by bobcousins » Fri 22 Jun 2007, 07:58:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'T')o me it seems that the oil prices are increasing at the fastest pace in history. Even if you discard inflation and look at the increase percentagewise, prices are increasing at the same pace as in the seventies.
Back then we called it an oil shock, why should we treat it any different now.
Yeah, but it's not $200 yet.
The proof is in the effect, if the rise is too fast it will lead to a crash. We haven't crashed yet. So far, the rise is being weathered.
I'm actually pretty surprised that oil has tripled in price with only debatable effects at the margins. If oil is so vital, how can that be?
Even Kunstler, who is perhaps one of the most strident, calls it a Long Emergency.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'K')unstler argues that as energy becomes scarce, transportation will become difficult or impossible, causing food and other necessary commodities to become unavailable in many communities. It will be necessary for local communities to become self-sufficient for food production, but many communities will be unable to do so, particularly large cities. The result will be mass starvation, disease, and civil unrest. Kunstler suggests that governments will be incapable of managing these problems. This period of scarcity and collapse
will possibly last for hundreds of years, hence the "long" emergency of the book's title.
Kunstler has studied this a lot more than I. Why is Kunstler wrong?