by shortonoil » Thu 21 Feb 2008, 12:46:46
dinopello said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is probably one of those issues that will get filtered by higher level staffers who don't want the candidates message to get off track in the middle of a primary and then a general.
A brief look at the bond market indicates that by election time the economy will have become the main issue. It should be starting to look pretty tattered at that point. The candidates will approach the problem from the perspective of leading economic pundits, who will consequently completely ignore Peak Oil.
The reality that spending money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to improve an ailing economy in a Post Peak world has not yet occurred to economists. Fossil fuel depletion and its effects are beyond their held paradigms. To them, energy is just a commodity to be ignored, because it will respond to market forces like all commodities. When its supply becomes short, prices will go up and it will magically appear in the needed quantities to compensate.
Depletion is a word that is not in their vernacular, to them it is a word held synonymous with substitution. The concept that money can not buy what is no longer there, has completely evaded them. It is a concept that if embraced would illicit accusations of heresy.
The result will be a plethora of economic stimulus plans, reorganizations and changing trade laws; a review of the same old remedies. Affronting the cannons of economics, it can be assumed that Presidential staffers are being told to ignore the “cultist” of the Peak Oil movement. I is likely they are being told how to avoid and change the subject if it arises.
Being unaware of the implications of Peak Oil, politicians will in general continue to ignore it. It is not a subject that can easily be used to win votes, and so, ignore it they will. They will continue to ignore it until that eventful day - the day that the lights start to flicker.