|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you!  Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them.
It's funny because your initial response to sam implied that he was wrong, and that the major point of advertising was to convey information.
|
Economically speaking, question is: does advertising help people discover their real set of preferences (thus maximizing their utility) or does it alter people's set of preferences (in which case their utility can go either way)? In the first case, advertising may present a net social benefit, while in the second it becomes a prisioner's dillema for competing companies (in other words, a net social loss). Probably both scenarios exist out there but as far as I can tell, differentiating between them is absurdly difficult for actual policy.
|
On September 13 2013 09:50 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. Advertising also has functions that aren't useful to the consumer or to productive efficiency at all. That's the problem. Hammers also have functions that aren't useful to society, like killing people. Let's lament the evils of hammers for a while. I think a better analogy would be to propaganda: it can be used for good purposes, but we have every reason to be wary of it. It's hardly even an analogy at all since advertising is essentially commercial propaganda.
What point are you trying to make? Advertising isn't perfect?
On September 13 2013 09:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. It's funny because your initial response to sam implied that he was wrong, and that the major point of advertising was to convey information.
Even your Dove commercial conveys information. It's not particularly useful information, but it's there. In my initial reply to Sam I have two major functions of advertising, not one.
|
On September 13 2013 09:21 IgnE wrote:
Let's also make clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. I am not saying that no money is being made. I am not saying there is wholesale fraud in the industry and that it's some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying that we won't have shale oil for probably the next 10 years. What I am saying is that it's a temporary bubble that will burst sooner or later (hopefully sooner) and is in no way some kind of miracle that is going to save the American economy throughout the next 10 or 20 or however many years. There is a reason that shale oil hasn't been tapped before now. We are getting desperate, and the boom is just the easy pickings off the top of the huge resource reserve of nonporous, trapped organic matter in the various plays.
Regarding subsidies. You might not like the term as applied in this case. But it captures an essential point. The point being that the shale oil boom has been financed and capitalized by wall street because wall street sees a short term opportunity to make money, which has resulted in overvalued assets and unrealistic hype, or a bubble. This is very similar to the mortgage bubble, where lending practices essentially became a subsidy for housing, growing the bubble, and then banks washed their hands of the mess when it burst, collected some federal money, and moved on to the next easy sell. I don't really care if you don't like the term. The point is that the boom itself is hardly a sign of the value in the shale oil industry, because the boom has been pushed by those who have interests in making money off of the boom in a peripheral fashion (i.e. merger fees, transactional fees).
Are you basically just saying that shale oil is over valued relative to market expectations?
If so... great! That's what makes a market!
|
On September 13 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:50 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. Advertising also has functions that aren't useful to the consumer or to productive efficiency at all. That's the problem. Hammers also have functions that aren't useful to society, like killing people. Let's lament the evils of hammers for a while. I think a better analogy would be to propaganda: it can be used for good purposes, but we have every reason to be wary of it. It's hardly even an analogy at all since advertising is essentially commercial propaganda. What point are you trying to make? Advertising isn't perfect? Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:57 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. It's funny because your initial response to sam implied that he was wrong, and that the major point of advertising was to convey information. Even your Dove commercial conveys information. It's not particularly useful information, but it's there. In my initial reply to Sam I have two major functions of advertising, not one.
To say something conveys information is trivial. Everything conveys information.
How does the Dove ad increase efficiency? And whose efficiency?
|
On September 13 2013 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:21 IgnE wrote:
Let's also make clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. I am not saying that no money is being made. I am not saying there is wholesale fraud in the industry and that it's some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying that we won't have shale oil for probably the next 10 years. What I am saying is that it's a temporary bubble that will burst sooner or later (hopefully sooner) and is in no way some kind of miracle that is going to save the American economy throughout the next 10 or 20 or however many years. There is a reason that shale oil hasn't been tapped before now. We are getting desperate, and the boom is just the easy pickings off the top of the huge resource reserve of nonporous, trapped organic matter in the various plays.
Regarding subsidies. You might not like the term as applied in this case. But it captures an essential point. The point being that the shale oil boom has been financed and capitalized by wall street because wall street sees a short term opportunity to make money, which has resulted in overvalued assets and unrealistic hype, or a bubble. This is very similar to the mortgage bubble, where lending practices essentially became a subsidy for housing, growing the bubble, and then banks washed their hands of the mess when it burst, collected some federal money, and moved on to the next easy sell. I don't really care if you don't like the term. The point is that the boom itself is hardly a sign of the value in the shale oil industry, because the boom has been pushed by those who have interests in making money off of the boom in a peripheral fashion (i.e. merger fees, transactional fees). Are you basically just saying that shale oil is over valued relative to market expectations? If so... great! That's what makes a market!
Not sure what you mean by relative to market expectations. I mean overvalued relative to its value.
|
'b school teaches people to think for themselves'???????
jonny you've never had a vaguely subversive thought in your life. Everything you think is nice happy safe status quo approved. Think for yourself. What a joke. You are the definition of a running dog. The entiety of your intellectual contribution to this thread is 'dont worry guys everything is fine  ' with this big Mr. Cleaver shit eating grin on your face
as for your economic prophet nonsense, I say stuff that flies in the face of marxist orthodoxy on a regular basis so this is just stupid, as anyone who knows the first thing about it realizes. I'm a heretic in every room I walk into. Do I know everything? Absolutely not I don't know fuck all about anything. Am I an original thinker? Quite obviously yes
good grief
|
On September 13 2013 10:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:21 IgnE wrote:
Let's also make clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. I am not saying that no money is being made. I am not saying there is wholesale fraud in the industry and that it's some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying that we won't have shale oil for probably the next 10 years. What I am saying is that it's a temporary bubble that will burst sooner or later (hopefully sooner) and is in no way some kind of miracle that is going to save the American economy throughout the next 10 or 20 or however many years. There is a reason that shale oil hasn't been tapped before now. We are getting desperate, and the boom is just the easy pickings off the top of the huge resource reserve of nonporous, trapped organic matter in the various plays.
Regarding subsidies. You might not like the term as applied in this case. But it captures an essential point. The point being that the shale oil boom has been financed and capitalized by wall street because wall street sees a short term opportunity to make money, which has resulted in overvalued assets and unrealistic hype, or a bubble. This is very similar to the mortgage bubble, where lending practices essentially became a subsidy for housing, growing the bubble, and then banks washed their hands of the mess when it burst, collected some federal money, and moved on to the next easy sell. I don't really care if you don't like the term. The point is that the boom itself is hardly a sign of the value in the shale oil industry, because the boom has been pushed by those who have interests in making money off of the boom in a peripheral fashion (i.e. merger fees, transactional fees). Are you basically just saying that shale oil is over valued relative to market expectations? If so... great! That's what makes a market! Not sure what you mean by relative to market expectations. I mean overvalued relative to its value.
Reworded: you think that it's value is less than others think.
On September 13 2013 10:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:50 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 09:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:45 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. Advertising also has functions that aren't useful to the consumer or to productive efficiency at all. That's the problem. Hammers also have functions that aren't useful to society, like killing people. Let's lament the evils of hammers for a while. I think a better analogy would be to propaganda: it can be used for good purposes, but we have every reason to be wary of it. It's hardly even an analogy at all since advertising is essentially commercial propaganda. What point are you trying to make? Advertising isn't perfect? On September 13 2013 09:57 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2013 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 09:30 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 08:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 08:20 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2013 04:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:
capitalism has to invent new desires and convince people that useless things are useful in order to keep the motor of accumulation running. Obviously. That's what television is for
also it has to install in everyone a relativist ideology to convince everyone that it is blasphemous to make any sorts of value judgments about what goes on around them. Precisely because of the above TV advertising exists as a means to convey information and increase efficiency. Have I got a bridge to sell you! Really though, even advertisers themselves openly disagree with this. Do they? smoothing demand:
Marketing management in which demand for a product is dampened (such as by withdrawal of advertisements) when the firm's productive capacity is over stretched, and is stimulated when the capacity is underutilized. Link I was talking about the providing "information" part. Plenty of ads provide no information about any products at all. I mean, do you really think people out there don't know what Coca-Cola is? One function of advertising is to convey information. That doesn't mean that all advertising conveys useful information. In other words, advertising has many useful functions but it doesn't always have to use all of them. It's funny because your initial response to sam implied that he was wrong, and that the major point of advertising was to convey information. Even your Dove commercial conveys information. It's not particularly useful information, but it's there. In my initial reply to Sam I have two major functions of advertising, not one. To say something conveys information is trivial. Everything conveys information. How does the Dove ad increase efficiency? And whose efficiency?
I really don't want to get totally involved in a freaking Dove ad.
Some basics. The Dove ad is reminding consumers of the brand (information) and increasing sales above and beyond the cost of the ad and any other marginal costs (efficiency). Drilling down deeper into that would require more information than I have.
|
On September 13 2013 10:16 sam!zdat wrote:'b school teaches people to think for themselves'??????? jonny you've never had a vaguely subversive thought in your life. Everything you think is nice happy safe status quo approved. Think for yourself. What a joke. You are the definition of a running dog. The entiety of your intellectual contribution to this thread is 'dont worry guys everything is fine ' with this big Mr. Cleaver shit eating grin on your face as for your economic prophet nonsense, I say stuff that flies in the face of marxist orthodoxy on a regular basis so this is just stupid, as anyone who knows the first thing about it realizes. I'm a heretic in every room I walk into. Do I know everything? Absolutely not I don't know fuck all about anything. Am I an original thinker? Quite obviously yes good grief
Oh, Sam, you're so cute
<3
|
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
On September 13 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:16 sam!zdat wrote:'b school teaches people to think for themselves'??????? jonny you've never had a vaguely subversive thought in your life. Everything you think is nice happy safe status quo approved. Think for yourself. What a joke. You are the definition of a running dog. The entiety of your intellectual contribution to this thread is 'dont worry guys everything is fine ' with this big Mr. Cleaver shit eating grin on your face as for your economic prophet nonsense, I say stuff that flies in the face of marxist orthodoxy on a regular basis so this is just stupid, as anyone who knows the first thing about it realizes. I'm a heretic in every room I walk into. Do I know everything? Absolutely not I don't know fuck all about anything. Am I an original thinker? Quite obviously yes good grief Oh, Sam, you're so cute <3
I looked through the last couple pages and was glad to be unable to find where you said that business school teaches people to think for themselves
|
On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
What is the point of this discussion? Is someone arguing that advertising should be outlawed? Or are you just saying you don't like it?
|
On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:I looked through the last couple pages and was glad to be unable to find where you said that business school teaches people to think for themselves
On September 13 2013 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 05:30 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't have an education jonny you went to busyness school
edit: you didn't know who adam smith was. Don't talk to me about your education Yeah b-school is a lie made up by the shadowy capitalist conspiracy. Universities are just in on it too. How about you start using facts and making logical arguments rather than just conspiracy theory ravings and insults? Edit: What's wrong with b-school anyways? Is your problem that b-school teaches people to think for themselves rather than blindly follow in whatever economic prophet you believe in?
he's completely serious when he says this folks. he thinks that busyness school is the bastion of critical thinking in today's society, and that jonny himself is an example of someone who "thinks for himself." no joke. this is what he believes. this is our jonny who thinks this. you guys have met jonny right?
On September 13 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
What is the point of this discussion? Is someone arguing that advertising should be outlawed? Or are you just saying you don't like it?
i'd outlaw advertising day 1 after the revo. craigslist can stay
|
On September 13 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
What is the point of this discussion? Is someone arguing that advertising should be outlawed? Or are you just saying you don't like it?
I think advertising is a complete waste and essentially like a "reminder" tax that's levied onto your free market products. It's a sham my man.
|
On September 13 2013 10:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:I looked through the last couple pages and was glad to be unable to find where you said that business school teaches people to think for themselves Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 05:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 05:30 sam!zdat wrote:
you don't have an education jonny you went to busyness school
edit: you didn't know who adam smith was. Don't talk to me about your education Yeah b-school is a lie made up by the shadowy capitalist conspiracy. Universities are just in on it too. How about you start using facts and making logical arguments rather than just conspiracy theory ravings and insults? Edit: What's wrong with b-school anyways? Is your problem that b-school teaches people to think for themselves rather than blindly follow in whatever economic prophet you believe in? he's completely serious when he says this folks. he thinks that busyness school is the bastion of critical thinking in today's society, and that jonny himself is an example of someone who "thinks for himself." no joke. this is what he believes. this is our jonny who thinks this. you guys have met jonny right?
Yes I'm serious. Have you been there Sam? All I see out of you lately is foaming at the mouth spouting shit about things you don't know shit about.
I ask you to provide information to justify your opinion and instead you sling insults. What an intellectual powerhouse you're developing into.
|
wtf are you talking abt information? I'm a cultural critic not a busyness man. What information would you like me to give you about what
|
On September 13 2013 11:07 sam!zdat wrote:
wtf are you talking abt information? I'm a cultural critic not a busyness man. What information would you like me to give you about what
I asked you to defend your position on advertising being a waste with information (facts and logical arguments) instead of insults.
|
On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis. Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 13 2013 10:16 sam!zdat wrote:'b school teaches people to think for themselves'??????? jonny you've never had a vaguely subversive thought in your life. Everything you think is nice happy safe status quo approved. Think for yourself. What a joke. You are the definition of a running dog. The entiety of your intellectual contribution to this thread is 'dont worry guys everything is fine ' with this big Mr. Cleaver shit eating grin on your face as for your economic prophet nonsense, I say stuff that flies in the face of marxist orthodoxy on a regular basis so this is just stupid, as anyone who knows the first thing about it realizes. I'm a heretic in every room I walk into. Do I know everything? Absolutely not I don't know fuck all about anything. Am I an original thinker? Quite obviously yes good grief Oh, Sam, you're so cute <3 I looked through the last couple pages and was glad to be unable to find where you said that business school teaches people to think for themselves
it's not business school's job to 'teach people to think for themselves,' that's supposed to have been taught, well, a long time before you reach "business school"
Firstly, I've never read this allegedly false NYT article and didn't even know it existed.
Secondly, yes, the vast majority of shale oil wells lose the vast majority of their productivity in about 5 years. You can't just say no, they don't and not cite anything. The revised 2013 average decline is 50% or more in the first year, 35% in the second year, 30% in the third year, 20% in the fourth year, etc. And that's in the Bakken oil fields, where there are already drilled wells. Meaning that the less lucrative oil fields are likely to have even steeper rates of decline. See:
Drill Baby Drill, by David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute. 2013.
Shale and Wall Stree, by Deborah Rogers of the Energy Policy Forum. 2013.
The Shale Oil Boom, A US Phenomenon. Published by Belfer Center at Harvard University. 2013.
The United States consumes about 7 billion barrels of oil a year. The most recent figures for recoverable oil from the known shale oil fields is about 7 billion. Revised upward from 2012, when only half that amount, or roughly 2% of the oil was thought to be recoverable. So the vast deposits that the media keeps citing include 95% of the oil deposits that are currently unrecoverable with current technologies at current prices. 7 billion recoverable barrels means a US supply for 1 year. A bubble.
You linked a bunch of Forbes, standard media hype articles that reacted against some alleged NYT "hit piece". The gist of these articles is, "hey look at the amazing production we are getting, clearly the production itself is evidence that it can't be a bubble." This is clearly wrong. Shale wells produce their greatest amount in the first year so it's not a surprise that the 4,000 wells drilled in 2012, over 10x as many as anywhere else in the world (excluding Canada) have brought in a boom. All of these media fluff pieces that you are citing are referencing total resource numbers, not what is recoverable which is the only important factor in determining the long-term sustainability of the boom that you are seeing now. Moreover, most of these plays are not examined by independent sources and we only have the numbers for wells that are on the corporate books, which are bound to be inflated so as to make the company appear more profitable on paper.
As an illustration, the big three oil plays, Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian have an optimistic combined potential of about 100,000 shale producing wells, or about ten times the number of those already on line. If the wells lose 50% of their productivity in the first year, you need to be drilling 5,000 wells the next year just to maintain current production, which despite the boom, isn't replacing a majority of the oil we use every year. If you factor in continued decline and ramping up total production output, you have maybe 10 years before oil production drops precipitously. Of course this doesn't discount some miracle technology that preserves the price it costs to produce a barrel of oil, but there might also be solar/wind energy technologies by 2025 that are competitive with current oil prices. So why even bank on a dirty carbon source getting substantially cheaper to pull up, even as we have already sucked up the easy to grab stuff already?
Let's also make clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. I am not saying that no money is being made. I am not saying there is wholesale fraud in the industry and that it's some kind of conspiracy. I'm not saying that we won't have shale oil for probably the next 10 years. What I am saying is that it's a temporary bubble that will burst sooner or later (hopefully sooner) and is in no way some kind of miracle that is going to save the American economy throughout the next 10 or 20 or however many years. There is a reason that shale oil hasn't been tapped before now. We are getting desperate, and the boom is just the easy pickings off the top of the huge resource reserve of nonporous, trapped organic matter in the various plays.
Regarding subsidies. You might not like the term as applied in this case. But it captures an essential point. The point being that the shale oil boom has been financed and capitalized by wall street because wall street sees a short term opportunity to make money, which has resulted in overvalued assets and unrealistic hype, or a bubble. This is very similar to the mortgage bubble, where lending practices essentially became a subsidy for housing, growing the bubble, and then banks washed their hands of the mess when it burst, collected some federal money, and moved on to the next easy sell. I don't really care if you don't like the term. The point is that the boom itself is hardly a sign of the value in the shale oil industry, because the boom has been pushed by those who have interests in making money off of the boom in a peripheral fashion (i.e. merger fees, transactional fees).
Firstly, I find that hard to believe since you parrot the articles' claims in the same order the article did.
Secondly, the Bakken play is now producing at 5.6 million instead of the previous 5.3 with about half the number of wells as previously were operational. I suggest you learn the difference between a larger number and a smaller number and how this relates to proper usage of the word "decline." Or maybe you should just stop lying. Total resource extraction amounts do in fact matter when that number keeps rising, not the conclusion you're pushing, now is it? Oh that's right we have to wait 5-10 years for you to be proven right or wrong but hell it is inevitable that you're right because... well because nothing really.
7 billion recoverable barrels is a bullshit number and it's not really surprising given your prior inaccuracy that you would use such a number. The actual number is 45-58 billion according to the EIA and your argument is shitstink anyway. Is shale oil supposed to meet 100% of US demand, now or in the future? No. So what relevance does your statement about US yearly oil usage have? Zippidee doodah. Is everyone in the field saying the US will be able to become a major exporter of oil in the next 5=10 years either fools or knaves? I find that hard to believe, but hey, you've got the Post-Carbon Institute (real subtle name there, wonder what their attitude is towards fossil fuels hmmm), the Energy Policy Forum (a quick glance at their website tells you where they're coming from) on your side! Might as well ask RJ Reynolds Tobacco about whether they think smoking is really dangerous or not.
You might want to actually read the Belfer Center's report, it does not say what you imply it says.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/The US Shale Oil Boom Web.pdf
I do not care one whit about your lecturing regarding "puff pieces" and "total resource numbers," you think there are only 7 billion recoverable barrels of shale oil which is laughably inaccurate. The rest is just you compounding on your errors with a lot of verbiage that doesn't mean anything.
The reason shale oil wasn't tapped before now is it was too expensive to be profitable. Now it is not too expensive to be profitable. It has nothing to do with "desperation." It has to do with advances in drilling technology bringing the price of frack drilling and the fracking itself down more than it does desperation about supply capacity. You remind me of a peak oilist circa 2005 saying the same thing about oil production in general, complete with implications about cooked books, disbelieving references to technological progress, and boring dogma about production. It's all the same bullshit and it's pretty sad. I understand you're touchy about "media puff pieces" (as opposed to think tank or academic puff pieces, but whatever), but:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2013/09/02/shale-gas-production-and-high-decline-rates/
And here is a *gasp* even-handed article on the whole issue:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059985001
tldr you're another chicken little with a bad grasp of the numbers or of how any of it actually works. in 5 years when you're wrong you'll stretch it out another 5, and when that comes you'll stretch it another 5 because hey if you keep pushing it back you'll be right eventually. if you extend the timeframe long enough every economic activity will go through a "bubble" period eventually.
|
On September 13 2013 10:49 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote:On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
What is the point of this discussion? Is someone arguing that advertising should be outlawed? Or are you just saying you don't like it? I think advertising is a complete waste and essentially like a "reminder" tax that's levied onto your free market products. It's a sham my man.
Why do you think businesses spend so much money on it then? Do you think you know how to sell soap better than the people at Dove?
|
On September 13 2013 11:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 11:07 sam!zdat wrote:
wtf are you talking abt information? I'm a cultural critic not a busyness man. What information would you like me to give you about what I asked you to defend your position on advertising being a waste with information (facts and logical arguments) instead of insults.
Sam has a deep and abiding contempt for anybody with a real job.
|
On September 13 2013 11:24 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 10:49 Roe wrote:On September 13 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote:On September 13 2013 10:41 Roe wrote:
"reminding" is a polite, euphemistic way of saying psychological engineering or positive reinforcement. I haven't been convinced for the need of advertisement. People already know what products they've already bought, and it's senseless to argue they want to pay more to be reminded of what they've already consumed. You may say that in the case of a new product ads would help garner a base, but that again is just propaganda and has no valid informational basis.
What is the point of this discussion? Is someone arguing that advertising should be outlawed? Or are you just saying you don't like it? I think advertising is a complete waste and essentially like a "reminder" tax that's levied onto your free market products. It's a sham my man. Why do you think businesses spend so much money on it then? Do you think you know how to sell soap better than the people at Dove?
I haven't found a good, valid reason as to why they do spend that much.
Sure I do People buy soap when they need it. /End
@DeepElmBlues Not sure what your point is. You're just agreeing with me (&Sam)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
