What if world oil production peaked in 1970?

We all know that 1970 was the year that US oil production peaked(the reason I picked this year) and we also all know about Peak oil(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/peak_oil). What happens to the world in the event of a peak coming 30 years sooner than peak oil is predicted to happen. What economic, social, cultural and geopolitical impacts would the world where there's never any ending of the oil crisis due to hard geological reasons?

>>1
We'd use other energy sources and be slightly poorer as a result.

>>1
then china's fucked, and we'll find other energy sources.

Mass chaos, essentially a modern day peak oil scenario, but with disco.

The invisible hand of the free market will see enormous investment in alternate energy sources thus solving everyone's problems as usual. However state intervention in the economy would eliminate the invisible hand, the economy would be too inefficient to respond to the crisis and collapse.

>>5
what's with all these 'free market' trolls?

>>6
I assure you. I am not a troll.

>>7
oh, so you're just stupid enough to actually believe all that free market crap?  that's even worse.

>>8
oh, so you're just stupid enough to actually believe all that socialist crap?  that's even worse.

>>9
nope.  sociallism (on its own) works no better than the market.  a mix is best. 

>>10
But the irrefutable facts prove that the free market can assume all of the roles of the state to a greater degree of efficiency, except law enforcement and the military. Note efficiency, just because the state can fund something more than the free market doesn't mean it is more efficient. Also if taxes were extremely low we'd all be so rich charitable contributions alone would be enough to end poverty.

http://www.pennergame.de/ref.php?refid=8828292

>11 What "irrefutable facts"? The irrefutable facts of unfettered free marketeerism in Chile, Russia and elsewhere have proven that allowing the market to drive everything will result in massively increased unemployment, massively increased inflation, and (eventually) massively increased government debt. Hence why the economic crash in Russia following Jeffrey D. Sachs' "economic shock therapy" was worse than the Great Depression, and why Chile's economy collapsed in 1982. It was only *after* all of the Chicago Boys' reforms were undone in Chile that that country's economy recovered.

>>11
now you're just talking out your ass.  everything you wrote is in fact false.  the only fact that cannot be refuted is that you are mentally deficient.

failtroll is a failure.

>>13
>>14
Those were just periods while the economy adjusts to reality. When your state has been subsidising the same steel mill since the 50s don't delude yourself into thinking the workers there are contributing to the economy. Most of Pinochet's thugs became rich from trade with the west and as a result he could not subdue them completely and enforce a totalitarianist state that would have lasted to this day. Economic freedom was beneficial in both instances.

ya but you're fuckin gay

btw go fuck yourself and you'll feel better

if you're shooting for the stars in your political careers just make sure you don't hit the keyboard.

>>16
Why not? The internet is still growing fast, demand is set to outstrip the infrastructure available in the next few years.

>>14 Actually statistics on the IMF's website, which I'm sure you'll agree is hardly an example of an anti-capitalist organisation, point to precisely those conclusions. If you have statistics that refute them, I'd be interested to hear what they are.

Note that chile *did* undergo a modest increase in GDP after Pinochet's coup, but that's almost entirely because the trade embargo that had been set against Chile under Allende was removed, thus opening the area to vastly more foreign investment.

>>15 I'm hardly advocating the continued subsidisation of industries that don't need it; in fact, I'd actually argue *against* such travesties. The poster of #9 said that a mixed economy is best, and I'm inclined to agree. However, I'm at a loss to understand how you'd say "economic freedom was beneficial" under Pinochet for anyone other than his thugs.

>>18
Mixed economies are just a less harmful travesty than subsidising the same steel mill for 50 years to the point where the average voter cannot see how it is harmful because the effects are spread out through the rest of the country. Adam Smith proved logically that market forces are the best way of assessing value, the best calculator of this is still the human brain, we do not have an omnipotent artificial intelligence that can decide whether it is a good idea to have children, how much to save and whether to buy health insurance better than individuals.

Every longstanding dictatorship in the 20th century took the measure of destroying trade with foreigners so that no one in a position of power gained power from anything other than being a sycophant to the despot. Pinochet could not have lasted as long as Castro or Kim Il Sung and his offspring.

>>19 So in short you're going to rely on the works of economists from the 18th century rather than concrete statistics from history. Nice going there.

Smith has a lot of valid points, but he never actually proved how the market will correct himself. In fact if I'm not mistaken he used the term "invisible hand" only once and explicitly argued <I>against</I> corporate control of the economy. In short, he'd find the modern economy to be as much a travesty as Marx would have found Stalinist Russia.