"Far From Normal"

      My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers.
____________________________________

     Those were the words that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke used to describe the financial markets (and by extension the economy) these heady spring days when everybody else with a rostrum, it seems, has pronounced the so-called liquidity crisis contained. There's a great wish for American finance to return to business-as-usual -- raking in fantastic fees for innovating new modes of tradable paper, and engineering mergers and buy-outs that generate huge fees plus $100 million kiss-offs for corporate CEOs in the noble struggle to dismantle America's productive capacity -- but apparently events are still out of hand.

       The Federal Reserve itself has been instrumental in promoting abnormality by doing everything possible to prevent the work-out of bad debts in the system. Since money is loaned into existence, and loans are debts, the work-out of bad debt suggests the discovery that a lot of money has disappeared -- which is exactly the case. The Fed has postponed the work-out by sucking up truckloads of impaired, untradable securities in exchange for loans to giant banks who don't have enough cash on hand to pay their janitors.
     Personally, my theory has been that the specter of peak oil pretty clearly implies the inability of industrial economies to continue producing real wealth in the customary way. In the face of this, either consciously or at a more mystical level, the worker bees in banking recognize that, in order to maintain their villas in the Hamptons, money has to be loaned into existence some other way (than in the service of industrial productivity). 
      We've tried just about everything else. There was the so-called service economy, an attempt to replace manufacturing with hamburger sales. Then there was the information economy, in which work would be replaced with knowing about stuff. Then there was the tech thing, which was about bringing internet companies that existed only on the back of cocktail napkins to the initial public offering stage of capitalization -- which allowed a few-hundred-or-so thirty-year-old smoothies to retire to vineyards in the Napa Valley, while hundreds of thousands of retirees lost half the value of their investment portfolios. Then there was the housing boom, which was all about the creation of more suburban sprawl under the theory that houses (or "homes" in the jargon of the realtors) represent an obvious sort of wealth, and therefore that using houses as collateral would allow humongous sums of money to be loaned into existence -- along with massive fees for structuring the loans into bundles of bond-like thingies.
     This has all failed now because the racket went too far. Every possible candidate for a snookering got snookered. Too much collateral for which there were no takers went into the ground. The insane run-up in house values made a downward price movement inevitable, and as soon as the turnaround happened, it fell into the remorseless algebra of a deflationary death spiral. More importantly, however, this society ran out of tricks for loaning money into existence and instead began to experience the pain of money thought-to-be-in-existence being defaulted into a vapor -- and worse, these defaults led to logarithmic chains of money destruction in its places of origin, the investment banks that had created the racket.
     The important part of this is that the money is gone. What makes matters truly eerie is that the "bubble" in suburban houses has occurred at exactly the moment in history when the chief enabling resource for suburban life -- oil -- has entered its scarcity stage.
       The logical conclusion of all this is not what the American public wants to hear: we have become a much poorer society and are now faced with the unavoidable task of making major changes in how we live. All the three-card-monte moves at the highest level of finance lately amount to an effort to avoid the unavoidable, acknowledging our losses. Certainly the political fallout of all this will be awesome. But it's not about politics, really. It's about the entire society's inability to form a workable new consensus of reality.
     It's hard to predict how long these institutions at the heart of our economic system can linger in the "far from normal" limbo of pretending that money has not been defaulted out of existence. Since the same process is underway in Great Britain and Spain, places beyond the control of Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, and the Boyz on Wall Street, and since actions and reactions there will affect the destiny of money here, its hard to escape the conclusion that we're at most months away from the brutal recognition that Wall Street has managed to bankrupt itself (and, by extension, the United States). This is dark heart of the matter of which no one dares speak.
     Meantime, on the ground, every mook and minion in the land sees the gas pumps levitate beyond the $4 hash mark, and notes with bugged-out eyes the double-digit price stickers on common supermarket items, and feels the rush of blood from the extremities when some check-out clerk at the WalMart declares that a certain proffered credit card is maxed out, and some strangers in overalls -- the neighbors say -- managed to hot-wire the GMC Sierra in the driveway, and took it away....
       The candidates for president will have a lot to talk about. I wonder if they'll dare to.  

Comments

[LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown]

mooks and minions. You've got a nice turn of phrase there. Excellent column this week. Speaking of minions,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8knLaeNsD8

[Zack S]

Bush speaks about peak oil! Amazing.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/You39re-running-out-of-oil.4095858.jp

Bush to Arab nations: You're running out of oil
Published Date: 19 May 2008
By TRISTAN STEWART-ROBERTSON AND MIKE THEODOULOU

PRESIDENT George Bush yesterday told leaders of the oil-rich states of the Middle East that they must face up to a future without their precious hydrocarbons.

In a stark warning, he said their supplies were running out and urged them to reform and diversify their economies. The outgoing United States president told the World Economic Forum, meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh,
that it was time to "prepare for the economic changes ahead".

Mr Bush's family name is inextricably linked to the oil industry, and this was his strongest statement yet on the future of global supplies.

He told the conference: "The rising price of oil has brought great wealth to some in this region, but the supply of oil is limited, and nations like mine are aggressively developing alternatives to oil.

"Over time, as the world becomes less dependent on oil, nations in the Middle East will have to build more diverse and more dynamic economies."

Mr Bush also used his speech to call for more investment in people and "extending the reach of freedom", as well as urging other nations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and to isolate Syria.

He particularly mentioned women's rights, saying they were key to building powerful economies. He cited Egypt as a model for the development of professional women, girls going to school in Afghanistan and women joining political parties in Iraq and Kuwait.

In an apparent criticism aimed at Saudi Arabia, he told the forum: "This is a matter of morality and of basic math. No nation that cuts off half its population from opportunities will be as productive or prosperous as it could be. Women are a formidable force, as I have seen in my own family and my own administration. As the nations of the Middle East open up their laws and their societies to women, they are learning the same thing."

The president's speech was made only days after he urged Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to ease prices at the pumps, as millions around the globe face increasing costs of filling up and even more grapple with rising food bills.

The future of Scotland's own North Sea oil supply is an issue for both politicians and consumers, who were given a taste of limited fuel shortages during the Grangemouth refinery dispute.

The US has turned dramatically towards biofuels, with Congress raising the federal requirement for using the oil alternative from 6.5 billion gallons last year to nine billion gallons this year. As a consequence, about a quarter of the American corn crop was used for biofuels last year, driving up the price of corn and, hence, also the price of food for millions of families.

Predictions of when the world's oil supplies will fall below global demand range from as early as the next decade, to as late as 2050. Mr Bush has been criticised throughout his term in office for not encouraging more energy alternatives in the US, and for allowing controversial drilling explorations for new fossil-fuel supplies in often environment-ally sensitive areas, such as Alaska.

Analysts warned last night that few in the Middle East, which has two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, are likely to heed Mr Bush. Many have already started diversifying their economies and do not like being preached to by someone so unpopular in the region.

Gerald Butt, editor of the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey, said: "The Gulf states have been trying to diversify their economies away from oil for years, so they'll say, 'This is like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'.

"Arab states don't like being told what to do by outsiders, and especially by America, whose standing in the region is very low. Bush's comments will be dismissed as unwarranted interference."

Although he praised parts of the Arab world, commentators said Mr Bush had angered many with a speech at the Israel parliament last Thursday, in which he offered unflinching support for the Jewish state but mentioned the Palestinian dream of statehood only once.

Walid Khadduri, a Beirut-based consultant, pointed out that the Gulf states had already been investing windfall profits from high oil prices in major infrastructure projects, including education and housing, and in diversifying their industrial bases.

He said: "Bush's credibility is zero anyway. I really don't know anyone who follows what he says, especially after what has happened in Iraq and then his Knesset speech the other day."

The knock-on effect of rising fuel costs has led to increasing food prices and subsequent riots around the globe, as high prices hit some of the world's poorest.

There is now a desperate attempt to find oil from alternative sources to keep the supply flowing.

Potential sources in Canada would cost almost three times as much to produce as conventional crude oil because they have to be extracted from tar sands. Although the supply, in Alberta, is estimated to be second in size only to Saudi Arabian reserves, the production costs are unlikely to offer much relief for consumers.

While the Bush presidency has tried to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, it has yet to decrease fuel use, say critics.

While the UK produces about 0.3 per cent of the world's supply of oil and uses about 2 per cent, the US produces 2.5 per cent but uses 24 per cent.

Family dynasty is soaked in black gold

BOTH George H Bush and George W Bush will be remembered almost as much for their connections to oil as to the presidency.

Bush Snr owes his fortune to Texas crude, while his son also took posts in the industry before following in his father's footsteps into politics.

Commentators have accused Bush jnr's drive to war in Iraq as merely a quest for oil, with potentially billions of dollars in profit to be made from opening up the country's oil reserves – if Iraq was ever stable.

George Bush Snr, who was president from 1989 to 1993, became a millionaire off the oil industry by the age of 40 in Texas. He started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951 and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation two years later. He served as the firm's president from 1954 to 1964. He then entered politics.

After gaining an MBA from Harvard University, Bush Jnr worked in the family oil businesses.

He became a senior partner and chief executive officer of Arbusto Energy, Spectrum 7 and Harken Energy.

Arbusto Energy obtained financing early on from James Bath, a close Bush family friend and in 1979 the sole US business representative of Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi family and brother of Osama bin Laden.

Don't expect high prices and shortages of petrol to improve in the short term

ANALYSIS: George Kerevan

HOW close are we to "peak oil", when the world's oil supplies will start to diminish? Petroleum output has shot up by a nearly third since the early 1990s to around 83 million barrels per day, suggesting we are able to squeeze more production when necessary.

But the International Energy Agency predicts oil demand will double between now and 2030 as a result of rising car use in countries such as China. As no major oil fields – those with over 500 million barrels – have been discovered for a generation, this rising demand will be very difficult to meet.

One source will be in small oil fields of the kind being hunted by Scottish companies such as Cairn Energy. Such fields are expensive to find and costly to tap due to the huge infrastructure required. The fact that oil has shot up to $128 (£65) a barrel – the highest ever even taking account of inflation – might make this possible.

But it is unlikely there will be a serious increase in global output for around a decade given the time it takes to build pipelines and tanker terminals. So expect high petrol prices (and shortages) to remain for the near term. Even then, this is likely to be the last surge in oil output and we will reach peak oil by 2030, if not before.

Another source of oil lies in the vast tar sands of Canada. But extracting useable oil from tar involves a vastly expensive industrial process which also results in big emissions.

It is possible to squeeze extra oil from older fields such as the North Sea. This is done by pumping water (or ) into the wells to blow out more oil. But this destroys the sponge-like membranes which contain the petroleum, meaning you get more oil out in the short term but less in the longer term.

Gordon Brown wants Opec to pump more oil to bring down prices. But experts suspect that the size of Opec reserves (80 years at current consumption) have been greatly exaggerated by local politicians. If so, peak oil could be here sooner than we think – some predict as early as 2012.

[theroachman1]

" If so, peak oil could be here sooner than we think – some predict as early as 2012."

So the maybe the Mayans were correct after all.

[FARfetched]

Maybe. Maybe. Like you, JHK, I've expected each bubble bursting to be "the one" that was going to trigger the general collapse that I've been expecting since my high school days in 1975. We've seen inflation, we've seen stagflation, we've seen recessions. Each time, they've found another way to keep the game going. The millions the Boyz rake in provide a powerful incentive to find a way. That "at most months away" may well turn into a few years yet.

What's different now is not so much *peak* oil, which is looming (if not already here) — PO is just a distraction from the real point of the spear, which is demand outstripping supply. That in itself is a crisis, but at the same time there's an opportunity to create *real* wealth (with maybe a bubble or two along the way) by reconfiguring the economy and the country around that reality. It's going to be more cost-effective to locate manufacturing near the markets, for example — call it "re-shoring" or "re-localizing." Reconfiguring the electrical grid around local (preferably renewable) power sources is one example of a major infrastructure project that would generate (ahem) new jobs and provide an essential service. Meanwhile, conservation could possibly get us through the bottleneck.

It will take leaders who can see beyond the next election or quarterly report (ha!!) but it could be done.

[Nicholas Paredes]

Zack,

I'm not sure we need to wait for 2012. Unless the Saudis wind up pumping additional crude, which is unlikely, peak oil is now.

Unhinging the dollar will be the final decision that tosses our unit of value off the edge of the cliff. Bush's little hissy fits are going to do little but escalate the tensions between our regions. And, China is more than happy to take all of their production and pump it direct.

Low dollar demand; high oil demand. Not a great position to be in. Bend over "W"!

[FARfetched]

Zack, here's the money quote:

«the supply of oil is limited, and nations like mine are aggressively developing alternatives to oil.»

Bush-league buried what he considers a warning in all his happy talk about other countries changing their ways: pump more oil or we'll come up with something else. I really don't think it's a coincidence that he made this speech just days after being rebuffed by the Saudis.

Of course, that's what we *need* to be doing. But Bush-league probably thinks (if you can call it that) the Almighty Invisible Hand will produce more oil at the mere threat of alternatives. It has been a factor in Saudi (and perhaps OPEC) policy before, after all.

All the other players are doing this that and the other, or at least saying this that and the other. But I think they're mostly waiting out the year and hoping the new administration has two functioning brain cells to rub together.

[msjanket]

It's been said that trips by Pelosi and Jimmah Carter to the ME were abject failures. People admonished them for going over there. Now, when Dubyah goes over and shakes his finger at the Arabs after having visited Israel earlier, do you wonder why they have no reason to listen to us anymore?
From the displacement of Mossadegh to the installment of the Shah followed by his successor Khomeini, what have we done right in the Middle East? Money was a good lubricant for a while, the promise of selling fighter planes to the Sauds, but now they are amassing more and more money and they'll never listen to us again. Unless we severely crimp our lifestyle in the US, and it's coming, we will become marginalized and once again become a nation of second stringers. Now, it's amazing how many potentates of pecuniary matters differ on whether or not we are in recession or not. There's light at the end of the tunnel and it's 6 diesels tied together headed for us. Unless we jump off the tracks, we are doomed.
Great job, Jimbo. Less strident than some efforts but hard hitting as usual. You're not a naysayer after all. You are closer to the Truth than lots of political hacks.

[Riddick]

IMHO the next bubble to inflate will concern the very "alternatives" to oil that Bush spoke about. Such a situation would seem part of a logical progressions from the Tech bubble, real estate bubble and finally the energy bubble. Each bubble building on the popping of the one before it. Classic Ponzi. Perhaps a total collapse will then ensure, maybe around 2012 to quote the Mayans.

The fake wealth created by the tech bubble led to tons of created money awash in real estate. The real estate was facilitated by cheap energy prices permitting once far flung cow pastures to become gated communities. The concept of nodal communities with work, education, retail and cultural infrastructure was at first largely ignored. Now they are called "Town Centers". We have so many town centers in my county now I believe nobody knows where the "real" town center is anymore. None-the-less, all must still drive 10-15 miles to any particular center. With all the land whales I see around here, it must be painful.

I also believe that the few Hummers I see tooling around town are now becoming a laughing stock of sorts. The ridiculously stupid people that purchased them at high prices, fill the mammoth tanks with $4 gas and drive about sucking a gallon per 11 miles now score ridicule and laughs. Not exactly the coolness and uber macho they though they had bought.

[massyk]

Last year I attended a symposium sponsered by Pacific Gas and Electric that featured a speech by Richard Heinburg, who mentioned that while he was in town, he was contacted by KGO.
KGO bills itself as the most listened to radio station in Northern California. They wanted him to participate in a program they were producing regarding the spike in oil prices. KGO wanted to frame the debate as a Democratic view (Oil companies are engaging in price gouging) vs. a Republican view (OPEC is holding back on production).
As an expert in his field, Heinburg tried to explain to them that they were off base. The cause for the recent spike is simply supply and demand. Oil is in depletion and prices rise as emeging economies requiring more oil are attempting to acquire it in a marketplace of declining availability.
What Heinburg has to say would shed a light on what is arguably the most serious crisis we as a civilization will face in the coming years, namely the exhaustion of our ability to extract fossil fuels from the earth and use them to produce energy.
After explaining this to KGO several times, Heinburg was told thanks, but no thanks, depriving KGO listeners of an important perspective in the oil price story.

[asoka]

JHK: "But it's not about politics, really. It's about the entire society's inability to form a workable new consensus of reality."

Say what? How did we get a space program? How does society get anything done if not for the inspiration of a leader who has a vision and the leadership ability to move societies toward a "workable new consensus"

If you haven't noticed, the candidate best qualified to inspire for change is Obama. Words matter. Speeches matter. A la John Kennedy, a la Martin Luther King.

Never underestimate the power of an inspirational leader to bring about positive change.

[LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown]

and Kurt Cobain. I feel stupid and contagious.

[JW]

It's pretty clear that collectively we behave like a monkey that can't seem to understand why it hurts no matter how many times it sticks its hand in the fire.

Mr. Kunstler eloquently explains our country's current predicament, but what's left unsaid is what concerns me the most...and that's where we go after the inevitable collapse...

[LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown]

asoka, but seriously, we can only hope he rises to the challenge if he's elected. And for god sakes, don't let him ride around Dallas in a convertible.

[montysano]

CNN ran a show this weekend about the energy situation. Matthew Simmons was prominently featured, and the dream of biofuels was pretty much dashed.

[theroachman1]

I stubbled on that CNN energy show too on their web site. Shockingly it look as if it may not be to bad. But big deal. CNN showed it at a low watched time slot. Put that show in prime time then maybe I will watch the whole show.

[montysano]

"I stubbled on that CNN energy show too on their web site. Shockingly it look as if it may not be to bad. But big deal. CNN showed it at a low watched time slot. Put that show in prime time then maybe I will watch the whole show."

Or how about if the terms "Peak Oil" and/or "time to make new arrangements" were to slip from the lips of one of the presidential candidates?

[MaryW]

Can't understand why the US government does not start immediate rationing of fuel as a way to limit carbon emissions as well as starve terroists of much needed income.

Rationing would also slow down the crash a little and get people used to the idea of a very constrained future lifestyle.

[Evelyn]

A point I haven't seen discussed in a long time is the harm done to us by big Oil dating clear back to WWII with the influence they used to implement theie "Drain America First" policy.

During the years when we were paying $.20/gal for gasoline we could have been paying $.02/gal by slurping up the glut of Arab oil that was practically free for the taking. Of course that was seen as a threat to the profits of domestic oil producers so our congress was given the excuse to use for passing the legislation enabling our local producers to manage the game for their optimum profit i.e. If we used foreign oil it would make us strategically dependent on outside sources and threaten our security. Whoever controls the energy controls the world. Forget all the confusing stuff in between.

[LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown]

> Can't understand why the US government does not start immediate rationing of fuel as a way to limit carbon emissions as well as starve terroists of much needed income.

Maybe because KBR, Blackwater, XOM etc. have btter lobbyists?

[Evelyn]

@MaryW

Implementing a gas rationing system would be the wisest first step we could possibly make. Initially it wouldn't even be necessary to use it to throttle down consumption. The initial goal would be to install a system for distributing rationing coupons that would work as efficiently as possible. It will be no simple matter getting such a system in place that works properly and avoids the cheating etc that it would be vulnerable to and, at the same time, reliably provides the rationing credits in an equitable manner. Just getting a system in place like that will be an enormous project. Better to get a system in place during an interval when the public won't panic for fear they won't get enough. Once a system is in place and they know it flows smoothly, then they can choke down the supply.

[Nudge]

Lovely post, Jim.

Yesterday's national average fuel prices showed that diesel had gone up 1.1c for the day to $4.512, or 55% up YOY. Today's price is $4.522, up 55.2% YOY.

Please accept my apologies for taking part in the pollution of this public space in last week's thread. I felt the need to respond when OEO began every single post with “Sludge sez”, “Fudgie in her pants sez”, “You're so STUPID”, etc. I'll try not to do that again.

Part of the solution was something that OEO suggested indirectly through his own behavior. He hadn't answered as much as a single one of the many questions I posted here. But he didn't just not answer them .. he ignored the fact that they had even been asked in the first place. So rather than keep up responding to Captain Third Grade Troll, who seemingly cannot avoid puerile name-calling, I'll do what someone suggested he should do if he doesn't want to read my posts: deploy one of Uncle Yarra's cute little javascript filters to remove selective posts from the page.

I encourage OEO to do the same if he really doesn't want to read my stuff. Not a moment's sleep, not a single tear, not one tiny pang of regret will be felt here if OEO uses the wonder of javascript (or simple self-control, if he's got any) to avoid seeing what I post here. It doesn't seem fair, to the rest of the people who post here and the many others who read here, to pollute the space with bickering.

Since transportation here in 'murika uses up lots of that fast-disappearing stuff called fuel, it seems useful to follow up on someone's suggestion here about writing something about it:

Yesterday I took a road trip out to another state to visit relatives. I kept a notebook open on the passenger seat and did hatchmarks to note the incidences of a few different types of vehicles. Saw only two Winnebego-type enormous motorhomes during the whole trip. Saw exactly three Hummers. But the cool part was that I saw more than sixty Priuses – or Prii? Whatever.

Holy crow, regular 'murikans are doing the right thing and voting with their spending money. Rather than continue buying the incrementally-improved crap from the automakers hitherto known as the big three (who've flooded the roads with SUVs for the last decade) they've expressed their feelings by purchasing from some other company entirely.

I posted something last week that contained a bit by some GM wonk admitting that they had over-hyped SUVs. Oooh, big surprise, like we hadn't noticed that as SUV's went from perhaps 1% of the domestic fleet back in the old days (when only forest rangers and the occasional news crew might have a K5 Blazer or an International Harvester) to 56% of today's fleet, this despite enormous improvements in the number and quality of paved rides. Another of those links quoted a Ford engineer as saying that the only time those SUV's went off-roading was when they missed the driveway at 3am. Yeah, we already knew that too.

Good for those consumers making the switch to using not just a little less fuel, but way less fuel. I still maintain that the best and clearest message one could possibly send to GM is to spend your money elsewhere. They have a blog (run by Bob Lutz) which they established awhile back to get the pulse of the community, but unfortunately they act like a bunch of irate NAZgulCAR crybabies if you suggest they do as Toyota & Honda do and offer some high-mpg hybrid sedans – they blather on about how regular 'murikans want 8-cylinder value, and so on. What ever. Clearly, GM is experimenting with user feedback in basically the same way that Myanmar's leaders are experimenting with democracy.

General Motors, hope you now enjoy the view of Toyota's backside as they forage ahead. You're now biatch #1, and most likely you're going to get passed along to Honda next, then to Hyundai, then to Nissan, etc. You may acquire that “used” look as time goes on. Remember, when the ass in front of you stops, kneel down so your mouth is at the right height, and be prepared to kiss some booty. It's all good.

Regular readers will know I don't care much for the Prius. Almost every single one of the 60+ Prii seen yesterday had only one occupant in it, thus continuing the well-known 'murikan meme of using a way bigger vehicle than one actually needs for a given task. Someday that too will go the way of cheap gasoline and cheap diesel, but for the moment, people can temporarily avoid that fate by making more prescient choices than their fellow humanoids.

This drive there and back was remarkably different from past drives along the same route at roughly the same time in a weekend, if only judged by the relative numbers of Hummers and hybrids. Where are all those Hummers now? Did their owners get clueful and perhaps choose Greyhound for the day instead? (Ironically, the typical Greyhound passenger bus gets similar mpgs to one of those overpriced gas pigs, but I digress.) Did they carpool with people who made better choices? Did they sell those rolling 1:1 Tonka mockups for scrap steel?

Last week in the news I saw something about a guy who owns a recycling business and is now openly offering $350 per SUV that's brought to him as scrap metal. I hope this is the beginning of a trend. It seems a fair price for something that was bought mainly as a prop to the illusory lifestyle of 'The O.C.' and for keeping up with the Joneses next door. The thinking was, OMG, what if we get hit by an even bigger SUV?

The many hybrid drivers on the road yesterday seemed to be engaged in the same thing I've done: pointing at the especially large SUV's (yes, there were a few) and laughing. Some merely drove by with a shit-eating grin. Perhaps others were thinking what I was: of all the fools still driving long distance in Avalanches or Excursions or Explorers or Ridgelines or Armadas, how many of them will still be driving next year? How will their little attempt at playing God-of-the-road turn out in the long run? Will they be so high and mighty by this time next year? Will they still be tearfully searching for someone else to blame for their own poor choices – those evil oil companies, perhaps, or some politician who doesn't want to see ANWR violated?

The smog was down and the smug factor was high, both for the same reason. One of these comes from too many dirty vehicles being used, and the other comes from using cleaner vehicles that burn way less fuel.

If you've got to drive at all, safe driving :)

[Nudge]

Saint Bif, lovely commentary (at the end of last week's post) about the Chevy Volt. Given the price tag of the thing, it would seem that GM is making the leap from overpriced $35K+ passenger trucks (tarted up, of course, with the right grills, sound systems, individual DVD players for the little ones in back, and lots of sound deadening) to super-expensive EV's. In other words, GM is committed to even higher per-vehicle prices (and profits, presumably) while continuing to shed market share and workers here in the UPL.

It's not as if GM's main business is selling vehicles anyway. Its auto-loan and home-loan divisions bring in more profit.

How much is that already-expensive lithium cobalt battery going to cost in a few years' time, after several successive waves of price increases for materials, energy, and labor? As mentioned in a previous post, the shortage of a critical element is not the type of problem that can be solved by the efficiencies of mass production. Just look at the degree to which all of our current knowledge of physics, chemistry, and industrial processes leaves us just as unable to manufacture gold out of base materials as were the ancients who tried doing the same. In like manner, the elements needed for those batteries cannot be created in a lab; they must be mined, transported, refined, transported again, and so on, all of which requires cheap energy. Cheap energy is effectively gone as of this spring. It will probably not return in our lifetimes, if ever.

Doom, please keep us posted on efforts to get JHK & Catton out there to speak. Wow. :)

[scott]

$2.24 up another %20 today

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=synm&meta=hl%3Den

This time next year $30-$40 bubble stock

[scott]

another alt bubble stock
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:IVAN

[scott]

Obamamania

"Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

The Illinois senator also argued that the differences between his healthcare plan and that of Clinton "pale in comparison to the differences we have with John McCain," whose proposals would only work "if you're healthy and wealthy."

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w