by sjn » Sun 16 Nov 2008, 19:52:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', 'T')he shortage was chronic, and it exibited itself in the indebtment of the general economy. Credit availablity only shifted what was available to those able to attain that credit and away from those who could not. The credit crunch is/was the process of that pool of credit shrinking, cutting availability first to large parts of what have been until now the first world (including US home buyers) and now into the rapidily developing countries, such as is now occuring in China.
SJN, There has been an intentional easing of credit and expansion of the money since the crash of the Nasdaq and dot com problem. The subprime fiasco, and the financial innovations, derivatives, credit default swaps, that arose from that expansion are largely responsible for where we are today. Expensive oil didn't help, though money flows from Opec nations back into American financial system, certainly provided fresh capital to keep the whole rotting mess going longer than it should have. I wouldn't be surprised to find out one of the key reasons American banks began to fail, is Saudi Arabia became antsy about continuing to pour fresh money into them.
This is an interesting article. I don't completely agree with it, but Engdahl makes some good points, that help knock some of the legs out from under fundamentalist "peak think"
link
Engdahl is wrong. He's come out as not believing in PO, which is also plain by the language he uses. Peak Oil Myth? I know you are not someone who subscribes to the idea of PO as a myth, and really I don't think PO is central the point I was trying to make. Available Energy is a bigger, more chronic, and insiduous problem than Peak Oil.
The price of oil in the benchmark futures markets is part a financial instrument as Engdahl suggests, and part a commodity contract. Few use the Nymex or other exchanges to buy oil directly, but they use it to hedge the sale of purchase of oil at various grades at offsets from the benchmark futures prices. It provides liquidity. That enables production projects to go ahead knowing they will be able to guarantee a certian price for their oil, and purchasers to lock in a price where they know they can plan forward with a known expense when it comes to their procurement.
This really doesn't make any difference to my argument, which was about the ability to pay, for different buyers, given their credit availabilty. The price went up because people could afford to pay those prices. The regulated markets require participants to be willing to provide the contacted commodity or pay cash and compensation if not. That people could make side bets, is no different to making bets on the outcome of anything else you might care to make bets on, it doesn't directly affect the price people pay for oil. Though it does allow people to make and lose vast sums of money.
The price of oil went up because the money supply went up, and it was the thing people/industry needed to spend that extra money on, the same goes for other commodities vital to the global economy. The price of other items (except real estate and equities!), didn't see the inflationary effect of the loose lending standards, that's why they could get away with claiming a low CPI.
Energy is fundamental to economic activity, and to all types of *work*. It's basic thermodynamics. Money is not. Money is just an abstraction, the mechanism we use to determine who gets what, and what goes where. We haven't run out of money, it's just that it's no longer possible to keep recycling the petrodollars through the oil producers and back into the general economy. The system became short-circuited.