Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Something Had to Give: How Oil Burst the American Bubble
The economic bubble that lifted the stock market to dizzying heights was sustained as much by cheap oil as by cheap (often fraudulent) mortgages. Likewise, the collapse of the bubble was caused as much by costly (often imported) oil as by record defaults on those improvident mortgages. Oil, in fact, has played a critical, if little commented upon, role in America's current economic enfeeblement -- and it will continue to drain the economy of wealth and vigor for years to come.
The great economic mega-bubble arose in the late 1990s, when oil was cheap, times were good, and millions of middle-class families aspired to realize the "American dream" by buying a three (or more) bedroom house on a decent piece of property in a nice, safe suburb with good schools and various other amenities. The hitch: Few such affordable homes were available for sale -- or being built -- within easy commuting range of major metropolitan areas or near public transportation. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, for example, the median sale price of existing homes rose from $290,000 in 2002 to $446,400 in 2004; similar increases were posted in other major cities and in their older, more desirable suburbs.
This left home buyers with two unappealing choices: Take out larger mortgages than they could readily afford, often borrowing from unscrupulous lenders who overlooked their overstretched finances (that is, their "subprime" qualifications); or buy cheaper homes far from their places of work, which ensured long commutes, while hoping that the price of gasoline remained relatively low. Many first-time home buyers wound up doing both -- signing up for crushing mortgages on homes far from their places of work.
The result was metastasizing exurban home developments along the beltways that surround major American cities and along the new feeder roads that now stretched into the distant countryside beyond. In some cases, those new homeowners found themselves 30, 40, even 50 miles or more from the urban centers in which their only hope of employment lay. Data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2004 showed that virtually all of the fastest growing counties in the country -- those with growth rates of 10% or more -- were located in exurban areas like Loudoun County, Virginia (35 miles west of Washington, D.C.) or Henry County, Georgia (30 miles south of Atlanta).
At the same time, cheap oil and changing consumer tastes -- pushed along by relentless advertising campaigns -- led many of the same Americans to trade in their smaller, lighter cars for heavy SUVs or pickup trucks, which, of course, meant only one thing -- a significant increase in oil consumption. According to the Department of Energy, total petroleum use rose from an average of 17 million barrels per day in 1990 to 21 million barrels in 2004, an increase of 24% -- most of it being burned up on American roads.
Let the Good Times Roll (into the Exurbs)
In 1998, when the bubble was taking shape, crude oil cost about $11 a barrel and the United States produced half of the petroleum it consumed; but that was the last year in which the fundamentals were so positive. American reliance on imported petroleum crossed the 50% threshold that very year and has been rising ever since, while the cost of imported oil hit the $100 per barrel mark this January 2 for the first time, an all-time record (though the price was once briefly higher, as measured in older, less inflated dollars).
When that steady price climb, combined with growing dependence on imported petroleum, was translated into the new exurban landscape the economic bubble began to shudder. As a start, there was that ever-increasing outflow of dollars needed just to pay for all those barrels of crude and the resulting surge in America's foreign-trade deficit.
Consider this: In 1998, the United States paid approximately $45 billion for its imported oil; in 2007, that bill is likely to have reached $400 billion or more. That constitutes the single largest contribution to America's balance-of-payments deficit and a substantial transfer of wealth from the U.S. economy to those of oil-producing nations. This, in turn, helped weaken the value of the dollar in relation to key foreign currencies, especially the euro and the Japanese yen, boosting the cost of other imported foreign goods and so threatening to fuel inflation at home.
Meanwhile, two critical developments kept the cost of oil rising: a dramatic increase in global demand, largely driven by the emergence of China and India as major consuming nations; and a pronounced slowdown in the expansion of global supply, due mainly to a dearth of new discoveries and recurring political disorder in key oil fields already in production. This meant that American energy consumers -- including all those long-distance commuters with crippling mortgages and gas-guzzling SUVs -- had to compete with newly-affluent Chinese and Indian consumers for access to ever more costly supplies of imported petroleum. Something had to give.
As the oil import bill kept rising, the value of the dollar kept falling, and inflationary pressures kept building, the country's central bankers responded in classic fashion by raising interest rates. This naturally resulted in substantially higher monthly payments for homeowners with variable-rate mortgages. For many families already stretched to the limit, this would prove the final blow. Forced to default on their mortgages, they then precipitated the subprime crisis by, in effect, puncturing the bubble.
Even then, the economy might have had a chance had that crisis not come in tandem with the $100 barrel of oil. By December, consumers were cutting back on nonessential purchases, producing the most disappointing holiday retail season since 2001. When questioned, many indicated that the high cost of gasoline and home-heating fuel had forced them to economize on Christmas gifts, winter vacations, and other indulgences. "If gasoline prices go up, that means there's less to spend on everything else," said David Greenlaw, chief U.S. fixed-income analyst at Morgan Stanley.
The high price of gasoline was bad news for another pillar of the economy as well: the auto industry. While Japanese companies were busy rolling out hybrid vehicles and small, fuel-efficient conventional cars, Detroit stuck doggedly to its now-obsolete business model of producing large SUVs and light trucks, which had, in recent years, been the source of most of its profits. Once the price of oil went stratospheric, of course, Americans predictably stopped buying the gas guzzlers, signing what looked like an instant death certificate for an improvident industry. In 1999, for example, Ford sold more than 428,000 mid-sized Explorer SUVs; in the first 11 months of 2007, the equivalent number was 126,930 Explorers (and even that puts a gloss on the corpse, as November was one of the worst months in recent automotive history). An auto industry in decline naturally means that many ancillary industries will be facing contraction, if not disaster.
Popping the Bubble
Then came January 2. Although oil retreated from the $100 mark by the end of that day on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the damage had been done. Stocks on the New York Stock Exchange plummeted, suffering their worst loss on a New Year debut since 1983. Gold, meanwhile, soared to an all-time high -- a sure indication of international anxiety about the vigor of the U.S. economy.
Since then, stock market panics have hit major financial centers around the world. Only a dramatic last-minute decision by the Federal Reserve to reduce overnight lending rates by three-quarters of a point before the markets opened on January 22 averted a further, potentially catastrophic slide in stock prices. Many analysts now believe that a recession is inevitable -- possibly a long and especially painful one. A few are even mentioning the "D" word, for depression.
Whatever happens, the American economy will eventually emerge from this crisis significantly weaker, largely because of its now-inescapable dependence on imported oil. Over the past decade, this country has squandered approximately one and a half trillion dollars on imported oil, much of which has been poured down the tanks of grotesquely fuel-inefficient vehicles that were conveying drivers on ever lengthening commutes from the exurbs to employment in center cities.
Today, a large share of this money is deposited in so-called sovereign-wealth funds (SWFs). Americans should get used to that phrase. It stands for giant pools of wealth that are under the control of government agencies like the Kuwait Investment Authority and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. These SWFs now control approximately $3 trillion in assets, and, with more petrodollars pouring into the petro-states every day, they are projected to hit the $12 trillion mark by 2015.
What are those who control the sovereign-wealth funds doing with all this money? For one thing, buying up choice U.S. assets at bargain-basement prices. In the past few months, Persian Gulf SWFs have acquired a significant stake in a number of prominent American firms, giving them a potential say in the future management of these companies. The Kuwait Investment Authority, for example, recently took a $12 billion stake in Citigroup and a $6.5 billion share in Merrill Lynch; the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority acquired a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup; and Mubadala Development of Abu Dhabi purchased a $1.5 billion share in the privately-held Carlyle Group.
These acquisitions are just a small indication of a massive, irreversible shift in wealth and power from the United States to the petro-states of the Middle East and energy-rich Russia. These countries, notes the International Monetary Fund, are believed to have raked in $750 billion in 2007 and are expected to do even better this year -- and each year thereafter. What this means is not just the continuing enfeeblement of the American economy, but an accompanying decline in global political leverage.
Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He quite literally begged Saudi King Abdullah to increase the kingdom's output of crude oil in order to lower the domestic price of gasoline. "My point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline -- in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down," he told an interviewer before his royal audience. "If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of [Saudi] oil purchased."
Needless to say, the Saudi leadership dismissed this implied threat for the pathetic bathos it was. The Saudis, indicated Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, would raise production only "when the market justifies it." With that, they made clear what the whole world now knows: The American bubble has burst -- and it was oil that popped it. Thus are those with an "oil addiction" (as President Bush once termed it) forced to grovel before the select few who can supply the needed fix.
Michael Klare, author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. His newest book, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy, will be published by Metropolitan Books in April 2008.
Copyright 2008 Michael T. Klare
Comments
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.


64 Comments so far
Show AllEnergy Policy Act of 2005.
Who voted in favor of it? Who voted against it?
It was filled to the gills with kickbacks and deals
for companies invested in Oil and Energy.
DOE. Who you gonna put in charge of the DOE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005#Criticisms
And the price of cheap foreign-produced consumer products is going up along with the price of oil:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01inflate.html?ex=1359522000&en=aea65e0feee76b49&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Someday, decades from now, the mention of "consumerism" will bring a puzzled look to the faces of young listeners, much like "feudalism" or "mercantilism" does now. Unfortunately, the ability to buy junk they don't need has become such an integral part of Americans' definition of "freedom" that it's unlikely that the real values of democracy and civil liberties will survive either.
Perhaps in a few more decades we'll all be riding horses, our streets will once again fill up with horse dung and we'll be suffering from the diseases and runoff. Back to the future!
Excellent article.
What will happen to the property values of these exurban homes as the cost of commuting rises? Development here in the American midwest often favors massive residential tracts, located nowhere near mortgage-affording jobs. Big Boxes and stripmalls with low-pay/low-skill work. Commuting isn't optional for many, it's required.
Yes, lets point the blame on oil, Russia, the Middle East, even China and not the true culprits of the economic disastor the Federal Reserve and loose credit. Is Ben Benarke funding you Mr. Klare? Its the FED that has created booms and busts and this last boom and bust in the housing market. Our entire economy depends on debt for growth credits cards are a good example and the housing bubble the other, the stock market bubble of 2001 also is another good example. There are plenty of films on google now about the FED. Suggest you all educate yourselves.
Sell those SUV's and trucks *now*, before the rush.
The more hybrids bought and produced in 2008, 2009, 2010, the sooner the lithium-ion batteries will be perfected for the plug-in hybrids which will give our nation another 10 years or so before the economy *really* crashes and oil gets *really* expensive.
Peak Oil is coming like a blistering day in the desert. It's 7am, time to fill up those water bottles... SUV's are like a wool sweater - the wrong tool for the wrong time. And at noon, the panic begins...
Welcome to the 21st century.
While this article covers interesting ground it has ignored major influences on the oil related economic crunch.
The invasion of Iraq reduced Iraq's already limited production. Hence, the price of crude goes up, which is fine for Big Oil but not for the average energy consumer.
The endless "war" and occupation has also contributed to the decline of the dollar. Oil is traded with dollars. As the dollar declines on currency markets, the price of oil is adjusted.
This has become a sick victory for Big Oil and the military industrial complex. They are making record profits while we all pay and the killing continues.
Way to go, dcbeltway. I'm at a loss for words - 'cause you said it all.
Alas, how things always manage to come full circle. The truth portrayed in this important article is that the for-profit oil men in selling out the long-term needs of their nation's citizens for their own short-term profit end up capsizing the basis for America's general wealth and perceived well being. Tightening the fuel chord around one vanishing resource while everywhere the sun shines and the wind blows and a variety of less environmentally rabid resources call out, "use me instead!" But no, the oil men and their car company cohorts had to finesse overweight Americans into oversized homes and cars, and now the weight of all this excess falls upon our nation. I can't imagine much compassion around the globe as under Bush the US has definitely attained the earned status of "ugly American."
The military uses a great deal of excess fuel, too. It would be Gaia's revenge if all the carnage came to a stop because the fuel ran out. And who knows, maybe lots of overweight people would have to keep their vehicles parked and lose weight by walking to get to their desired locations. (I'm not suggesting 30 mile walk-commutes, but for other activities.)
All these years alternative technologies might have matured, all those whose jobs have been "down sized" might have--and still might--contributed to a massive "Manhattan Project" geared towards new fuel technologies and their deployments in urban centers. Here the US learns that its disproportionate investment in militarism and the ways and means to kill others promises only impoverishment. Values that do not honor life are bankrupt, and that Truth must come full circle. AS now.
adding to dcbeltway's admonition to educate oneself, here's a good article by Mike Whitney in yesterday's counterpunch. www.counterpunch.com/whitney01312008.html
Perhaps, in a few decades we here in the US will have a political and economic life very similiar to the "third world" contries we now "influence/control"- under the rise of a new superpower/lending nation. Maybe things will get so bad, we'll nationalize our foreigned owned corporations and become the new "commie threat". Whatever has happened before will come again.
Very good article!
What will happen to those exurban homes? I for one think families will start moving back in with each other- more people in smaller houses.
We should all know by now that there is never a quick fix, that it takes time to make change and even more time to wait for change, and that there are only 'natural' conspiriacies of human people doing what only options they have or being carried away with greed.
Yes, inflation would not be as easy if we had no (privatley owned) Federal Reserve and we were on the gold standard.
dustinchicago
What do mean "start moving back in with each other"? The exurban houses will be cut up into apartments just like the brownstones in New York.
The logical development for the overly built up exurban corridors is to now add commuter rail service. This is happening, but the pace should be sped up. Massive investment in energy efficient infrastructure is America's only hope of economic survival against Europe and China. A massive taxation shift away from income and toward pollution (including co2) is the best step in giving the economic incentives to get the job done.
I mean that if my extended family couldn't afford to live in certain places, I and most of them would move together into a more managable home situation- one or more homes/apartments as close to jobs as possible. We'd probably pool cars and other costly resources as well. There have been a lot of personal hard times in our family, and a lot of us have lived with several other family members. What worries me is when it seemingly happens all at once. (but I think you were reffering to the idea that there will be less owners and more renters)
I am really curious what the author thinks about Exxon Mobils record proftis announced yesterday.
We own more cars than any other nation.
The technology used in most houses is an Energy hogging one. Better technologies would become cheaper if used by more people
I agree with DC Beltway
As has always been the case throughout world history, empires come ......... and empires go. The american empire has reached its apex and has begun its inevitable decline. This paper is a great introduction into one of the primary reasons, although there are many more that historians will document. As we swim upstream, in a vain attempt to keep the economic and political power necessary to maintain our empire, I can't help but think how it might have been if we had developed global friendships based on social and economic justice rather than based on a maximization of profit model. As we lose the resources (wealth) necessary to maintain our military hegemony in the world (pitifully exposed in Iraq and Afganistan), I wonder how many nations will continue to call us friends? If not, what does that future look like for this once powerful empire? Maybe a good place to start would be a review of Roman history.
I see it as the steady decline of the middle class since the 70s.
We lost more and more good paying jobs, but we did not create many good jobs to replace those that were lost. Many people were told to get training and education and did, but there were not many good jobs for them when they got done with their training and education. There are so many well trained and well educated people that are underemployed in the U.S., it is not funny. Until we take a systems approach to America and fix how all the pieces fit together, we will continue the slide downward.
Greg R,
I disagree -- the underlying problem entails our complete lack of urban planning. We don't conceive of villages any more. We need to somehow lure high paying jobs to build within walking/biking distance of homes, to have more small grocers, etc. within walking/biking distance, etc. What's wrong with the suburbs/exurbs isn't a reasonable size yard (sufficient for gardening, playing with the kids), safe parks, etc. What's wrong is their complete monolithic/hegemony on the landscsape. They need to be intermingled with business offering high-paying jobs.
If I could make enough money to pay my mortgage within walking-distance of my home, I'd change jobs today. I once worked a college job for a few years in a suburb, at a neighborhood public library (before they started building libraries near shopping malls). I walked through a park to work, and walked home for dinner breaks. It really doesn't get any better than that.
back to the future does not mean back to horses, dung-filled roads, and disease.
neither does back to the future II mean flying cars for everyone
currently it is a requirement to own a car in the USA as we have no viable public transportation except in cities like NYC and Chicago.
Eventually we will begin behaving like the rest of the world: compact cities, multi-generational homes, and viable usable public transportation.
Our parking lots will be redeveloped into housing etc.
""http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/121"
Paul,
You have pointed out something that I keep trying to tell people and get little traction. Many jobs do not have to be in a "business area" requiring long commuting in the first place. All we have to do solve much of this is to move (require?) businesses away from a centralized "business district."
But horrors! that would drop the value of those big and monstrous, energy guzzling, opulent business buildings, and we can't have that... oh no no! We can't do that...the rich would become poor...
Although the American rich entirely created current problems themselves, it is obvious that rising oil prices have sped up the downhill race to recession and beyond that depression. You should not look at it in terms of culpability though. Empires come and go, like everything in nature has its course. Far more interesting is to notice how the power shifts this time. There will be no mayor wars involved, unless of course the crazy lonely dictators in Washington decide to go with a bang. (Where did I hear such reasoning before?) No, the new powers simply drain the old leading economy from its money. Every next day it becomes less likely that the USA will regain some power by paying of their debts. And every evening at sunset the sheiks of the Gulf know they are the next Rome. So close to emerging Asia, so full of oil for at least another five years, perhaps ten. It's Dubai time for all you bubble surfers. But don't be late, because this is going to be an even faster exploding than the last one.
Lovely summary of the big picture. And the solution is the attack on Iraq and maybe Iran? This will help the economy and combat climate change? Is this at the bequest of the oil corporations, or does it reflect the political power of the major dollar holders and owners of US of I assets, the Saudis and their friends. I have not seen the Saudis begging the US of I to get out of Iraq or leave Iran alone. Who is holding the gun of war to the US Administrations head?
On another track, science reports state that politically right or left tendencies, and ways of thinking, are genetically determined. The current leadership of the US of I cannot help itself, as they deny their evolutionary and causative heritages (apart from the belief they are gods special chosen), cannot face the truth, and cannot climb of the trap. The US of I can only stay the course, and its downhill from here.
I've been saying this since the first notice of the "sub-prime crisis."
Banks made risky loans, based on the current economic picture. Then energy and food (neither of which are included in the government's "core inflation" stats) shot up.
Now your typical sub-prime borrower has a choice: 1) eat, 2) drive to work, or 3) skip a few house payments.
This is the first "energy recession" since the '70's. Those of us who were around then should take heed; those who weren't should do some research. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to re-live it.
The hegemon is destroying the ecological basis for life on Earth. If it cannot reign itself in, then its demise--by whatever mechanism--must be seen as a good thing from the point of view of LIFE.
At least Citgo provides some help to those in need. Thanks Joe and Hugo.
No mention that it is Alberta Oil which has burst your bubble. Americans get more of their oil from Alberta than anywhere else.
Ah, yes, oil. The issue of the day and the most important of the Iraq war is how to steal Iraq's oil with an oil law that favors the United States. The oil companies have offered to bribe Iraqi parliamentarians at 5 million per legislator. This is the truly interesting issue: Can the Iraqis be bought as if they were American politicians or will they refuse to be bought because the believe in principles? Will the Iraqis betray their people for money as the US congress has, or will they prove to be better people? I am to cynical to believe, but it is possible that Iraqis will show that they believe in values, not just money. This is the issue I most care about.
Who needs Islamic terrorist to take over, Bush has already given the USA to the Arabs.
Jan Steinman, I would like to hear more about the 70's energy crisis- I was not old enough to really remember it. Aside from broad, major institutions, how were regular people affected and what did they/you do?
In the 70s oil crisis, the speed limit was dropped to 55mph, gas was sold every other day, depending on your license plate, people were urged to conserve, Christmas lights were discouraged, we were told to lower our thermostats and wear sweaters to keep warm. Guess what? It was not hard to do any of this, but Reagan came in and ridiculed these measures.
The Reaganites told us that we were entitled to drive fast in big cars, to crank up the heat and wear tank tops in the winter, to waste resources as we pleased.
Something no one has mentioned yet is 9-11. The official story is that we were attacked by Arabs using oil money. If you believe that story, why didn't we immediately stop using so much oil? It's been 6+ years. That's longer than WWll, in which the entire economy was changed to produce weapons. We could have switched to sustainable energy, quit subsidizing exurbs, improved public transportation, produced electric cars.
The entire government should be impeached for treason.
Dustinchicago:
The energy crisis of the 70's was not such a big deal. Americans had to line up for gas, big deal! The problem was that Americans weren't used to this, and since not being able to get what they want when they want it is, for an American, a clear sign of total life failure, they went nuts and started shooting each other. Americans think it was a big thing because anything that interferes with their desires is a big thing. Americans are ready, able and willing to kill to preserve this freedom, the freedom to indulge. Sushi anyone?
The basic cause of the US's social problems is a rapidly increasing national and international stratification.
During the 1970s, there started a reversal in the fortunes of average Americans. Multinational corporations began to once again regain the political power they had somewhat lost during the Great Depression.
In the 1970s, these corporations invested in developing or expanding political action committees, industry lobbyists, the right-wing media infrastructure, and their increasing control over the MSM and both political parties which allowed them to start dismantling the Welfare State while explanding the Warfare and Market State
The commercialization, and militarization of everyday life was constructed via the synergistic combination of Big Military, Big Business,and Big Religion (with Big Religion playing the handmaiden to the other two "Biggies").
Because of the activities of the 3 Biggies, our standard and security of living is much lower than it was during 1950s and 1960s.
Populist/Liberal politicians or activists of the '60s simply aren't allowed anywhere near the levers of power in today's America. Thus there is no need to assassinate the likes of JFK, Robert Kennedy, Malcom X or MLK.
Such people are delegitimized or ignored before they capture a mass following.
And everytime a President gives the corporate elite a tax break or bail out, it only enlarges the economic power that they already possess. That increased economic power translates into even more control over the political process. (Thus the logic of "trickle down" economic policies.)
Last, the fundamental problem of the modern world is as follows:
those who have the most needs have the least power; those who have the least needs have the most power.
Paul Bramscher- The more of your vision of integrated neighborhoods of jobs and homes the better, but rail service from higher density exurban areas into the Twin Cities, for instance, offers choices for job seekers and entertainment.
During the oil shocks of the early 70's OPEC (read the Saudis) proposed using its vast holdings of US treasury paper to buy US companies, to which the US responded by saying it would consider that course of action a casus belli. Three decades later, a once great icon of American trade dominance lying in ruins, two failed wars against countries that posed no threat, the economy in a shambles, and a president dancing like a performing monkey for his Saudi masters before being ignominiously refused.
Greg R,
Maybe. But it'll also entail two great problems.
(1) More runaway urban sprawl, emanating along the rail lines. Indeed, it may serve to discourage sensible urban planning.
(2) Transportation projects nation wide are often plagued with boondoggling. There's a plan to install light-rail connecting St. Paul and Minneapolis along University Ave. at over a billion (and the cost keeps climbing). Last I calculated, it would have been $13,000+ per FOOT of rail.
The sad joke on us is that just a few blocks to the north, running parallel, of where they want to lay this line currently exists at least half a dozen rail lines that were built by railroad barons of a previous guilded age, with state perks, etc. and are still operating!
We'll need an honest person or two to pull off any sort of large-scale project (whether military, transportation, health care, etc.). I don't believe we have enough integrity in government to pull large-scale projects off cleanly any more.
Seems like a striking lack of foresight on the part of consumers. I don't understand why all those people who bought SUVs thought that the price of oil would never go up again. Or why the people who took out those variable rate mortgages thought the rate would never go up!
One more rant- why does everybody seem to think they have to buy a huge home? Homes were much smaller in the 60s and 70s and we did just fine. I watch HGTV a lot but I sometimes have to change the channel when "House Hunters" is on. Pretty much the only adjectives people seem to know are "big" and "small". Big is good, small is bad.
Why not have a smaller, well-designed place? If people make good use of the space they have they can live well in suprisingly small homes.
I personally don't own a car, and live in a small condo in the city with a fixed rate mortgage. And I'm very glad of it!
Mr.McGarrett: Thank you for a very interesting post.
Starting with Reagan (1981), the US dumped Keynesian economics and re-introduced "supply-side"/"free-market" economics (cause of 1929 Great Depression), AND, importantly, trashed the U.S. policy change away from oil to alternative energies that was set-up by Jimmy Carter (the last Presidential "Statesman") with his April 18, 1977 "Fireside Chat".
Chat here:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1977_0418_carter
Jimmy ... "wore sweaters, had solar hot water panels installed on the roof of the White House, had a wood stove in his living quarters, ordered the General Services Administration to turn off hot water in some federal facilities, and requested that Christmas decorations remain dark in 1979 and 1980." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter
Guess what?
When Reagan took over, the Cowboy came back!. He actually believed he was a Cowboy.
His first week in office, 'Giddy-up' Reagan went on the White House roof and dismantled the solar panel system; then, he raided the White House living quarters and destroyed the wooden stove system while simultaneously winking to the oil industry, the group that had him installed.
This was in 1981, twenty-six (26) years ago...
Where are we today?
We are in Iraq (mega untapped oil reserves ), Afghanistan (energy pipelines installed), and, aiming next on Iran (oil & gas supply with another SHAH installed) ... DOING ALL OF THIS ON BORROWED MONEY!!!.
Imagine ... if we had stayed on the intelligent switch to alternative energy 26-years ago where we would be ... with many friends & respect around the world?
Shame on the free-market gangsters.
Vote Nader or Senator Gravel!!!
Here good link on oil:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
US Imports majority of its oil from:
Canada 18%
Mexico 15%
Nigeria 12%
Saudi 12%
Venezuela 10%
Angola 6%
Majority of our oil imports therefore do not come from the Middle East when you add up all the percentages.
Secondly, our reserves of oil and natural gas make us in the top 5 countries in the world.
There were other reasons for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the current push for war in Iran besides the oil factor. Afghanistan has enriched uranium and opium poppies, Iraq and Iran are considered strategic threats to you know who in the region.
As a progressive I always see the leaders of the left pointing the blame entirely on oil for everything mixed in with anti-Arab racism. My thoughts: Controlled opposition anywone? Its more complicated then that as I said research the other factors too.
When in doubt as to a workable solution to a modern day problem, it is often profitable to look at how things are done in Europe. They've tried many things over the centuries, often with tragic results, but most of their current strategies make so much more sense than the way things are done in modern America that it's almost laughable. Consider: urban centers with efficient public transportation networks, mixed-use neighborhoods with walking and biking paths, single-payer health care and other vital social safety nets, high gasoline taxes to discourage consumption and provide funding for transportation infrastructure, and, perhaps most importantly, parliamentary democracy with proportional representation, allowing for a more diverse approach to policy decisions rather than the corporatist monopoly of power which prevails in the States.
I think Paul Bramscher is on to something with regards to the lack of urban planning. It's difficult to do much about it in the States, though, because the current way of thinking is so entrenched that when you try to challenge it with most Americans, they look at you as if you've grown another head. I once mentioned to a group of suburbanites that I thought the lack of sidewalks in new housing developments showed that our concept of community has degraded, as it's evidence that people are placing a lower priority on their ability to visit their neighbors. They all seemed to think it was more of a sign of progress because it eliminates the need to shovel the walkway in the winter. High gas prices and food prices might open people's eyes a bit.
I'd recommend the book, "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future" by Bill McKibben to anyone interested in these issues.
To: dcbeltway
Regarding: "Secondly, our reserves of oil and natural gas make us in the top 5 countries in the world."
That implies the U.S. is in a secure position regarding oil supply.
Unfortunately, the U.S. imports about 58% of the oil consumed. Our relatively "large" oil reserve supply comes nowhere near our relatively "larger" demand addiction.
U.S. domestic oil supply/production peaked in 1970-71 and has been shrinking since.
In 1971, Nixon took U.S. off the Gold Standard thereby breaking the WW II Bretton Woods Agreement because the U.S. did not want to pay for its oil addiction (trade-deficit) with gold bullion.
It decided to pay with "credit", i.e., IOUs that pay interest expense (U.S. Treasury Bonds).
This is were the U.S. cancer began.
Today, that severely severe cancer is reflected in budget deficits, trade-deficit, current-account deficit, unfunded pension liability deficit, U.S. macro economic savings deficit, and, that chronic credit derivative meltdown underway that surfaced last August.
The U.S. ship is sinking.
Bush knows this, of course.
That is why Bush & Cheney are slowly & quietly trashing the U.S. Constitution and setting up a corporate authoritarian governmental entity (shhh ... dictatorship) in-waiting so that when the economy sinks into depression and/or a "terrorist" event (real or constructed) happens the shock doctrine change will come.
He is slowly & quietly making the Executive Branch superior to the Legislative & Judiciary, which points to dictatorship. (Read: Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy)
Imagine … if the U.S. had stayed on the intelligent switch to alternative energy 26-years ago with Jimmy Carter where the U.S. would be today … with many friends & great respect around the world as the U.S. would have traveled the moral high ground ...?
Maybe, just maybe, Congress is waking up.
Nancy Pelosi said recently:
"I reject the notion in his [Bush's] signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute." said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. "His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that." Boston Globe 1/31/08
I wouldn't solely blame suburbanites, we didn't plan our neighborhoods. I chose the suburbs ONLY because I couldn't afford a small farm. It at least allows me to garden, have a yard larger than a postage-stamp, and hang my laundry out to dry in the summers. You may as well shoot me before confining me to city living.
The need for wide-open space is deeply ingrained, which I fully understand and appreciate, having grown up on a farm (and currently living on a farm). However, in the long run, such instincts will be our downfall because they make urban sprawl inevitable. Once again, I look to the example of Europe. Bavaria has a population more than twice that of Minnesota packed into a territory 1/8 the size, but you'd never know it out in the Bavarian countryside as most people live in densely packed urban areas, preferring to leave the wide open spaces green.
Instead of all this doom and gloom bs, it's time to get our dependence off foreign oil the only way possible. LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP. It's one biofuel that does not deplete, requires no petroleum, yields more energy than even petroleum, and actually reduces global warming. Now let's see some winners instead of losers.
Chicanery,
Primogeniture and an unsustainable economy is what drove Germans (in particular) by the tens/hundreds of thousands to the Americas. As I recall, Germans are still the largest ethnic group by ancestry in the US. Are urban sprawl or landed gentry/caste our only options? I don't think so. Furthermore, it really depends on the individual temperament. My mother grew up on a farm, I have inlaws who farm, and the outdoors is in my blood.
The population density of the US is nearly a tenth that of Germany. Urban sprawl here can chiefly be attributed to the fact that MOST of our development occurred after the advent of rail and the automobile, not during the Middle Ages.
I see no logical or mathematical reason we don't have millions of small gardener/farmers across the US. The reason we don't is that land has been monopolized, since the middle ages, by the owner class. The rest are tenants or serfs. Or, in modern parlance, penalized with a mortgage.
I'm with hemp4victory. I believe industrial hemp is a stupendously productive plant. Legalize it!
Michael Klare is a very smart guy. America make no sense as a country; everything is about consumption, no production. China is just the opposite; they push productivity, savings, sacrifice, and investment to the hilt, just as Japan did for years.
Japan packs its people into dense cities in order to preserve the rice industry. They want to have food independence, so they say, but it's mostly about national pride and tradition. Still, they have an excellent system of passenger trains, and walking and bicycling are more convenient options than in the US.
The US has a lot more land than Japan, but so much is wasted on lawn space and parking lots. All this implies many gas engines for cars and lawn mowers. Then we are so addicted to power (i.e., we're lazy) that we need bigger engines, more fuel, more roads, more fuel, more free parking, more fuel, and drive farther out, burning more fuel, to bigger homes than burn more fuel to heat, so we have more room for large lawns that need more fuel to mow.
P.S.--Exxon-Mobil? Record profits again, most profitable business in history. We do it to ourselves.
Our current decline accelerated with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973. It was founded and financed by David Rockefeller and thus began the countdown. Brzezinski was a cofounder and said it all in his book in 1970. Americans standard of living will be reduced and they must get ready for a new currency (FWIW he is backing Obama)
To understand the economy, you must understand that it is controlled by a small number of people. Bubbles are created when they want them created, and burst when they want them burst. The net effect of this man made business cycle is to transfer wealth from the many to the few. You must also understand that those in control of our economy may be American citizens, but they see themselves as global citizens and are traitors to America, but one day may be seen as the Founding Fathers of the global government they seek, and so may be the Patriots of the Global Union that is formed.
If you believe Saudi Arabia sets the world oil price, you would be mistaken. Any American president has the ability to control the price of oil. It goes up when they want it to go up, and down when they want it down. The seven sisters still control global oil, no matter where the oil is except for a few trouble spots (these are the areas where their are civil wars and famine, our methods of trying to take control). The Presidents and our foreign policy are all controlled by the TLC/CFR.
The purpose of the oil price increases 30 years ago were intended to indebt the 3rd world nations who need our dollars to buy oil so we could control their economy, and so control their country. Today we are doing the same, but our purpose is impoverish America and collapse the dollar so that it is no longer the worlds reserve currency.
The new world economic order is in place, it is time for the change. The central banks are aligned, the global elite control the reserve currency, oil and food, and the worlds greatest military power. Americans served their purpose, your labour helped American companies become global companies, your taxes allowed our military and government to enslave other countries with debt or by force. The loans we give them which can not be paid back are paid by you. The cost for military action or covert operations that overthrow other governments in the interests of our global corporations were also paid by you.
The mission is largely accomplished, you are no longer needed, as you make up only 5% of the global population and no longer are able to produce much but food, debt and weapons. The Food production has been taken over by big agribusiness companies that use heavy machinery and illegal immigrants. The weapons industry will be kept intact as it is global, and you are no longer any use to finance since you can afford anymore debt, and China is now big enough to begin her withdrawal from reliance on your purchases, and the banks and investment companies do not need you since they are global as well.
There are 2 ways to view the world. One is the coincident incompetence- accidents model (CIA), and the other is the conspiratorial global control model (CGC). Those who follow the CIA model are spectators who wake up each day baffled and surprised by the news and probably think I am nuts. Those who follow the CGC model see each significant news event as new clues exposing a global plot which becomes more transparent as time goes on.
The CGC model assumes a global elite of powerful men who for over 125 years have been seeking ways to dominate the globe, men named Rothschild, Morgan, and Rockefeller.
At the end of WWII, the US had 50% of the wealth with 6% of the population, and the largest military on the planet. Our ability to dominate the globe
for the next 200 years and maintain world peace was a slam dunk, so they had to create an enemy to make sure that would not happen. The Soviet Union and Communist China were their children who gave us the Cold War and the means to drain our wealth.
You see, the money powers in the US were not loyal to America. They were loyal to British and Europeans and the ideals of Zionisism and Communism, and their own personal power. And while most of the wealth was in their hands despite controlling only 6% of the world population, what wealth and power might they attain if they controlled 100% of the world population?. JFK was the last President to go up against them. None have dared go up against them since. Larry McDonald was a congressman who blew the whistle on the Soviet aid and trade in 1983 and his plane got blown out of the air on the way to Korea, and so congress is silenced.
It was not only the populations that they wanted to control, it was the resources on the lands of these populations. The population was in fact too high for them even then. In fact Eugenics research began in the early 1920's in the US and Britain seeking ways to limit populations and weed out those who were polluting the gene pool and preventing the master race from being created. The name of the American Eugenics Society was changed to the Population Council since Hitler gave Eugenics a bad name. Hitlers eugenics programs were funded by the American elites up until 1939 (think Rockefeller)
The elite have said we have far too many people on this planet, and some have expressed hope it can be reduced by 80-90 percent. The technology exists to do this today, and it may happen sooner than you think.
Oil, the Fed and petrodollars are all inter-related, interconnecting. Oil equals energy equals money.
But the article is worth noting. No matter what interest rates are, no matter what monetary system we use, oil is peaking sooner (maybe now) than later, and that's going to change everything dramatically
See
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
Peace
Karl