Agric - I assume your projected depression is caused by reduced global oil production and shockingly high prices for energy, right?  Question:  when you project a "depression" do you factor into your projection the reduction in demand for global oil that the early stages of a depression (known as a "recession") will cause, and thus the reduced prices for oil during the recession that will begin to allow growth to re-occur and the recession to ease or even end?   And do you factor in the effects on changing energy use patterns that the intial shock of substantially higher oil prices will have on all societies?  By that I mean the accelerated change in the fleet toward higher efficiency, the reduction in purely optional travel (of which there is a large amount), the construction of more mass transit, the substitution of rail for truck, the increasingly local production of goods, the accelleration in development of nuclear, solar, wind, ethanol and coal gassification.

The only aspect of PO theory that I find unconvincing is the doomsday scenarious.  The reason I find them unconvincing is that they seem to exclude the impacts of price on demand and supply for crude, substitute energy sources, and human activities.   Not that there will not be painful adjustment periods.  But the end of civilization is not in the cards in my view.

In fact, when you consider the impacts on different economies, I think there is a good argument that China and India, particularly China, will pay much higher prices for the impact of PO than western economies because the high prices for transport will serve to move manufacturing back toward the source of demand, thus creating many more jobs in the developed economies and fewer in the now cheaper labor markets that are so far away.  Plus, the very energy wastefulness of developed economies, particularly the US, will make it far easier for them to cut back on their energy use.  This tendency will also mitigate the financial impact.

Net, net, I expect US stocks to tank very big time at some point, probably within the next five years, and for there to be an initial period of substantial unemployment.  But I think that will lead to a later stage of growth for our economy accompanied by vast adjustments to high energy costs.

There will be a recession and quite possibly a depression on a scale similar to the 1930s regardless of peak oil. The imbalances in the US and global economies make it near inevitable. I hope that peak oil becomes widely understood  before the recession hits so that appropriate actions can be taken for both, simultaneously. The nightmare scenario is recession slightly delaying peak oil and then peak oil hitting just as things start to turn up economically. The US is more dependent on oil than any other country and the proportionate reduction in wealth will be greater in the US than elsewhere.
Could be a recession just based on normal cyclicality of the economy, Fed tightening, housing bust, etc.  But the  question I raise is whether, as I predict, the feedback mechanism of a PO-generated recession will cause oil demand to drop to well below the available supply, leaving room for a subsequent (mild and limited) expansion - the net result being a far greater time horizon for the world to adjust to PO.  The real bottom line: no doomsday scenario - just a long hard slog until we reach a new equilibrium economy based on much much less use of fossil fuels.
Stuart took a whack at this in a post a couple of months ago.  His conclusion is that if the decline in oil is about 4% or less, the economy will remain stable and maybe grow a little in the future.  Anything more and we're SOL, probably for a long time.
It makes sense that the whole issue would be dependent on the rate of decline in oil available to the "free" market, post PO. My assumption is that it will be fairly mild for quite a few years.  That might change dramaticly if certain exporters decide it's in their best interest to husband their inventory.   In any case, I'd love to read Stuart's analysis.  Does anyone have link?  Thanks.
that information is nice to know and is needed.
but
you still need to take into account human behavior.

Basically the amount of decline is academic if all that is needed to trigger resource wars and other types of despair is the fact that it is declining no matter what you can do.

I agree geopolitics of one and kind another are the main uncertainties. But we at least have some degree choice about that...
Free choice, free will, the fixedness or malleability of the future? Is there any way of knowing?

Is choice real or illusion, does it matter? Perhaps geopolitical events are the consequence of build up of tensions and imbalances. Maybe we are just looking in the wrong direction?

Are geopolitical events merely the expression of a more underlying reality.

I'm sorry, many of the replies seem to be unaware of my first sentence: "There will be a recession and quite possibly a depression on a scale similar to the 1930s regardless of peak oil."

Stuart was talking about the effects of a slow squeeze on oil production, what I am talking about is independent of that.

The crux will be the timing and interaction of recession and PO, and the ways geopolitical events shape these, and these shape geopolitical events.

I am not saying that PO will cause a depression (though it would) I am saying there is going to be a recession regardless of PO. THERE WILL BE A RECESSION VERY SOON, no possible avoidance. Sorry if you don't like that, reality ain't gonna negotiate on it.

I agree with you, Agric.