Gas prices will soar based on supply/demand, currency translation will probably have little effect (personally, I think the dollar is going to rise anyway relative to assets).

I'm just saying that the conventional wisdom over the past couple of years was that the housing bub was going to kill the economy. This started with "The Economist" a while back. After being wrong for a long time about that, now (most?) bears, I believe, have shifted to the "liquidity driving the market higher" argument -- which I feel is a "capitulation" at what is now probably a market top.

Anyway, the "earnings trends" quote above clearly flies in the face of the liquidity argument. Is "private equity" going to buy every non-energy non-financial public asset in order to "re-structure" the bottom line with debt? I hardly think so.

A friend went off to Vegas last week with her boyfriend. I joked about her coming back married, which she insisted would not happen. Well, I got an email this morning that they're moving to Vegas and have found a huge house (five bedrooms but they have no kids) to live in and they're going to get married. Even before "haha, I told you that you'd get married in Vegas" popped in my head, the thought "OMG, I can't think of a worse place to move to now, you're going to get screwed (and I'm not talking about in the Honeymoon Suite)" jumped through my head like a frog on a hot plate.

The attraction of Vegas as a place to live full time for those not directly connected with the gambling industry is just beyond me.

Though I have to wonder, when things start to get bad, will Vegas, being built on discretionary income, fold or will people flock there in even greater numbers out of desperation to win big and for some escapism.

Your debate with RR is probably the #1 TOD classic. I believe that you will be proven right (after the necessary caveats regarding non-geological restrictions on output and shifts in oil field technology producing one-time gains). Peak Oil timing, like market timing, is very hard to do.

I expect to be amazed at how "generic" suburbia will adjust to gas prices. There is simply so much wasted driving out there. I agree that "discretionary dependent" suburbia will be the canary in the coalmine. Nevada may, though, benefit from gov't mega $$$ poured into CSP solar, PV solar, holy-cow solar, and anything-else-we-can-think-of solar projects. Of course the public or politicians may panic in some unpredictable way anyway.

WT;
The typical CERA line about improved recovery techniques seems to me that we've simply engineered better gangplanks on which to perch out on the 'Overshoot' of the curve and marvel at how far down we don't think we are going to fall..

Airbus A380

Poor strategy, poorly executed.

AB was incrediably jealous of the 747 cash cow at Boeing (high margins w/o competition in the sector). Plus AB is not really a commerical company, but a partially gov't owned and heavily subsidized industry.

So they *HAD* to have "bigger & better", with nationalistic pride and grabbing Boeing profits & prestige major factors.

Boeing argued that the market was going "point to point" rather than "hub & spoke", with shorter travel times and fewer miles flown to get from A to B driving this. The residual hub to hub market could not support enough a/c to justify an all new design. And the structural weight issues with a complete double deck a/c would cut performance.

A major design flaw of thh A380 is that they wanted an a/c that could be expanded easily, so they put on an oversized wing. The current A380-800 wing could be easily adapted to a alrger A380-900 (IMHO a apaper airplane that will never fly). Since wing width is limited to 80 m (decades ago, Boeing, McDonald Douglas and Airbus told airports to prepare for a/c that fit inside an 80 m x 80 m box), this meant a relatively stubby and inefficient wing that weighs more than it has to for the A380-800.

Airbus also assumed that major airports could not add runways (hence needing larger a/c) but could add larger terminals and taxiways, etc. LAX (world's largest origination & Destination airport) refused to spend the ~$1 billion to properly adapt to the A380 and spent much less on a "make do" arrangement that will NOT appeal to most pax.

Boeing has come with an improved 747 design that, with the 777F, has captured 100% of the large a/c freighter market (all A380F sales canceled). This market is substantial and still growing. The 747-8F is also more fuel efficient than the 747-400F (15% from memory). Four VVIP passenger versions have been sold in the Middle East and 20 pax 747-8s to Lufthansa. Boeing may end up selling more 747-8s than Airbus does A380-800s !

Airbus also updated the design software in France but not in Germany for the A380 deisgn. This created a MASSIVE snafu with wiring that has delayed some deliveries by two years (and upset customers !).

Add the euro at $1.36 (it was $0.935 when Bush took office), the proposed A350 that is "a day late and a euro short" of the 787 and I would NOT own EADS stock !

Best Hopes for Boeing,

Alan

Remember that oil exporters also buy a/c (see Emirates).

And the high value of air travel makes it likely that it will see smaller proportional declines than oil for home heating or commuting to work via car.

A 20% (23% when delivered is my guess) savings in fuel per seat-mile plus a 25% contraction in the industry (with air travel being a higher priority use), make for a decent new a/c market when world oil production is down to, say, 65 million b/day from today's ~85 million.

Certainly. the 787 was the right move for Boeing !

Best Hopes,

Alan

PS; A "go slow" a/c that cruises at, say, 350 mph, is another possible twist on technology for better fuel economy post-Peak Oil. New engines and wings would be required for such a concept.