by nobodypanic » Mon 22 Jun 2009, 18:19:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '
')in my opinion that was caused because we tried to extract more wealth from our economy than she could deliver due to, in some large part, energy constraints.
I agree with that in theory although history
is littered with cases of runaway greed causing major economic meltdowns decoupled from any sort of energy shortage and there is no reason the housing crisis couldn't have had the same impact we're now experiencing with oil at $1/bbl.
Remember that the form of economic meltdown we were all predicting was not some kind of techno clusterfuck with CDOs and liar loans leading up to FerFalocalypse hyperinflation. It was the end of the airlines, grounded delivery trucks leading to empty grocery store shelves, people who heat with fuel oil freezing solid in their beds, all culminating in a Mad Max zompocalypse.
So all I can concede is that this is the culmination of the failure of the US to properly mitigate its
regional peak oil problems, but not that the credit crisis was caused by global geologic peak oil. Ever since The Carter Doctrine was coined, we chose to go down the debt route, the trade imbalance route, the outsourcing route, which is ultimately unsustainable.
i' ve been kicking the idea around that perhaps past historical examples all owe their ultimate cause to running up against some resource constraint. the dfference in past being that we simply had to move on to other sources of easy to pluck resources. i have nothing concrete to back that up, though, but i do think it's an interesting perspective to take.
in any case, considering the position that the prior oil price spike was proof positive that the global economy couldn't function under that high a price, perhaps the hypothesis is falsifiable: if it's accurate, then as oil approaches the previous price, the world economy should once again experience an oil shock with the rate of economic contraction accelerating sharply thereafter. if you think that reasoning is correct, then we can test it, and if it fails, i concede my position. on the other hand, you may find that method unsatisfactory for some reason i haven't foreseen.