[ColossalContrarian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DoomWarrior', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e've been saying this for over a year at PO.COM ... and Jeff Rubin comes along a year later, writes a book, and makes a million bucks by stating the obvious

[odegaard]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Troyboy1208', 'a')nd yet the amount of oil stored worldwide is at a near all time high...something is a miss here when you resort to storing oil in supertankers and the price is still high.

[deMolay]

As the Chief Economist for the CIBC he was somewhat restrained publicly. He is a very Conservative Economist. Canadian Bankers have proven to be Reserved and they make Swiss Bankers look like wastrel drunken sailors on shore leave. The main thing I get from this interview is a couple of points he makes. Globalization is finished, it will never rise again. Even if Trillions in spending revives the economy Peak Oil will take it down immediately. The current lifestyle and economy is finished. If during the worst Depression in over 100 years oil is still sitting at $70/barrel when the economy does lurch up a few notches, oil will rise with it and flatten it again. He is calling for $200 oil by 2010 sometime depending how soon the economy ticks up. He called $100 plus oil back in the year 2000. He is calling for a localized economy etc. He doesn't see technology saving our asses because of our dependance on oil and our high levels of consumption. He approaches it from an economic viewpoint.

[seldom_seen]

Kunstler was saying this back in 2005

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Globalisation is an anomaly and its time is running out
Cheap energy and relative peace helped create a false doctrine

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/au ... on.comment

[shortonoil]

seldom_seen said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'K')unstler was saying this back in 2005

[patience]

The early 70's edition of Mark's Mechanical Engineering Handbook had oil reserves data in it, reflecting Hubbert's work. Think mine is still around somewhere. A friend and I used it for reference during the Oil Embargo back then. We both hightailed it out of the GM plant where we worked and got other jobs. This is not a new thing, except to those who would not see. We both preached against JIT, Globalization, drunken-sailor credit, and the rest of the FIRE economy, to no avail. Being proven right is not always satisfying, though.

[shortonoil]

It looks like we both got spun out of the same mold.

[deMolay]

The Hippy Back to the Land Movement was the precursor to all of this. We knew it was coming but it didn't have a name. The Club of Rome Limits to Growth etc. Iron Mountain. It was all laid out in front of everyone and ignored.

[drew]

Rubin's book is quite good. I enriched him and Chapters just last week. I noticed no one here talked about his somewhat restrained optimism for the future......

Anyways, that was a nice refreshing change. My guess is though that our world will be turned on its head for quite a while before the home base industry he talks about returns.

I suspect also that he may be preaching to the converted. The sheeple probably won't get it. He doesn't really go into enough detail about depletion to convince people who have limited knowledge of oil in general.

All in all though, a good read. I wanted to get an economist's take on what may happen-he delivers.

Drew

[hardtootell-2]

I heard Jeff being interviewed on the CBC radio. I have heard most of "his ideas" already from Matt Simmons and Kuntsler. It was refreshing that the interviewer took him seriously. I was astonished that a number of really articulate (female!(unusual to hear a female doomer)) callers who also took him seriously. One actually said "so i guess its just get a farm and forget about the rest of this game" or something like that. I was speechless. That happens to be exactly what I am doing...

[deMolay]

Here is Rubin's book review. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f1395e5e-515f-11de-84c3-00144feabdc0.html

[hardtootell-2]

An awesome recent talk by Jeff Rubin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

well worth the time to listen to- IMHO

[hironegro]

Oil will not be traded in at triple digit value.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hardtootell-2', 'A')n awesome recent talk by Jeff Rubin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

well worth the time to listen to- IMHO

[KaiserJeep]

By focussing all our attention on the candidates versus the political platforms of the two major parties they represent, we are missing the essence of the election, where we are essentially charting a path for the country to trod upon for 4 or 8 years.

I detest BOTH Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I do not perceive one as morally or intellectually the superior. I've also looked at the Indie rivals to these two "fine specimens" and although the Libertarians strike an occasional chord that resonates within me, they don't have the proverbial snowflake's chance in Hell.

I believe that the most important difference that is clearly delineated between the two major party candidates is their attitudes towards the country we live in. The churlish Trump is a believer in American exceptionalism, and to Hillary, Americans are chumps to be pandered to for votes. In this one aspect of these two repugnant personalities I see a difference that matters. It is enough for me to hold my nose and vote for Trump.

It's a Sunday morning and I have no patience for this place today. But I direct your attention to the following editorial column:

http://spectator.org/the-nation-builder/

If anyone would care to share a counter proposal from a Democratic perspective, I'd be interesting in reading such. I do not really care if you link to such or type the words yourself, but I believe it would be productive to focus upon the differences between HRC and Trump with regards to globalization, with minimal or at least brief detours.

[ROCKMAN]

Just a quick side bar: it seems like "Nation Maintenance in the Age of Globalization" might be a more appropriate title since so many nations are failing to do even that. LOL.

[Ibon]

There is not real argument from the democratic side. KJ, as much as you hate both candidates it is important to remember to think out of the narrative of two parties at polar opposites. Both parties share more than they differ. They are power brokers to interests that are not the general public. This is never going to change in our lifetimes, in fact it never changed in history. The middle class just happened to be wealthy enough in past decades that we tolerated and did not speak out against the special interests both parties have always represented. That is the common denominator we should first all recognize.

Now where I see choice is as follows. One choice is to accept this status quo of either party being brokers to special interests. If you accept this then you look at which party at the moment can better execute the functioning of government. For most of Americans this will probably end up being Hillary Clinton. A very pragmatic position some folks take is that she is corrupt and in some areas incompetent but in the category of competency in general she out shines Trump in spades. He is a loose cannon. Period.

A year ago I resonated with something Trump said. I am not a nice guy. You do not have to be a nice guy to fix the government. You just have to know how to negotiate. The Art of the Deal. In those early days this message resonated, even somewhat with me. Then he just turned total kooky. This isn't him miscalculating though. He is way too smart for that. His recent implosion is calculated. He has to exit without losing face. That is what he is doing. He has no real interest to wake up a 5 am and work until 11pm. His theatrics has always been to stand out as a renegade, never to be a technocrat.

Hillary will be an effective technocrat to the special interests who will orchestrate her getting elected.

What else is new? Absolutely nothing.

[Ibon]

I forgot to mention the other choice. What Loki mentioned on some other thread. Vote to Trump to disrupt the status quo. Vote to increase chaos, to break down government. The Republican party has members that resonate with this just like the democrats do as well. This is also a choice. I just don't think the majority will go this way when push comes to shove. Unless some real disruption happens Hillary will be our next president.

I could be totally wrong, after all, I am looking from the outside in, from up top a mountain in Panama. That may mean I am not accurately tuning into where the pulse of the nation is, or standing outside may enable me some distance and perspective.

We will see.

[KaiserJeep]

Hear, hear - "disrupt the status quo" is a message that resonates with me, too. Must be that streak of anarchy that is every American's birthright.

I was very, very disappointed when Sanders was sandbagged by Hillary. I would have dearly LOVED to have heard Sanders and Trump trying to outdo one another when it comes to being unconventional. Not to mention, it would have been a slap in the face for TPTB in both major parties, something that is desperately needed.

I mean, granted that Sanders was a batsh!t crazy Socialist. But the country has had batsh!t crazy presidents before, some of them did quite well, the other two branches of government do tend to moderate their crazed notions.

I believe that nationalism vs. globalism to be the one area where HRC and Trump clearly contrast. Trump pretty much owns the middle class working majority, and those that rightfully blame the D's for offshoring so many American jobs. He can use that clout or throw it away, it is up to him.