![]() | Ending on an Optimistic Note in New Orleans | The Oil Drum | Russia and the Ukraine have not yet resolved the issues | ![]() |
81 comments on Stuart's 2006 predictions
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
81 comments on Stuart's 2006 predictions
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
Politically, after the slime dissapates from lobby-gate, we are going to see new battle lines. We are overdue for a green movement. The need to further exploit coal combined with the reality of tar sands and oil shales will disturb everyone.
Russia just did us a big favor flexing muscle in Ukraine. Otherwise, I think we'd see significant pressure on the dollar. Still might.
In general I think Stuart is right on the money. I expect to the IT sector picking up the slack a little quicker than he does, and I'm not convinced any US carmaker will go into bankruptcy. Although if it happens, I'm betting it will be GM, who is showing yet more signs of being so utterly frickin' clueless as to be beyond parody. (See the GCC article http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/gm_will_showcas.html#more for news about GM's incredibly lame efforts in hybrid technology.)
I notice that Stuart seems to be expecting that energy prices will be more notable for their volatility than absolute level, another detail I agree with. The energy markets will be strung tighter than piano wires throughout 2006, and every little blip will send prices on another wild ride. (In terms of giving people an incentive to be more energy efficient, this is almost as effective as high prices; volatile prices will induce a lot more uncertainty into energy costs, something people, institutions, and companies most definitely don't like.)
This will represent a moment of painful clarity for market professionals, as they realize that an industrial economy and the finance that serves it must be based on the expectation of generating real future wealth, not on zero-sum rackets, games of monetery musical chairs, or casino legerdemain.
Hah. If the dot-com bust didn't teach them that, nothing will.
I predict we will limp along for years, if not decades. Tinkering with interest rates, tax laws, federal programs, etc., wondering why nothing seems to work.
Though if things get really bad, I could see the GOP looking for any excuse to use Bush as a scapegoat and throw him overboard. And there sure are plenty of reasons they could use. Looks like Abramoff is going to sing...
The economic decline should last long enough to take out the Democrats as a party as well, remaking the political landscape entirely over the next decade or so. After all, with so many grossly unrealistic expectations to be shattered (to put it mildly) no matter who is in power, it would be naive to assume there would be no political upheaval as a result.
Take a look at Dick Morris' analysis - you seem to be in the same self-delusional bubble that many Democrats have created for themselves the last few years:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60838.htm
Remember that Dick Morris was, roughly, Bill Clinton's Karl Rove for many years. He's got a hard-boiled understanding of real world politics. He's not very likable but he usually has something cogent to say.
Frankly, it's the Democratic Party that is risking irrelevancy although I'd think that premature to assert dissolution or replacement of either party.
I agree with your general prediction that the political center will shift away from liberalism, political correctness, and multiculturalism as the challenges to the American way of life grow stronger and more visible. The Democratic Party seems to want no part of that shift and so will be the relative loser. We are in for a period of political turmoil but politicians are either adaptable or become FORMER politicians quickly in a democracy.
However, your use of the word "fascism" is inappropriate. Suggest you read Boswell's recent biography of Mussolini to see why.
Democrats - tax and spend and regulate
Republicans - let the market work
Of course, in power neither would be able to implement a purist approach but I'd think they will follow these general approaches.
In this case, I'd argue that the Republican approach would be more effective in allowing the economy to adapt with the least pain. We have the experience of the Carter years to show that the Democratic approach certainly has its problems.
I will agree in advance that even the Republican approach will still require a reduction in standards of living and a lower economic growth rate. However, the central planning approach of the Democrats would surely lead to maladaptations and snafus at the system level. I think American voters understand that.
As for what the voters will think...Stoneleigh's right: they will support whoever is NOT in power. Whenever times are bad, they "throw the rascals out."
Based on what has happened in other collapsing societies, I expect taxing, spending, and regulating to increase no matter who is in power. The government has grown more under Bush and a GOP congress than it has since FDR; the GOP has not had real Libertarian leanings since Newt Gingrich was ousted.
People and corporations say they want less government, but it's not true. They want government programs, especially when times are bad. They want their jobs and markets protected. They want infrastructure built, to generate jobs and help business.
The Great Depression resulted in the New Deal, and I'd bet the farm something similar will happen again.
Of course, it won't work this time, but I seriously doubt any party that tries to "let the market work" will gain any traction when "the market" is letting children starve and little old ladies freeze to death.
For instance, I don't think Herbert Hoover deserved the reputation he ended up with for presiding over the Great Depression. He couldn't prevent it, but no one else would have been able to do so either. It was the inevitable aftermath of the roaring twenties. In the current case, the party in power has acted as the aggressor in a 'pre-emptive war', disregarded the Geneva Conventions and undermined the rule of law, among other dubious activities. They seem far more deserving of their fate than Hoover.
Neither party has a viable strategy to address the coming crisis. Both are completely out of touch with reality in my opinion. Both are likely to try and fail in turn, and both will probably disintegrate. My fear is that a vengeful electorate determined to blame the rest of the world for their continuing misfortunes (probably not realizing that others are sharing in those misfortunes) may eventually chose a complete maniac - some sort of populist strongman bent on maintaining American hegemony at any cost. It's hard to imagine a rational Powerdown scenario under those circumstances.
The Dow Jones index was at 4,000 only 10 years ago, in 1995. Assuming that the stock market reflects the estimated discounted present value of profits, what happens to those profit estimates as energy costs continue to increase?
Also, consider the fact that we have a net negative national savings rate. The American consumer is facing higher energy costs, higher health care costs, greater competition for jobs and higher interest rates. What effect will forced reductions in consumer spending have on corporate profits?
...Wow, dad....a tahoe!.. can we get one?
Statistically, the safest bet would be to say that next year will be a replay of the last, with minor changes. That's the case most of the time.
The trick is predicting the game-changer, the 1929, or as a closer parallel to oil, the 1973 or 1979.
I think such things are unpredictable, but that you can make a perfectly good living by predicting them ;-)