Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: America's disappearing oil discovery miracle; Germany's new National Socialist movement; NZ youth jobless rate near Egyptian levels; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 11.30 pm in association with NZ Mint.

I welcome your additions in the comments below or via email tobernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.

I'll pop the extras into the comment stream. See all previous Top 10s here.

Number 8 is today's must read on a third progressive movement from Jeffrey Sachs.

1. America hasn't solved its oil shortage - Ambrose Evans Pritchard from The Telegraph made some triumphant claims on October 23 about America having found new sources of oil that would help it save itself (and therefore the rest of us)

Gregor Macdonald does a great job at ChrisMartenson.com of debunking those ideas.

He says claims about the discovery of gas through fracking and the opening up of oil sands does nothing to change the fact American production peaked in 1970 and it remains utterly dependent on oil imports.

It's well worth a read by those thinking peak oil is not really peak oil.

Here's Macdonald and the chart below is sobering:

The production history laid out graphically here is instructive and gives a clear warning: It would be unwise to herald the recent uptick in domestic production with a "new era" headline. Deepwater drilling, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska were all "new era" events in their day as well. Or so they seemed.

Now, three respectable publications have recently cast the advent of new oil extraction in America as a kind of miracle. And indeed, technologically, the refinement of hydraulic fracturing techniques -- first used to extract natural gas, and now used to extract oil -- is miraculous. But a technique such as this, although replicable and repeatable, will not change the fact that newer, unconventional resources are developed and produce oil at a much slower rate. One year after the Black Giant of East Texas was discovered in the early 1930s, it was producing just 1 mbpd. The US no longer has resources such as this to exploit. The history of US oil production over the past 40 years should make this clear.

2. What were they thinking? - The details coming out in the Bridgecorp trial are fascinating. Maria Slade reports at Stuff that some people didn't do much due diligence.

In his statement Rex Warren said he first invested with Bridgecorp in 2004 after being attracted by the company's newspaper advertisements.

He invested $150,000 in capital notes in January 2007. On the first of June that year he sold his house and invested the $1m proceeds with the financier while he decided what to do.

Hamilton dairy farmer Brian Gordon said he put $200,000 with Bridgecorp following a recommendation from the local golfing fraternity.

3. "National Socialist Underground" - Bloomberg reports on the rise of some right wing groups in Germany...

German authorities widened a probe into an underground neo-Nazi cell accused of a series of murders over the last decade, in what Chancellor Angela Merkel called a “disgrace for Germany.”

A suspect, identified as 37-year-old Holger G., was taken into custody yesterday near Hanover, Germany, and is accused of having ties to a group calling itself the “National Socialist Underground,” federal prosecutors said in a statement. Officials raised the specter of a terrorist threat.

4. It's already started - James Grant from Grant's Interest Rate Observer tells Bloomberg in this interview the ECB seems to have already started printing money to buy Italian bonds.

4. (Bonus) Inflation problem - Bloomberg reports India's inflation rate remained above 9% for the 11th straight month in October, meaning it will have to keep tightening monetary policy. Just like China, India may not be able to stoke demand in a slowing developed world.

Asian nations from Indonesia to South Korea are either cutting rates or keeping them on hold to protect expansion as Europe’s debt crisis threatens to trigger a global slump. India’s central bank last month signaled it’s nearing the end of monetary tightening, provided inflation slows, after it raised rates for the 13th time since mid-March 2010.

“Prices are not coming off,” said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at Mumbai-based ratings company Credit Analysis & Research Ltd. “The RBI will have to probably revisit its guidance if inflation remains elevated.”

5. 'Just as bad as Egypt' - Rortybomb describes in detail how US youth unemployment at 25% is now just as bad as it is in some of the 'Arab Spring' countries that have just experienced revolts by the young.

Egypt's youth jobless rate ws 25.4% last year. Oh, and by the way, the unemployment rate for all youth in New Zealand in the September quarter was 23.4%. For Maori youth it was 25.7% and it was 29.8% for Pacific Island youth, Department of Labour figures show.

Here's Rorty:

Is it useful to think of the Occupy movement more as a “left” movement or a “youth” movement?  To answer that question, it’s worth looking into data on the young, particularly as it relates to unemployment.

To leave the United States for a minute, one way people are trying to understand the Arab Spring is through the lens of mass youth unemployment and inequality.  Given how high unemployment has been in these MENA – Middle-East and North African – countries, what else could we expect besides revolution?

6. A scandal is brewing - US congressional leaders got secret briefings from officials during the 2008 crisis and used that information to do insider trading to make profits.

And it's not illegal.

Here's BusinessInsider:

At the height of the financial crisis, Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), then the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, netted tens of thousands of dollars while he was privy to private briefings about the global economic meltdown, according to a new book on congressional insider trading.

And here's Henry Blodget on this:

The fact that Bachus was a member of Congress and traded on private information he received as a result of his job is bad enough. The fact that he was the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee at the time is simply outrageous.

In one case, the day after getting a private briefing on the collapsing economy and financial system from Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson, Rep. Bachus effectively shorted the market (by buying options that would rise if the market tanked.)

A few days later, after the market tanked, Bachus sold his position and nearly doubled his money.

7. Stagnating social mobility - Time's Fareed Zakaria reports Europe (the corrupt old land of feudal systems and corrupt autocracies) now has more social mobility than America (where everyone migrated to to get away from the class structures and overlords).

Evidence shows pretty conclusively that social mobility has stalled in this country. This week, Time magazine’s cover asked, “Can you still move up in America?” The answer, citing a series of academic studies, was, no; not as much as you could in the past and — most devastatingly — not as much as you can in Europe.

The most comprehensive comparative study, done last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, found that “upward mobility from the bottom” — Daniels’ definition — was significantly lower in the United States than in most major European countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark.

A 2010 Economic Mobility Project study found that in almost every respect, the United States has a more rigid socioeconomic class structure than does Canada. More than a quarter of U.S. sons of top-earning fathers remain in the top tenth of earners as adults, compared to 18 percent of similarly situated Canadian sons. U.S. sons of fathers in the bottom tenth of earners are more likely to remain in the bottom tenth of earners as adults than are Canadian sons (22 percent vs. 16 percent). And U.S. sons of fathers in the bottom third of earnings distribution are less likely to make it into the top half as adults than are sons of low-earning Canadian fathers.

8. Today's must read - Jeffrey Sachs sums up a bunch of things at the New York Times. He describes the Occupy Wall St movement as the dawn of a new Progressive era.

The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.

The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. F.D.R.’s New Deal marked the start of several decades of reducedincome inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.

Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.

9. Do family firms make an economy less productive - Stephen Dubner writes about this at Freakonomics, referring to Italy.

Could this be a problem for New Zealand?

Here's Dubner citing the WSJ:

Italy’s economy today is only about 3% bigger than a decade ago. Many factors have contributed to the country’s stagnation—from its rickety education system to its low rates of employment among women, youths and older workers. But a central reason, say economists, is that its private sector consists mostly of small mom-and-pop businesses that seem unable to grow.

Behind the country’s stunted businesses lie the habits and fears of a long line of family entrepreneurs who cling to control of their companies late into life. Hemmed in by a thicket of regulation and legal restrictions, many of these families have learned to survive by doing business within networks of trusted customers and suppliers, rather than taking risks by dealing with outsiders.

“These firms have less propensity to innovate, engage less in research and development and rarely penetrate emerging markets,” said Mario Draghi, ECB President and former Bank of Italy head, in a recent speech.

10. Totally Asif Manvi on the Republican debates and the problem of knowing much more than a soundbite will allow.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.


I'm a good-for-nothing lurker who hangs out each day for candy... namely the top-10.... but I can't wait until 11:41pm.... it's just too late... Oh, by the way.... what you doing up this late BH?

If you burn the candle at both ends you (apparently) run out of candle....

Fair enough. Filing this from Invercargill. Speaking at a Farmers conference tomorrow. Been traveling this afternoon.

Also spoke this afternoon at Insurance Council conference in Auckland.

Helps pay the bills and always nice to get out of the office.

But does make Top 10 a bit late. One a day.



And here's why China might be easing.


China's biggest commercial banks face systemic risks if a combination of credit, property, currency and yield curve shocks that could be withstood in isolation were to occur together, the International Monetary Fund warned on Tuesday.

But China can contain these dangers by freeing up financial markets to give investors, commercial banks and the central bank greater autonomy from government control, the fund said in its first-ever review of the Chinese financial system.

While not predicting an imminent disaster, the IMF made clear China needed to act quickly because it is vulnerable to destabilizing asset price booms.

"The existing configuration of financial policies fosters high savings, structurally high levels of liquidity, and a high risk of capital misallocation and asset bubbles, particularly in real estate," the IMF said.

5) The most important, but forgotten generation.

 NZYouth unemployment skyrocketing comes to no surprise. As long as the leaders of our government think our economy is oddly assorted by some bankers, agro – scientists, horse breeders, Olly’s and a few IT acrobats, but forget that the majority of the population need a craftsman job in a skilled trade - we are in real trouble - way beyond 12:55 am.

I cannot sleep, because of these bloody idiots - greedy corrupt bankers, stupid councils and megalomaniac parliamentarians ruining our country/ world.

When the sun comes up and I'm still heho - I’m going off  -- with a baeng !

It's well worth a read by those thinking peak oil is not really peak oil.

Well so-called ‘Peak Oil’, Bernard, has to be thought of in a global context and not just a US one. The American’s may or may not have reached the peak of their oil production, but even if they have they are still able to source oil from the global market, as can we all. So what really matters is the global production of oil, and when that will run out, or does it............................. Watch this space!

By the way, why are you such a supply side freak when it comes to oil? The other side of the equation is demand, correct? The timing of Peak oil will be as much a function of demand as it will be of supply. Why do you assume that the demand for oil will remain constant or increase? Why can’t or shouldn’t it in actual fact decrease? For example the use of fuels in New Zealand has actually declined over the last 12 months according to Z energy. What if that was to continue both here and around the world?

You seem to be discounting any possibility of human ingenuity permanently reducing the demand for oil in the future, or efforts towards that end in the present. That’s a big call, don’t you think? What do they say about necessity being the mother of all invention, and you think that can’t happen with oil?  While I can understand the obsessive peak oil fruity-loops doing that, I am disappointed when the rational start to thoughtlessly do it as well.  

David B check this out - the last chart is particularly challenging.


Chindia will mop up any decrease in the oil depressed nations will forgo, while the depletion goes on relentlessly.

Well worth debating. Have a full look at Gregor's piece and his many other pieces on oil supply and demand.

On the supply aspect, China is expected to add 200 million cars to its roads in the next decade, which will add about 5 million barrels of oil a day in demand.


Our projections showed that by 2030, China could have more highway vehicles than the United States has today, and by 2035, it could have the largest number of highway vehicles in the world. By 2050, China could have 486–662 million highway vehicles, 44 million motorcycles, and 28 million rural vehicles


Here's the latest forecasts from OPEC


Worldwide consumption will increase by 5.3 percent to 92.9 million barrels a day in the next four years, led by emerging Asian economies, OPEC said today in its annual World Oil Outlook. The 2015 estimate is 1.9 million barrels more than last year’s forecast.

Well let me cut to the chase. One of the weaknesses in these reports is that they almost always focus purely on the supply side of the equation and never make any allowance for the possibility that there might in fact be a change in the demand for oil brought about through technical improvements in engine efficiency or the invention of new fuel manufacturing processes.  Or when they do, they dismiss these potential gains by saying that they will be so small that they won't matter by playing the China card. The argument goes that it doesn't matter what sort of improvements get made to engine efficiency, these will simply be swamped by the vastly increased demand for oil from China - as though somehow the Chinese are automatons and their car loving destiny awaits them without question or change.

What these reports forget of course is that China is a one-party dictatorship. If the politburo decides that it is not in China's best interests that it should have 400 million private vehicles on the road, then it won't have them. And that will be the end of the matter. It will not be open to negotiation, not by the Chinese people or by anybody else. That's how China works. It is an assumption that there will be an explosion in the number of private vehicles on the road in China, and that assumption may be incorrect.

At the moment there are major improvements in engine efficiency that are still ongoing. Both the Federal Government of the United States and many States within it have passed laws that require certain fuel efficiencies and CO2 emission standards to be reached. And car manufacturers are stepping up to the plate to deliver on those requirements. Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, diesel cars that can get 3.4L/ 100 km!  LPG and CNG fuelled cars, all reducing the demand for oil. For goodness sake, we have even just had the Boeing Dreamliner out here that uses 20% less fuel. Blend into that 20% jet biodiesel and that plane will be using 40% less fuel than a typical aircraft. That is an enormous difference. And the cost implications for the airlines have not gone unnoticed by them either! Ever hear the peak oil darlings talk about that? Who ever heard of a hybrid car 20 years ago? And none of this will have any effect on the global demand for oil? We’re all stuck in the 70s driving V8s whether we like it or not???

The approach of coupling increases in engine efficiency with the increasing use of clean energy biofuels is a major focus of innovation, research and development almost everywhere else in the world other than New Zealand (thank god in truth) and it is far more advanced than many New Zealanders suppose. We, i.e., the scientific community, can do things now that were simply not possible even 10 years ago, and that can and will and are having a major impact on the production of sustainable biofuels. I won’t go into all the details or what is going on out there because I just love reading all the peak oil know-it-alls wailing and gnashing their teeth about our impending doom. Believe me, it ain’t gonna happen. I will however provide one New Zealand example (the only one too I think?) with Lanzatech that is turning waste CO2 from steel mills into biofuels. What peak oil fruity-loop would have thought that such a thing was even possible? And how many of them even bother to carefully and dispassionately think the issue through and incorporate these approaches – and there are many of them, it is astounding what is actually going on, what is being invented, what is being trialled, and what pilot plants that are out there - into their demand models for oil and hence when its peak will be reached. Did Hubert or Hubbard or whatever his name is do it back in the 50s? How could he? Science didn’t even know the structure of biological molecules back then, let alone how they were made. How could he know what the future was going to be and how that might affect the demand for oil?

The assumption that the demand for oil cannot go down, or will not go down as these technological developments are released to market, or that the imperative of global warming will not act as a powerful motivator for consumers to adopt these technologies as a means to reduce their consumption of oil, is grossly naive in my view. In addition, the suggestion that access to these new technologies will somehow bypass China and India, and therefore have no effect on their demand for oil, well frankly, that is just bizarre.

OMG it may be worth you looking into GTL or CTL developments in Australia. I did a quick hunt this morning because I know NHC (new hope coal) are experimenting with it. References are made in various places to Australia moving beyond self sufficiency in oil mid decade. The have plenty of natural gas and coal to convert though. I would be looking to see movement into our coal fields for the same reason. Of course there are still EROI considerations:)

Yes lets cut to the chase...


1) Everyone in the world thats 7billion wants the lifestyle of the developed world which is about 1.5 billon...so to have say china which lets say is another 1.5billion ppl all wanting to use petrol like lets say europeans wh are more efficient just isnt going to happen.....the old projections of 130mbpd by 2030 just wont work....

Consider that engine technology would have to improve efficiency by 50%...it might do 5%....so its a factor out.

2) We are on a finite planet.

3) You are so politically blinkered that any words from you are dubious at best....

4) The chinese Govn is riding a dragon it can barely control....that dragon wants feeding and consumerism or the govn are its two choices....

You are living in a right wing make believe world...it will crash and badly in 5 at most 10 years......

The rest I will reply to later...I have a coffee to finish first.


Oh yes, I see the usual flat earth suspects are out in force again defending the ramparts of their self-imposed bunker. Of course, Steven, exactly the same thing about being politically blinkered could be said of you. In fact I think I’ve even said it.

The two dots that you don’t seem to be able to join Steven are that fuel - oil, coal, petrol etc. - are biological products, they are not physical ones like gold or silver which are indeed finite resources on the planet. I don’t think you really understand that, what that actually means, and I’m not sure you ever will. The implications of a biological planet are profound and sadly lost on you. And what does your lack of true understanding mean? No imagination and no vision just doom and gloom.

huh?  you are so full of bullsh*t it isnt true....You are the flat earther if you think we have an ever increasing supply of energy to use at whim. Oil is indeed biological, and finite as in effect it will take a long time to replace using annual sun to convert the co2 back to oil has a time scale that  in effect makes fossil fuels just like gold....one off use...

There is a difference between vision, imagination and fantasy....I look at the reality of engineering....and science.....Im not sure what you are looking at at all...if anything.....



I can't pass judgement on your engineering insights, Steven, but I can on your scientific ones. You don't understand science at all.

David – with your well meaning article you are stumbling over your own buddies – money drunken right wing lobby groups - acting all over the world.


....and David remember :Looking into current developments on many fronts – the world will never recover again, simply because among the powerful in societies ethic and moral requirements and standards don’t prevail

biofuels are a per annum energy source in effect.....the key points are,

a) Energy return on energy invested.....Ive not yet seen a biofuel technology at 10 or 12 to 1 which is the approx return to support our current complex society....if its under 8 to 1 it will not work......

b) Our entire economic system requires abundant energy at no more than $50USD equiv a barrel.

c) To grow global GDP at 4% per annum we need 2.5% more of it every year.

d) Scale....it needs to be here today and cheap in order to start scaling it up at 6.5% per year or so from now on....(4% decline in fossil feuls and 2.5% increase in demand). You clearly cant see the scale of the issue and the time to fix it.

e) timelag...in effect the v8s on the road today will be with us for 20 years.....so switching to battery tech even if it were possible en mass is going to take in excess of a decade.....

f) Fossil fuel demand is in-elastic this means that it takes a substantial increase in cost to have a small decrease in use.....

g) We use 15TW of energy per year....most of it fossil fuels....and we have no viable alternative beyond some theories.

Conclusion we are about to hit a brick wall economicially and at high speed.....the limited mess we see now is because the oil industry has managed to keep us on a production plateau for 5 years, the odds on them doing it for 5 more are poor....




The problem with the ‘peak oil” argument is that it is based on some very shaky fundamentals. The first assumption peak oil always makes is that the US has somehow sucked all it’s available oil out of the ground. This simply isn’t true. The main reason that US oil production “peaked” in the 70’s was because most oil producers simply shut their pumps off. They didn’t shut them off because they ran out; they shut them off because it wasn’t economically viable to run them. Up into recently it was actually cheaper just to leave the oil in the ground and buy it from overseas sources. Now that finding oil in the US will pay for the equipment, labor, and exploration cost we should see a rise in both production output and oil discoveries in the US.

The next assumption peak oil makes is the discoveries worldwide are tailing off. They simply draw a downward slope from the current number of discoveries and extrapolate that we must be running out of oil. The problem with this argument is that you could have made the same extrapolation in every dip year. That means you could have projected the world running out of oil in the mid 1930’s, the mid 1940’s, 1970, and the strongest extrapolation would have occurred the early 90’s. There was also a strong peak oil argument back in the 80’s. The problem is that it never followed that downward extrapolation.

Could we be seeing peak oil? Sure. But I only deal with objective evidence and NOT assumptions and extrapolations based on flawed statistical methods that happen to coincide with a price crash in the US domestic market.

BTW Tom Murphy has a great pro-peak oil argument here but his main argument is also propped up by these same underlying assumptions but still well worth the read.

While everybodies eye is on the peak oil debate the peak minerals and peak water slide by under the radar, but the consequences are just as great.

Take a journey though the USGS website and see the known reserves for yourself. I would think that mineral reserves are a lot more accurate than oil.

That is my point. Humans tend to focus on the wrong problems. We notice a 0.23 degree Celsius per decade warming trend of the earth’s atmosphere and we blame CO2 which is a very ineffective greenhouse gas. The entire CO2 debate is based on what we are seeing happening on Venus. Venus is another planet, which we still barely understand, and that is much closer to the sun…that is an absurd basis for a scientific theory. I always ask scientist, “What if Venues wasn’t there? Would you still base you warming models on CO2?”

We are using the same illogical arguments with oil depletion. We focus on the oil debate when Helium and Prosperous depletion is a much more likely immediate concern.

My comments weren't solely directed at you btw, I hope all those that have posted read it.

I think the reason we get sidetracked always comes back to money and power. Follow the money trail and see who gets to benefit.

I think it is also human nature to ride a resource to depletion without actually preparing for the event.

I think it is also human nature to ride a resource to depletion without actually preparing for the event.

Archaeological and historical evidence agree.  As does market research on consumer behaviour with giant economy sizes of anything - give the average person a huge bag of washing powder or rice or whatever, and they'll treat it as infinite, not conserve at all, waste it without caring, right up until they're hitting the bottom of the sack and realise that it is finite after all, and they'd better start using half-scoops.

When I appraise the current economic situation around the globe I don't bother to offer solutions or look at what 'should' be done. I take a step back from that and look at it in terms of what will likely happen based on human behaviour (which there are precedents for), and it helps to look at the behaviours that got us there in the first place.

I mean are not the markets simply the collective actions of people? So to me there can not be anything more important than the understanding of the humans that drive this whole mess.

People will in general take the greedy options unless there is significant incentive to do otherwise. They will also cling to power, sometimes to their own end as has been witnessed with several dictators of late.


There seem to be so many people who have opinions about what 'should' be done, and invariably the things that 'should' be done, are almost ever done.  People on the other hand, can be relied upon to behave like people and their behaviour is a far more reliable way IMO of predicting what will happen (in any situation involving people):

1) If you're waiting for someone to do something, and they have the choice of doing it or not doing it, then they will not do it.

2) If someone has a choice of doing something the way they have always done it, or the choice of thinking about a different way, along with all that is involved in making the different way work as well as or better as the original way, they will choose the way they have always done it.

Now that I write it done I see that 1 & 2 can be summarised by saying that people are generally lazy.


Well put MartinV.....and as a perfect example of your well thought out theory......

 Bolly does nothing because he believes that doing nothing can cause the least affect in any given situation.......but he has taken it to another level beyond your theory, in that he added .....

Wait and see to do nothing  and in doing so created surety in nothingness.

The question I now pose for  your consideration is.

Could  we leave no one in charge of doing nothing if nothing is being done, and if not, what  would be considered a reasonable remuneration for such a position.

 I ask this as there are I'm sure many people available as we speak who would excell  in this field at a reasonable rate of remuneration.


On the other hand there is the situation where your car breaks down in the desert.  You could sit in the car and hope for rescue.  This could be considered as doing nothing.  I choose to do nothing.  You could also leave the car and walk off in search of help.  This would be considered as doing something - taking positive action.  Thinking logically, of primary importance is the outcome - live or die.  Secondary is the behaviour as perceived by outsiders.

Usually staying in the car in such a situation is the most likely to lead to rescue.

Of course the one who is found dead in his car in the desert will be viewed and remembered as a wuss.


Such wisdom, Martin V....and your closing statement will be the encapsulation of Bolly's career .

Best run of posts I've ever read here. Kudos to Troy, scarfie, kakapo, MartinV, christov.

When money is depleting, we have a completely new, different scenario - basic human needs are on top of the list – food, shelter and water. Oil and other resources become secondary.

money = energy = oil

What absolute garbage.  That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is fundamental atmospheric science.


So tell me, if I converted the atmosphere to money and said it was worth $1000, how much would the CO2 component equal? At ~70% of the atmoshpere, the nitrogen would be worth ~$700, right? So how much would the CO2 be worth?

Here ya go


“Greenhouse” gases :

Gases in an atmosphere that are believed to absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the ‘greenhouse effect’. The most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is Water Vapour at about 0.4% overall and  typically 1%-4% at surface. Less concentrated greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (0.035%), methane (0.0001745%), nitrous oxide (0.00003%), ozone (0%-7×10-6%), and chlorofluorocarbons.

Looking at the same facts using an analogy:

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it definitely created by human activity.  Let’s go for a walk along it.

  • The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
  • The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
  • That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.  20 metres to go.
  • The next 10 metres are water vapour.  10 metres left.
  • 9 metres are argon.   Just 1 more metre.
  • A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
  • The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.  A bit over one foot.
  • 97% of that CO2 is produced by Mother Nature.  It’s natural.
  • Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.  Just over a centimetre – about half an inch. That’s the amount of CO2 that global human activity has put into the atmosphere.

This is no conspiracy theory it is basic science. Go grab an encyclopaedia and check for yourself if you don’t believe it. Then look into how much money Governments are going to make from taxing CO2 (billions) and how much Banks are going to make from Carbon Trading (trillions)

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about that carbon taxing will not address one iota, irrespective if, despite the absurdity of the politically and financially fuelled argument, it actually causes a “catastrophic” change in the weather.

More here


Thanks OMG, but I know all that. I was asking Andrew R the question not you, because I had a follow up question to ask him if he had answered the question correctly.

But since you have answered it correctly and have pointed out how small the CO2 component of the atmosphere is, this is the question I was going to ask Andrew.

Let’s say you put 1000 shivering and naked people into a field on a cold night. And let’s say, each person represents a component of the atmosphere (much like your analogy OMG). And let’s randomly disperse the CO2 people throughout the 1000, and we will rely on the CO2 people to warm everyone else up. Because CO2 is a green house gas and it’s blamed for warming the planet.

So the question is:- How many CO2 people would there be in the crowd?

The answer, None. Because there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to constitute a whole person. I think there’s enough for a pair of legs. (1000 people x 0.035% = 0.35 people!)

So the important question then becomes, if CO2 is causing global warming, what is the mechanism by which it is doing that, because at such a low concentration, it seems difficult to see how two legs can warm 1000 people!

So I too am a ETS sceptic.

Your analogy is a bit too simplistic but here are a couple more things to make your “legs” even worse.

  1. C02 is only 60% effective at absorbing radiation so only 60% of your legs are even contributing to any re-radiation.
  2. Not all re-radiation is back towards earth…so 50% is re-radiated into space. Unless there is some law of physics I’m unaware of that allows 100% of absorbed radiation to only be re-radiated back towards earth.  That would be some smart CO2 YO!

I can see the t-Shit now “CO2…its Smart!”

  1. CO2 is only an effective greenhouse molecule in a small region of the upper atmosphere.
  2. The CO2 in the upper atmosphere is only re-radiating and therefore “warming” half the earth per day. The earth tends to revolve around is axis so not all CO2 is contributing to warming all the time.

All said only about 1.5% of your “legs” are even contributing to actual greenhouse effect. So if we are to believe the efficacy of CO2 as touted in the news that means that CO2 is so effective and sensitive at greenhouse warming that we should have seen a jump of 30 degrees Celsius of warming over the past 50 years with the jump of 200 ppm increase of atmospheric CO2.  Instead we have only seen a 0.23 degrees Celsius increase we can measure over the last 30 years.

SO SOZ your CO2 is FAIL!

It needs to be simple for some of the half-wits around here!

David – even I do understand now – what you are saying – it is bloody shivering on a cold night 1000 naked people - putting into a field.

Your question is inane.  It is like saying that an active drug in a pill is worth very little because most of the pill is packing agent.

The basic fact is that without carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (including water vapour) this planet would be too cold for life.  So you have a thousand dollars and there is this small percentage of stuff (0.035%)  that is necessary for survival -- are you seriously saying that it is only worth 35 cents?


By the way what is an ETS sceptic -- I have never heard of one of those before.  If it is that you are sceptical that this government's ets scheme is robust enough to do much more than transfer $100 billion to industry and farming between now and 2050 with little effect on carbon emission levels, I too am an  ETS sceptic.  


As far as the mechanism by which carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas I suggest you go away and read some basic science.

You are missing the point, deliberately so too I might add so you can avoid answering the question. The challenge for you is to explain how such a small fraction of the atmosphere that CO2 is can possibly cause the heating of such a large surrounding atmospheric mass. Money, distance and people were just simple analogies to highlight just what a tiny percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is, and to highlight the obvious difficulties inherent in trying to pin global warming on such a tiny amount of the atmosphere’s mass without a sound scientific mechanism to explain how it does it. And you haven’t provided an explanation to explain that, and I, and I’m sure many others, would love it if you do.  And if a satisfactory explanation cannot be found, can you then explain why it is necessary for us to be in the ETS?

Believe me, I have read all the basic science books I need to, and when examined on them, I’ve passed all the tests. And it’s because of that, that I am asking the question.

and why would that matter?

What is food worth? life? society? carry on warming to 4~6.5Deg C+ by 2150 and none of these is likely....


I'm not sure why we are debating the science of global warming on a economics forum. I chimed in because I see some mischievous mis-information being circulated.  If these theories have any truth to them, why not publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

AGW in economics, well there is a cost implication.....if you accept the science as true then morally you have to spend money out of your pocket to protect your children's future from your damage.....the denier industry shows how morally bankrupt some ppl are.

(Peer reviewed) Because,

1) They know full well they cant win in a proper court so they are doing it via the kangaroo court of public opinion.

2) They do put forward garbage for peer review and it gets rejected. The BEST report's conclusion is funny especially when you look at the context.....sponsored by (paid for) the right wing anti-AGW ppl and supported by the denier industry.....then it concludes that actually the numbers are very robust and good science/maths....

3) There isnt really any good science or math on the denier side....we certainly see a lot of ignorant,  politically, and/or religous biased ppl who dont undertand and dont want to.....but really they are minimal in number.....just very noisey....


First off correlation is not causation. So just because there is a warming trend at the same time there is CO2 increase IS NOT proof that CO2 is the cause. CO2 increase could easily be a symptom of the warming. Nobody can tell for sure.

Secondly I never said CO2 WASN’T a greenhouse gas I only said it was a very ineffective greenhouse molecule and the science behind is based on what little we know about another planet in our solar system.  If CO2 were responsible for all the warming we are seeing when you do a back of the envelop calculation on it efficacy it is ether the scariest gas known to man or way over blown as an effective warming molecule. In fact, if the opposite were true and the earth was going through a mini ice age I’m 100% sure atmospheric scientist would be recommending other more effective molecules.

Changes in temperature causes changes in CO2? That's a good one. There are chemicals which are way more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (methane is one) but it still does the job very well. If it didn't this planet would be too cold for us to live on.

Actually. Yeah that can happen. The Earth warms up and releases sequester CO2.

As for keeping us warm, water vapor is the most effective at trapping heat. If we are relying on CO2 to keep us warm we would turn into a frozen snowball. This is my entire point.

I’m sorry if I’m challenging the dogma you have been spoon-fed your whole life but the math doesn’t lie and CO2 sucks as a greenhouse gas.

True, but water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively constant and absorbs different radiation spectra. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html  

When CO2 is a  an infra red blocking gas as demonstrated by basic scientific proof /experiement (that is something like 200 years old) you cannot logically / scientifically argue that the item/mass trapped in this envelope is not going to warm as energy from the sun passes into it. and then cant escape, this is basic maths/thermodynamics....

Just because you show here what little you l now does not mean real scientists and engineers know as little...




I’m just imagining your large bag around the earth trapping everything…LOL!!

Last time I checked the Earth was an Open System! That is an engineering term used to describe a system that in NOT a closed volume.

New Shirt “CO2...ITS A TRAP!”

This chart would look good on a Tshirt to educate the brainwashed.


( apologies to David B for jumping in -couldn't help myself - the Co2 made me do it LOL )

I can’t speak to the authenticity of the math behind that graph but it certainly lines up with my earlier argument. I keep trying to tell people that trying to measure the efficacy of CO2 in our atmosphere using blackbody radiation equations is like measuring the mass of a peanut on the back of an elephant using a scale that only has a resolution of single Kg’s.

Who owns the Moon...don't laugh this is serious stuff...that thing has a zillion tons of Helium3 on it...if Beijing manages to poke a red flag into the cheese...they might just claim the lot...which is what the Amercians forgot to do....what a fluff that was...

Well they got a flag up there on it Wolly....or in the studio.... or somewheres like it....!

 Looks as if they want to claim it ...the'll have to hitch a ride......

hey Cosmo..! you going my way..?

Arrrrhhhh but they didn't say that stuff about claiming it in the name of the land of the free...err those not in jail for protesting about it not being free....

The more interesting question will be that salvage rights of the equipment left up there. Are international maritime salvage laws applicable to space?

Ah no Troy ..... the lack of water between us creates a whole new salvage  arrangement..!


I have a pretty damn good lawyer that could easily argue that quantum mechanics dictates that space is a fluid.

Is Winston still practising.........?

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhh me ol Gypsy camper....I'm sure they'll dig up some old tapes from studio 54 and clen em up till they say all the right stuff...

There's a bit o paper attached to the pole...it says something like... This moon awaiting resource consent for 2030 high rise projects.  

Quick answer: Nobody. It’s a bit like Antarctica the UN has passed rules saying no government can own the moon. However, that hasn’t stopped privet citizens in the US trying to sell pieces of it on Ebay!

That UN doddle only applies on this rock and only to Antarctica....the moon's up for grabs Troy...mmmmmmmmmmmmmall that cheese...maybe Fonterra will want it....Now we know why Beijing has been going flat stick to be next...or is that first....say how come we aint seen no Hubble bubble pics of the footprints and whatnot....could they fake that too....bloke don't know what to believe any more...first it was all that guff about democracy...then Helen's promises...now the landing on the Stilton.

Maybe next time you get shine from that rocket fuel gut rot  you indulge in.....you just might glimpse some intellectual property rights of you own there ....me ol' cadet. 

not any more Troy....now I'm sure even Winston could argue it.....well whadda we waitin for ..!

You mean thermodynamics and this is what my Marine HND and B.Eng is in...

....and you hit the nail onthe head except you really dont understand it at all, that is totally clear.

.....CO2 takes a fairly open system in balance (or steady state) and reduces the rate that heat that escapes via radiation. This is a scientific proof/experiment from the 18th century....so you are more ignorant than someone born 200 years ago....maybe you should ponder that. So therefore the system internally which is our planet has to absorb the heat.....  

The reduction in heat/energy escaping is is a very simple Thermodynamic / mathematical model.  For a steady state, little more than A level maths at the macro level...for instance we know pretty accurately the mass of the earth and the surface areas, volumes and overall compositions/densities in play.....we know the heat energy per m2 from the sun.....etc etc..

The problems come from the planet / mass not being uniform.....and we are interested in climate and food chain impacts which is not simple, direct maths.


I don’t think you understand the science at all or you’re not objective enough to make an informed opinion. I think you understand just enough science to be dangerous. Maybe you have a confirmation bias and your Armageddon mentality is overriding your engineering prowess to use critical analysis. You have just convinced yourself that a table top experiment done a few hundred years ago somehow accurately demonstrators what is happening at a macro scale. Many table top experiments do a great job of explaining macro scale questions but others do not scale properly. The table top experiments can be accurate but your first assumption is based on extrapolation (i.e. the table top experiment accurate represents the entire system). Using the table top experiments and what is happening on Venus you are starting from an assumption and then looking for science to back up that premise.

You are then using blackbody large scale macro equations to then work your way backwards towards the table top experiment. Your next extrapolation is using macro assumptions and then using these large numbers and assuming they are accurate enough to the required significant digits to even codify a system. There is a big difference between making a few macro assumptions and then assuming what you have left must be a resulting of a particular gas that is in parts per million concentrations and looking at what is really happening at a micro level. Form a micro perspective CO2 just isn’t very good at trapping heat. If you had a macro level system that is predicting with scientific certainty what should be happening at the micro level, I’ll be the first person in line touting it. It’s on a similar vein as quantum mechanics just not jiving with relativity.  Until we can resolve the Micro/Macro disconnect it’s going to be a tough slog to convince other people with scientific or engineer backgrounds no matter how convince the math sounds.  

I was once like you…I was a vehement environmentalist. Then I stopped listing to the data supplied by greenwash groups like Greenpeace and started looking at these “problems” myself. If you want to say that the earth is warming...you will get no argument from me. There is plenty of objective evidence suggesting the earth is warming 0.23 degrees C per decade. If you want to talk about how CO2 is wreaking havoc in the oceans…again you will get no argument from me there is plenty of evidence of too much CO2 in the oceans and overfishing have created vast underwater deserts. Speaking of deserts if you want to talk about how desertification and global drying is a “recent” macro problem you will get no argument from me. If you want to talk about how the earth is over populated and we are going to run out of resources at some point in the future…again you will get no argument from me.  But if you want to use foolish math and tout it as “predictive science” then you and I will have problems. CO2 based global warming is a based on a junk premises backed up by junk science masquerading as solid math.

EDIT: If I’m wrong then nothing changes…but if you’re wrong then that means we wasted time focusing on a silly molecule and missed the real underlying problem. I can see 30 years from now when we finally figured out what really transpired and then everyone will look back at the last 20 years (circa 2000) and say how stupid we all were for missing the underlying problem and how being so fixated on CO2 left us blind to the obvious.



'Peak oil' is not about running out of oil (that will take at least 100 years), it is about resource extraction rates and the flawed statiscal model has proven itself again and again (US lower 48, North Sea). AFAICS there is no empirical evidence for your assertions, Discoveries did 'peak' in the 1960's, the ones they find now are getting smaller and smaller.

Hubbert estimated the world peak around 2000 and pushed it out a little if the Middle East/OPEC restricted production so it may turn out he vary freakily accurate.

Oil is used in the production of all other resources as far as i know, so if we have reached peak then all resources will be affected. The interesting thing i find in a lot of opinions like yours is that you talk about 'Money' that is going to be available for the extraction of more oil like its a tangible thing, but as money is debt (Galbraith), Debt is supported by growth and Growth is underpinned by energy consumption growth and the main for of energy is Oil then this logic trips up on its own bootstraps




First of all I never argued anything about money. So I’m not even sure what your point is. BTW money isn’t debt its confidence. But that is another topic.

My argument is the Hubbert’s estimates about claiming that the US peak production was in the 1970’s and therefore the US is running out of Oil is completely flawed. There is a big difference between production reductions because there is less of a particular resource and production reduction because it’s more economical to stop the pumps and buy cheaper oil elsewhere. The US effectively stopped the pumps and started buying it oil elsewhere because it was cheaper to do so NOT because they were dependent on imports. There are a lot of pragmatic and shady reasons for this. But the bottom line is that the US just stop looking and pumping till recently. In fact, there are early indications that the US might be a net exporter of oil this year. Oil is now at a price point where it makes since to turn the pumps back on. Now when Hubbert’s made his legendary estimates about the US domestic oil production was he right because the US actually ran into peak oil or because they just stopped pumping expensive oil and bought cheaper, high quality, oil overseas? You can make an argument ether way.

As for the number of discoveries, claiming that since the number of discoveries are fewer and far between so therefore when must be running out is as ridiculous a notion as thinking there is plenty of oil in the ground to last forever. My point is that the number of discoveries has decreases at least other times in the past and yet oil was found after those events too. So if anything if you want to use past data to make “estimates” there is a stronger case to be made that we are on the verge of another discovery boon. I don’t necessarily believe that but it is what the data is saying if you really want to read the patterns.

My main point is stop being fooled my randomness and making hyperbolic estimates.

"The problem with the ‘peak oil” argument is that it is based on some very shaky fundamentals."


You drill a hole into a previously untouched oil field.  Oil gushes out.  Great.  Drill another hole and more oil comes out.  Keep drilling more holes and you get more and more, but soon it doesn't gush out as fast from the first hole as it used to and so you use other techniques such as squirting in sea water to effectively push the oil out.  Some of the water you push in will come out with the oil.  Need more oil, keep drilling more holes.  Push water in faster.  As the oil in the field depletes the portion that is water coming out increases.  At some point because of the increased ratio of water coming out, you cannot drill wells fast enough, and cannot keep pushing enough water in in order to get more oil out.  Your field has peaked and it's all downhill from there on.

This behaviour is well understood for individual oil fields.

It's a simple step to go from one oil field to all the oil fields on the planet.  World output will peak, then decline.

What exact shape this curve will have, particularly on the downside is quite open for debate.  The general shape however is clear - roughly bell shaped.

It is unfortunate that our standard of living is quite closely tied to consumption of oil.  We need oil to feed, water and shelter the 7 billion on the planet.

Of course there's more bad news, such as the fact that oil is required to extract useful stuff like copper at the concetration of 1kg per 500kg of rubble, simply because all the better concentration stuff is gone.  So if your oil extraction peaks, your ability to extract minerals peaks.  So instead of more and more each year, it's less and less.  The world economy doesn't function well with less and less.  Individuals don't like less and less either, as we're seeing in many places around the world...



Hum. You’ve veered so far off topic form what my initial point is I’m not even sure where to start with this. In fact, I don’t even recall making any argument against the physics of oil and mineral extraction. In fact I’m totally a fan of the laws of physics so you won’t get any argument out of me about basic oil and mineral extraction. I’m pretty sure I was making an argument about extrapolation and misusing past data to make wild assumptions about future output.

I must have mis-understood what you wrote.  When you said

"The problem with the ‘peak oil” argument is that it is based on some very shaky fundamentals."

I thought you were fobbing off peak oil as nonesense.

The idea itself is based on fundamentals and I don't see how it can be rejected.

I would agree that one has to be careful about extrapolation and how data are interpreted.  As many people who publish predictions don't seem to take such care it is unfortunately often left to the individual to think and decide whether what they are presented with does make sense, or is utter rubbish.


Peak oil is based on very sound geological principles, the fisrt is that we are on a finite planet, ergo at some point we have to reach a point of maximum supply production and then decline.

"Shut their pumps off" is laughable........

US production is risning at the shale oils are tapped, however that is going to tail off and drop...and its nothing in world demands.

The rest is even more rubbish....if you are planning your financial future based on this pick a brdge to live under is my advice...its looking crowded.



Here is some direct evidence of the US “turning the pumps back on”


Them old coots should go south for the winter anyway...imagine being stuck in North Dakota all bleeding winter....find a nice warm beachfront cottage in a safe part of mexico...if there are any left...make the pension stretch.

What I want to know is who is renting on a fix income and thinks that is a sustainable idea?

Yes, people on a fixed income should be out there buying up houses.

Not “buying” but “bought”…like 30 years ago. A modest size house in North Dakota 30 years ago would have only cost about $40K-$60K USD.

Troy..."Thanks to new drilling techniques that make it possible to tap once-unreachable caches of crude," this isnt anywhere 2 mbpd and increasing it every annum......get you head around scale and time frames because you clearly do not at present.

Also consider why they are going for such caches / left overs and how much nonsense your silly conspiracy idea is about the valves being closed to save the oil for later for a bigger profit this makes.



Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Do you actually know anybody that owns an oil field? I do! It has been passed down and inherited several times. Every year they crunch the numbers to see whether they should turn the pumps on or not. This is not an isolated situation that are many mom-and-pop companies that ether have disused equipment or fields that have remained untapped for 40 or more years.

Let’s put it this way, would you mine gold in your own back yard if you could buy it at a fraction of the price from someone else mine? Why mine your own reassures and wait till the price rises to make in profitable.


If you are as I suspect talking about a stripper well then they currently produce 15% of US production out of 400,000 wells and I don't see how they alone can offset deline else where (Cantarel in mexico for example). When you say crunch the numbers that is because these lift wells take energy to operate so its a circular argument






Are you saying that you can pump strippers out of a well? Even at 15% thats a lot. How many do we need?

I need to start digging....

As long as it female strippers.....


Its all about flow rate...."and when that will run out"......I dont know whether its ignorance, blinkers or what with you...its not about "run out"....we wiill still have some oil in 2050.....just no where near enough by then to run our global econaomy as it is today let alone how 9billion would like it to be 40 yeasr from now....

Its all about flow.....peak oil flow....which was for crude in 2006.....now its arguable that might be exceed slightly in 2012....but its more likely to drop and by 2018 at the outside even the most sensible and optimsitic engineers and geologitss say it will be over....

So we have at most 6 years to start putting a system in place to cope wth a drop rate of at least 4% per annum...



Re 4

It is interesting how the idea of the Euro is taking all the blame. One could argue that it has little to do with the Euro and a lot to do with bankers.

Take Italy and or Greece.

Bankers basically guessed that they could lend as much money as they could get away with to whomever they liked becuase.

1. As it was in Euros no one would notice

2. As it was in Euros someone would bail them out if/when it all went tits up.

But really all they did was lend €10,000  to their teenage cousin who went and brought a hot hatchback to do his paper round.

But it is better to blame the Euro than blame the lending. Why is it really always about  the lending?

It is always the lending becaus the lending does a whole bunch of things.

1. It inflates an economy- pumping cash in by way of asset price inflation and devaluing the woth of every Euro in your pocket at the same time.

2. Pushing up asset prices forces everyone working in their own best interest to keep biding for those assets because if they don't they will be out of their reach for ever- housing of course is the classic example of this.

So yes I do blame the bankers. They want us to blame the naughty Greeks, but they have always been naughty Greeks- The bankers know this. They holiday in Greece, they know that the Greeks do not pay tax. This is not news. But they lent the money (created and then lent the money to be more accurate) anyway. Why-  because they could, I think they do it because  they can book the bonuses/profit  when they make the loan.


How does this private lending relate to the current Sovereign debt crisis, Politicians authorise deficits not bankers, and Politicians are elected by us

Because a significant proportion of European government's liabilities are due to bailouts of reckless banks. Even the Bank of International Settlement did a research paper on the issue. And banks traditionally use treasury bonds both as an investment that has a neglible capital cost due to the Basel Accord (0 capital requred to underpin OECD sovereign debt)and a low risk safe haven, when other avenues are lacking. Why do you think New Zealand bond auctions are so healthy? We already did the dramatic political reforms that Western Corporate Kleptocrats want to drive through in Europe in the name of "competitiveness".

Successful companies have long acknowledged the parallels between natural selection in ecosystems and competitive successes in free markets – in no small part because their stakeholders have enjoyed such happy outcomes. In the west, however, that may be about to change.  

I am not so optimistic, however, about Europe’s prospects. One great obstacle to dealing with Darwin is the sense of entitlement, and this seems ... to make adaptive change impossible. France’s youth are convinced they are entitled to well-paying jobs. 


A secretive group of Wall Street hedge fund bosses are said to be behind a plot to cash in on the decline of the euro.

Representatives of George Soros's investment business were among an all-star line up of Wall Street investors at an 'ideas dinner' at a private townhouse in Manhattan, according to reports.


 But, it has also struggled because hedge funds have been placing huge bets on the currency's decline, which could make the speculators hundreds of millions of pounds.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253791/Is-man-broke-Bank-England-George-Soros-centre-hedge-funds-betting-crisis-hit-euro.html#ixzz1dpAldi4R



Your timing is great for me as I'm several hours behind NZ time.

I very much appreciate having all the links so nicely provided to me in one place so that I can womble my way through them.

And the new gold and silver live quotes are a nice addition.

I hope that the website is making you some money.

Thanks again.


PS. Monday's must read was a definite must read.



And now Belgian bond spreads are exploding. It's all looking ugly in Europe tonight.



Good news isn't it...the fatheads in Europe have identified the cause of the piigs fiasco....and yes it's those hopeless lying ratings agencies .....so now if you wanna be an utter nutcake and buy sov bonds in a piigs hole, or any other EU hole, the good news is you will not be put off being an idiot by a ratings agency telling you the stuff is shite.

If I had a financial hero...or maybe a list of them...

Grant would easily be in the top 10......


Edit: meant as a reply to scarfire in the thread above...

Oh…I know. But my point is that we are worried about warming and oil when nether of those won’t matter if we can’t even grow food!

You can use Google's search engine to find out what's on peoples' minds these days.

If you type in "how to grow", the predictive text will show you the most popular searches.  They are:

"how to grow potatoes"


"how to grow weed"


"how to grow taller"

(oh boy)

"how to grow tomatoes"



Maybe in a few years it will be ”how to grow ipads”

Fascinating to see Henry Blodget casting stones at members of Congress. I remember him from his days at Merrill Lynch - http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/06/cx_da_0106topnews.html

The Euro

Born 1999

Died 2012( murdered by greedy bankers and politicians)



The ECB boss has said very clearly that the bank will not be buying the piigs bonds and anyway it would violate the European laws governing the ECB.

Meanwhile the ECB is buying Italian and Spanish and greek sov. bonds to prop up the dead market. The buying is set to continue and likely reach 100% levels.

Nobody else is buying the shite. The Euro's funeral service is being planned. The Germans are to lead the slow march to the gravesite....it is expected the piigs will carry the coffin and be pushed into the hole as well.