FAQ
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 3:45 am


Author Message
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: what exactly IS futilitism ?  |  Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Utility in Futility = Futilitism


please elaborate

OK. A good example of Futilitism is my ongoing effort to inform people about the truth even in the face of the horrendous bullying tactics employed by iNow and others on this forum. It can seem pointless at times to put myself through it, but every once in a while it is at least good for few laughs at your expense. ;)

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Happy corner  |  Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:32 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Watching iNow make a fool of himself yet again. :shock: :lol:

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: rant corner  |  Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:36 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
This is the worst discussion forum ever. You should all be very embarrassed :oops:

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: rant corner  |  Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:14 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
This is the worst discussion forum ever. You should all be very embarrassed

Given your revulsion, I have assisted you by removing the posting privileges from your account.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Archduke Ferdinand Moment?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 1:51 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Please refrain from serial posting. This is not your blog. If people engage you in the topic, then enjoy the discussion. If they do not, further back-to-back posts would be frowned upon and will likely result in the thread being locked. Comments about this post will be deleted or moved to the trash can.

I am not serial posting. I thought updating the news on this topic would be acceptable. I'll bet it would be for anyone else but me. Why are you treating me this way?

PS--I have no other way to ask you this. I can't PM you. And I don't want to start a complaint thread. But this is unfair.

Go ahead and throw this in the trash if that is what you think is best.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Archduke Ferdinand Moment?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:03 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Perhaps this is hard for you to understand, but when I say:
Quote:
Comments about this post will be deleted or moved to the trash can.
... it means, don't comment, don't reply, don't argue. If you do, you're making things worse, and your post will be thrown away... which just results in more work for us on the staff, and consequently more aggravation.

What I recommend you try instead is to listen to the feedback you've been provided, adjust your behavior accordingly, and move on. Alternatively, keep doing what you're doing and ignoring feedback and disregarding staff requests and lose your posting privileges at this site.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Archduke Ferdinand Moment?  |  Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:58 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Please refrain from serial posting. This is not your blog. If people engage you in the topic, then enjoy the discussion. If they do not, further back-to-back posts would be frowned upon and will likely result in the thread being locked. Comments about this post will be deleted or moved to the trash can.


OK. you make the rules.

I have to ask one minor technical question that is unrelated to this last exchange. I just looked back my original post and the video that used to be there is now missing. What happened to the video?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


MODNOTE: The video is still there and appears fine. Am not sure what the issue is. Also, your account has been suspended due to your disregard of previous warnings.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Is The Topic Of Apocalypse Off Limits?  |  Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:47 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Is the topic of apocalypse off limits on this site?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Is The Topic Of Apocalypse Off Limits?  |  Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:49 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Is the topic of apocalypse off limits on this site?

No, but YOU have been specifically asked not to reintroduce the same topic over and over again from threads that have been repeatedly locked.

You might try posting about alternative subjects and maybe that will earn you additional flexibility, but as for right now this is not a negotiation and you have no leverage.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Fri May 03, 2013 3:51 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
tridimity wrote:
Quote:
Futilitist wrote:
Thank you for bringing that up. You seem very concerned with the state of my mental health. Does that have anything to do with your perceptions about how I am being treated here? Are you trying to extend some kindness to me in response? Do you think the way I am treated on this forum is fair? I am sorry to put you on the spot, but do you feel safe enough here to answer my questions honestly?


No it has nothing to do with my perception of your treatment on this Forum. I just imagine that it must be tiring, hard work and frustrating for you to be constantly fighting the validity of your argument with people whose judgements are unlikely to change substantially. I do not perceive any injustice against you personally by Moderators of the Forum and I would like to remain uninvolved in such matters.

Mod Note: A question was asked and a response has been provided. That response was clear that tridimity does not wish to pursue this side-topic further with Futilitist. Further discussion about this will be split off or just deleted entirely.

Hi iNow. This is just a quick note to say that I fully understand that the question has been asked and answered. The readers should note that the Mod note above was preemptive in nature, and it's presence should not be seen as any indication that I have tried to pursue this issue beyond the original question I asked tridimity. I just don't want any readers to get the wrong impression. Thanks.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Sat May 04, 2013 4:01 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
It would be a group effort to find the patterns. It would not be about different interpretations of the data.

I think you're missing tridimity's point. The approach you are suggesting relies entirely on interpretation. You need to put forth quantifiable measures and characteristics that all objective observers can agree on.

You're asking, "are they in denial?" That's an opinion, not a datapoint. You need metrics, and ones that will have near universal agreement, regardless of which individual is performing the data collection. I'll give a terribly remedial example to make this as clear as possible... You need to be tracking something really quite clean like "Is his shirt red, yes or no?" That's where you need to be with this effort if you genuinely want to study it, but you would probably use something closer to "How many times per post does he use the word "bullshit" or "nonsense" or "ridiculous" on average?" or "how many distinct words with a negative connotation did you find in post" then compare that against that same users posts on other unrelated topics and see if there is a difference. Then have a couple dozen people perform the same analysis and review their results collectively so you eliminate noise in the data.

Without that, you'll remain stuck in the flawed approach we're trying to help you fix. You may as well be asking what the best flavored food is or what the worst movie last year was. Your results regarding denial will be roughly equivalent to both of those if you cannot quantify them beyond mere opinion of "yep, probably denial" or "nope, I really don't think there's any denial there."

Futilitist wrote:
There is nothing unethical about discussing what someone says in a discussion forum.

Discuss it all you want, but that's not what we're talking about here. You're talking about studying it, trying to assign labels to it, etc... Treating these posters (or their words) as study subjects.

I understand that you are probably not experienced in the ways of scientific research involving humans, but your comment above (while sincere and well intentioned) is very wrong. Informed consent is critical when engaged in human subject research of ANY type or in ANY capacity (which this clearly is, despite its lack of invasiveness or medical risk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_subject_research

Futilitist wrote:
It is like discussing any article or blog. No informed consent would be necessary.

See above. We're trying to help you here, and you're not correct in this current conclusion.

Futilitist wrote:
It would not an experiment at all, it would be an analytical discussion.

So, opinion and pseudoscience and crackpottery then. Got it.


So you're passing on an opportunity to have an interesting discussion. OK. Your choice.

By the way, speaking of interesting discussions, you should check out:

LINK REMOVED

I just started a thread in site feedback to make a formal complaint against Ophiolite for calling me a pr**k! He just doesn't know when to quit sometimes. He has a really bad habit of overextending and falling on his own sword. And he really messed up this time. It is such a clear violation of the rules that it puts the Admins in a very embarrassing position and reflects badly on the site. Let's see how the whole forum organism responds to the crisis! Battle lines are being drawn. If you don't think this is interesting you are totally nuts!

---Futilitist :ugeek:


MOD NOTE: If you have feedback regarding another forum, please address it there, not here. It is not our place to arbitrate arguments in which you're engaged at other forums. Post moved to the trash can and link removed.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:08 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You must be kidding. Why did you start this thread if you don't really want to discuss it? What kind of discussion forum is this? Coward. <snip> And now you run away, marnixR. <snip> I don't what your sleezy agenda really is or why you feel the need to mislead. <snip> Shame on you.

Nothing in marnixR's replies warranted this type of nonsense. He has been incredibly respectful and patient toward you despite your history here, and yet you reward him by lashing out like this. Knock it off. Now.

Futilitist wrote:
This forum does a grave disservice to all of mankind.

Thanks for the feedback, but let me remind you that you come here voluntarily. You are free to leave at any time. If you keep up this type of behavior, however, your departure from this forum will not be voluntary.

Responses to this post will be moved to the Trash Can. Posts regarding moderator actions (like the moving of posts to the Trash Can) will themselves be trashed.

If you see your posts being moved to the Trash Can yet keep posting about moderator actions or other content about people and personalities (i.e. not directly related to the thread topic) anyway, you will lose your posting privileges.

You will receive no other warnings from me.


The situation has been made clear. What happens next is on you.

Fair enough. We will just have to agree to disagree. Please carry on.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:01 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The problem of diminishing returns on energy invested means that alternative energies will never be able to replace fossil fuels in terms of bang for the buck.
<snip>
Yep, the future is unknowable.

You cannot have it both ways, futilitist. You're once again arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

<snip>

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:19 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
<snip>

---Futilitist :ugeek:

Meta Comment: Note that the above post was submitted in this exact form by Futilitist and was not edited in any way by me or any other staff member. It was sent to the Trash Can due to lacking any content or substance whatsoever other than the "<snip>" comment.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Why the price of gas?  |  Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:52 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
billvon wrote:
iNow wrote:
Discussion with you really is futile.

Several of us have discovered this.

Normally I would thank you for the complement, but as iNow so helpfully pointed out, it is probably an error for me to treat your statement as a compliment. [MODNOTE] Unnecessary invective removed[/MODNOTE].


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Wow, iNow.

It was just an innocent joke, not an invective. I obviously meant no harm toward billvon and I am pretty sure he would not have been offended, since he has a sense of humor. And it was funny, too.

OK, mister network censor, I'll give it another try:

billvon wrote:
iNow wrote:
Discussion with you really is futile.

Several of us have discovered this.

Normally I would thank you for the complement, billvon, but as iNow so helpfully pointed out, it is probably an error for me to treat your statement as a compliment. So kindly take your negativity toward me and find a better use for it. (can I say that?) ;)

I still think the original was better.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Why the price of gas?  |  Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:59 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Cool

well i guess that's it then

bye


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:19 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow,

I posted this in the World War 3 thread because it is about war, not peak oil. It would fit better there because that is an ongoing discussion. It drops in here as a non-sequitur.

The words "peak oil" are mentioned only once. It should be legal for me to talk about peak oil anyway. Why should I have to walk on eggshells.

The upcoming war may have something to do with oil.

This really accomplishes nothing. You make things hard on me for no reason, i.e. you are just picking on me.

Go ahead and throw this post in the trash so that no knows what you did.

Thanks.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: World War 3  |  Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 7:25 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow,

Where did the mod note about moving my post go? It was just here and I commented on it and now it is gone so I have edited this comment to ask you why. This is very confusing. Please at least replace the mod note so people can find my comment that should be in this thread. Thanks again.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


[MODNOTE]The comments below were removed from another post. Original source of comments below: topic1090-40.html#p19213. [/MODNOTE]

And I don't see how I am breaking the rules. Everyone here has a point of view. I think they should be free to discuss it. Quality science websites don't work so hard to constrain their members to narrow points of view. It is kinda anti-science, if you stop and think about it. And it isn't necessary at all. Check out:

LINK REMOVED

I posted the same basic post there that you threw in the trash here. People there are freely discussing my ideas, without the need for any moderation at all. And my ideas are just as controversial there as here. The place is filled with people you would describe as "single minded ideologues", and yet conversations aren't derailed, as you suggest, but instead are interesting and informative. If you were to try running this forum more openly, you might be surprised at the result.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:09 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
It should be legal for me to talk about peak oil anyway.

You are free to talk about peak oil, just not in every single thread in which you participate and especially not after being asked/warned not to do so by a mod in threads clearly discussing other topics.

Also as a reminder, since you've been told repeatedly before and seem continually to forget/disregard, comments on moderator action will be moved to the Trash.

Futilitist wrote:
Where did the mod note about moving my post go? It was just here and I commented on it and now it is gone so I have edited this comment to ask you why. This is very confusing.

It appears you deleted the post into which I edited the aforementioned MODNOTE. It has not disappeared due to any action from me. I left it visible and available when edits were completed.

Futilitist wrote:
I think they should be free to discuss it.

As has already been established, they are: topic1775.html

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: World War 3  |  Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:48 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
But it is such a tantalizing concept. I just wish I had some way to convince you.

Nothing's stopping you from putting forth a quality argument that might ultimately achieve precisely that, nothing except yourself, of course.

Nice catch, iNow. You are a very close reader of my posts to other members. I was trying to share a little innocent joke with Kojax. You swoop in to stop it (not the first time). IMHO, You are trying to prevent me from developing any camaraderie with anyone here.

I live in constant fear that every post I make will end up in the trash. That is why I don't feel that it is worth taking the time and effort to convince Kojax. Go ahead and throw this away, too.

Thanks.



---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: World War 3  |  Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:34 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Go ahead and throw this away, too.

It's as if you fully understand in advance what specific actions of yours will lead to moderator action or land a post in the Trash and yet you submit them anyway. Fascinating.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 10:28 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You've haven't seriously considered anything I have to say.

You not only don't know what others may or may not have considered, but there is no way you even could know. Stop speculating about what's going on in the minds of other members here and focus instead on the topic and it's salient points.

Ok, iNow. How about this:

You haven't seemed to seriously consider what I have to say, but I can only infer that from the content of your comments.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:33 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You've haven't seriously considered anything I have to say.

You not only don't know what others may or may not have considered, but there is no way you even could know. Stop speculating about what's going on in the minds of other members here and focus instead on the topic and it's salient points.

All I know about you is contained within your posts.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: World War 3  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
This is great! I am so glad you get this Kojax. When iNow bans me, you can carry on the fight. Just be careful what you say. ;)


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: iNow Won't Let Me Send E-Mails  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:13 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Hi again,

iNow has restricted my use of emails to other members. If I send one to another member, it just ends up in my own email. It would appear that he changed this today in response to my email to Kojax, since a similar email seems to have made it to Rory just the other day.


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: iNow Won't Let Me Send E-Mails  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:26 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Hi again,

iNow has restricted my use of emails to other members. If I send one to another member, it just ends up in my own email. It would appear that he changed this today in response to my email to Kojax, since a similar email seems to have made it to Rory just the other day.


---Futilitist :ugeek:

I have not touched the permissions on your account. Your privileges are exactly the same as they've been for months.

On another note, if other members are being spammed by futilitist and want it to stop, let me know and I will, in fact, make such a change to his permissions to prevent that from recurring.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: GROUP THINK IN INTERNET FORUMS an EXPERIMENT  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:44 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Futilitist: in response to your statement now in the 'Trash Can' - as far as I know I have not received an email from you. So I am not ignoring you, I just never received it.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: GROUP THINK IN INTERNET FORUMS an EXPERIMENT  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 2:05 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Rory wrote:
Futilitist: in response to your statement now in the 'Trash Can' - as far as I know I have not received an email from you. So I am not ignoring you, I just never received it.

Do you regularly read the trash?


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: GROUP THINK IN INTERNET FORUMS an EXPERIMENT  |  Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 3:58 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Rory wrote:
Futilitist: in response to your statement now in the 'Trash Can' - as far as I know I have not received an email from you. So I am not ignoring you, I just never received it.

Thanks for letting us know.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: happy corner  |  Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Rory wrote:
Futilitist: in response to your statement now in the 'Trash Can' - as far as I know I have not received an email from you. So I am not ignoring you, I just never received it.

Rory,

Your post to me, above, seems to have inadvertently ended up in my trash somehow. Perhaps there has been some kind of technical error. I just wanted to make you aware of it.

Are you okay with your posts disappearing and ending up there?


---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Whatever
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:48 pm

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:23 am
Posts: 1

Offline
billvon wrote:
Falconer360 wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Predicting the exact timing of the collapse is impossible. It is unreasonable, scientifically speaking, to expect that sort of precision in forecasting. With apocalypse, close is good enough.

Define close in this sense. Is close a month? Six months? A year? Five years?


I believe his initial estimate (in another forum) was that the riots would start last summer before rising oil prices plunged the world into a profound depression. $16 gas by 2015 and $32/gallon gas by 2016, followed by extinction of 90% of the human race. From his posts -

"The real apocalypse will be a complete and total social collapse, the collapse of industrial civilization, along with a rapid 90% mass die off of the species."
"When we come off of the bumpy plateau of world oil production between now and 2015, we will experience a rapid and severe die off (90+%)."
"There is no solution. Science will not save us. The laws of physics trump political will. Run for the hills."

I am sure he will provide corrections/updates to the above.

Hi billvon.

First---the correction:

I have already corrected your out of context mischaracterization of my old forecast many times, but you just keep repeating it anyway. Nice. One more time: In 2013, I was saying that the price of oil was rising on an exponential trajectory. I said economy will never be able to handle ridiculous prices like $16 or $32 a gallon in 2015. I was right. The price of oil collapsed in June of 2014 just like I said it would.

Second---my current forecast:

On Fri 07 Aug 2015, 13:52:02, on peakoil.com, on the Etp model thread, after independently empirically confirming the Etp model, I had this to say:

Futilitist wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't think we can expect too many massive price swings around the Max Affordability curve. The basic logic is that the Etp curve is a strange attractor and the Max Affordability curve is a strange repeller. As we get further from the original Etp curve, it tends to have less and less effect on the overall system, while the effect of the Max Affordability curve tends to increase as we approach it.

The oil price might rise rapidly in the case of a massive, sudden supply shortfall (frackers go bust, Saudi pipeline explosion, WWIII, etc.). This could theoretically push the price up over the Max Affordability curve, but not for very long, and the reversion to the mean will be vicious.

Basically, the whole system has less and less vigor over time, making large price increases less and less likely as time goes on.

We are essentially already in collapse.

Here is a graph showing where I think the oil price is headed:

Image

The red zone shows the area of the most likely near term price moves.

I think the economy is at a critical phase right now. I believe we are about to have a stock market crash. I would guess that the price of oil will soon (before 2016) drop to somewhere in the low 30s or possibly even lower.


Here is a comparison between the oil price and the Dow Jones Industrial average:

Image

The dotted line shows the highest price the Dow reached during the last oil spike and crash. The current level was only made possible through extraordinary central bank measures. Things are not looking good.


Since my latest forecast, the stock the Dow has lost a whopping 1544 points! And West Texas Intermediate Crude is now $38.00!

So, there you go, billvon. I was right yet again. Please try not to misquote me from now on. Thanks.



---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: The Psychology of Apocalypse  |  Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:59 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist was banned, which means that new accounts created by same person also will be, despite use of different name.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy