Image Source: Pixabay

Economists, actuaries, and others tend to make forecasts as if whatever current situation exists will continue indefinitely or will perhaps improve a bit. No one wants to consider the possibility that things will somehow change for the worse. Politicians want to get re-elected. University presidents want their students to believe that their degrees will be truly useful in the future. Absolutely no one wants to hear unfavorable predictions.

The issue I see is that many promises were made during the period between the end of World War II and 1973, when oil prices were very low, and most people assumed that oil supply could grow endlessly. No one stopped to think that this was a temporary situation that likely could not be repeated. If things didn’t work out as planned, debt bubbles could bring down the economy. This was a heading I used in my talk at the recent Minnesota Degrowth Summit:

Figure 1. Text: Our economy has been built as if a growing supply of $20 oil (EROI of 50 – 100) would continue! Simply add more debt if this isn’t true.

In this post, I will provide a few highlights from my recent talk. I also provide a link to a PDF of my Degrowth Summit talk and a link to a Vimeo recording of the summit, which includes a transcript. To access the transcript and an outline of the timings of the various talks, scroll down on the front page of the recording. Joseph Tainter spoke first; there was a recorded section showing clips by other speakers that only online viewers saw, and I spoke last (starting at about 1:55 on the video).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Between 1920 and 1970, US oil supply grew rapidly. The early oil was easy to extract and close to customers wanting to purchase it. There had been warnings from physicists (including, most notably, M. King Hubbert) that this could not go on indefinitely, but most people assumed that any obstacles were far in the future.

Figure 2

Of course, there were other countries producing oil besides the US at that time, so it was possible to purchase imported oil. The US still had some oil it could produce, but it tended to require more complex operations. For example, some of the oil was in Alaska. Bringing this oil to market required working in a cold climate, laying a long pipeline, and using ships to transport the oil to locations with refineries.

Low oil prices were very beneficial to the economy, for as long as they lasted.

Figure 3

We don’t appreciate how important low-cost food is to our personal finances. If food purchases amounts to, say, 50% of available income, necessities such as clothing and housing would take nearly all our income. There would be little left over for optional items. On the other hand, if purchases of food require only 5% to 10% of available pay, there would much more likely be money left over for discretionary purchases, such as buying a vehicle or paying for school tuition for a child.

Oil and other energy products are like food for the economy. During the period when oil prices were very low, there was sufficient margin for purchasing all kinds of “extras,” such as the items listed in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4

In the low-priced oil era, small businesses were sufficient for many types of operations. There was little need for a deep organizational hierarchy, or for advanced energy-saving versions of manufactured devices. Most goods used in the US were made in the US.

Figure 5

Once the economy started to need more complexity, things began to change.

Figure 6

The economy needs a strong middle class to maintain the buying power needed to purchase goods such as vehicles, motorcycles, and new homes, to keep the price of oil up. If the middle class starts to disappear, or if young people start earning less than their parents did at the same age (adjusted for inflation), then it becomes difficult to keep the prices of oil and other energy products up. Prices must be both high enough for producers and low enough for consumers.

Figure 7

Recessions took place when oil prices rose. Governments found that they needed to bail out their economies with more debt when oil prices rose. Since 2008, the ratio of US debt to GDP has skyrocketed. Quite a bit of the added debt has been to pay for programs for poor people and the elderly.

Figure 8. Chart by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, showing the ratio of US public debt to GDP. The ratios would have been even higher if internal debt, such as debt owed to pay for Social Security benefits, were included.

The current level of debt of the US government is widely viewed as being too high. One analysis suggests that if the ratio of government debt to GDP exceeds 90%, economic growth is inhibited. The US debt to GDP ratio is now 120% on the basis shown, which is well above the 90% threshold. One concern is that interest payments on debt already exceed the amount the US spends on defense each year. Taxes need to rise, simply to pay the interest on the debt.

Growing debt, particularly during the Stagflation Stage, is one of the issues mentioned by researchers into so-called secular cycles, which are long-term cycles that take centuries to complete. In the book Secular Cycles by Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, a group of people somehow obtain possession of an area of land (often by cutting down trees or winning a war) that allows the population of the group to temporarily surge. When the population reaches the carrying capacity of the area, population growth greatly slows in a period referred to as Stagflation. Wage and wealth disparity become more of a problem, as does debt.

Eventually, according to Turchin and Nefedof’s study examining eight societies, populations tended to collapse over long periods, ranging from 20 to 50 years. Such cycles are closely related to the periods of growth and collapse analyzed in Prof. Joseph Tainter’s book, “The Collapse of Complex Societies.”

Figure 9. This chart is my chart, using information from the book Secular Cycles. The extent of the decline of the in population during the Crisis Period is quite variable.

The time ahead looks worrying, if my analysis is correct.

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

A few comments for my regular readers:

1. My presentation included 51 slides. Look at the PDF to see the full presentation.
2. Even though I didn’t mention it, having a rapidly growing energy supply at a very high EROI would not be sufficient to forestall collapse indefinitely. Other issues would emerge. Population would rise higher, and pollution would be more of a problem. Eventually, the system would still reach a limit and tend to collapse.
3. I only included EROI because I thought a few people would already be aware of the concept. I didn’t define it or talk about it.
4. My analysis seems to suggest that extenders of fossil fuels, such as wind, solar, and nuclear, need to have very high EROIs. But even with high EROIs, they are unlikely to be helpful for very long because the system would still tend to reach its limits.

More By This Author:

What Has Gone Wrong With The Economy? Can It Be Fixed?
Why Oil Prices Don’t Rise To Consistently High Levels
Worrying Indications In Recently Updated World Energy Data