benefit (power availability) is achieved with a given use of material. Solar, definitely: panel every roof, but consider one wind farm that could power a small town or maybe a few hundred homes. Long-distance transmission lines are very expensive, use up a lot of land, and when one fails, it results in widespread catastrophe.

To me, one of the most important goals for everyone on the planet is to stop burning anything, as much as possible. The CO2 is bad, but also the heat and water vapor.

And we here in the US should try getting past our notion that every family is entitled to their own separate home with a big yard. The American Dream is killing the planet. And we can build residential structures that keep their occupants at a comfortable temperature much more efficiently. Living closer together makes commute distances shorter--within easy bicycling distance, in the best cases.

 

The American Dream is not killing the planet. The planet is killing the American Dream.

 

The gold (or silver) standard is just as vulnerable to inflation like any other, this has been proven in history. When cola was a nickel most workers made just enough to afford one a week, and their living standard was something like today's Bangladesh. It's not about how much you pay for something, it's about how much you can buy with your wage.

In every economy you have a point where the cost of labour exceeds the cost of the raw materials. If gas is 50c in the US and 50c in China the american worker is still jobless, because the chinese one is cheaper. When China will reach that point the chinese worker is jobless, because the african worker will be cheaper.

The USA experienced a big economic bubble after WW2 because 80% of the worlds industrial capacity was there. After the rest of the world rebuildt, the boom ended. The big problem is that the economy adjusts faster then society, and there are always loosers in this process. Today, the loosers don't die fast enough and society has even more inertia then it used to have, while technological change accelerated dramatically. In simple words, the american dream will not return soon, regardless of how cheap oil gets. It can only return when society manages to ketch up with technology and economy. This is not valid only for the USA, but the inertia seems to be greater there.

Green energy, wind turbines and electric boats are just a sign of the changes to come, just like the invention of the combustion engine and oil refining was a sign of what we have now. You can fight it, and it's probable that lithium batteries will go the way of the sidevalve engine, but for now they are here, and will continue to develop incrementally until something better comes along.

 

Not dying fast enough? How fast is fast enough?
Whoever is left, good luck. You're going to need it with these masterminds.

 

Yes, it has flopped around a bit, but it tends towards reasonable stability.
In 1873, a new Colt Single Action Army could be purchased with 1 ounce of gold, (20 dollars,) with enough left to throw in a box of ammo.
Today, the Colt website still lists the SAA at a price, ($1799,) that's pretty close to what 1 ounce of gold is on the market.
Within a few bucks give-or-take, the purchasing power of gold hasn't changed all that much.

 

Fast enough is when the old people don't get to shape politics and public opinion. Don't you find anything odd with your current and former presidents age?

 

"Stop burning anything" is not likely to happen for a very long time (if at all), even if it is a good idea. It's better if the power plants do the necessary burning where the heat is used to make electric instead of the 80% of energy being dumped and wasted by various types of IC vehicles. Assuming the PP have scrubbers to pick up the nitrogen oxides as well as pollution you listed as much as possible, and that the scrubbers are more easily checked and maintained when not in dispersed locations. A fuel cell power plant would really be better.

 

It's a false equivalence, in 1873 the average worker made ~1$/day, so he could have afforded one or maybe two SAA a month. A new Beretta 92 is 6-700$, how many of those can the average worker afford today?
The dollar was a pretty stable currency during its lifetime, I suggest you look at european currencies over time, you will then see how metal money can "flop around".

 

Not as much of a false equivalence as you might think.
A "Cowboy/Ranch hand/Farm hand", typically got "A dollar a day and found", in other words, a dollar a day plus room and board,
And, they were the lowest on the pay scale, a "minimum wage" worker, if you will.
A Blacksmith, or a metal worker, (a lower middle class,) was in the ~2 1/2>4 1/2 dollar range, (depending upon location,) per day.
A foreman in a furniture/metal working factory might make twice that, 5>10 per day, (solid middle class),, that allowed you to have a fairly comfortable lifestyle.
The plant superintendent,, now he was pushing the "upper middle/lower upper" class, say about 12>20 a day, and could afford domestic help and some "luxury" items, like a vacation cottage at the lake shore.
What really has changed today is the almost universal need for both husband and wife to work to support a family.
Only a couple of generations ago, or so, a middle income man could support a wife and some kids, and still afford to buy a reasonable home, and two cars.
Today it's far different, and the biggest difference is the amount of taxes paid.

 

American currency was stable until the left got their hands on our monetary system.
Don't worry about the old fools. There are plenty of young fools to take over for them.