The Oil Drum | Jeff Rubin: Oil Prices Caused the Current Recession

114 comments on Jeff Rubin: Oil Prices Caused the Current Recession

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

erichacker on November 5, 2008 - 10:48am

If you want to believe in a conspiracy, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise. See http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/arguments-from-ignorance....

what caused professional money guys, who most certainly must have known better, to make worthless loans, bundle them and sell them to the world?

They are greedy, shortsighted, and thought that they could beat the system. Just like any other bank robber.

did they have some inkling of peak oil approaching, and revert to their default mode as looters?

They were running in default mode already. Shortsightedness is default.

and nobody wants to mention the convenience of having a financial meltdown that destroys demand for oil just as peak oil becomes obvious.

Actually, many people have mentioned it. The problem from a conspiracy perspective is that peak oil should cause financial havoc, even if the economy wasn't already a house of cards.

and nobody, but nobody, wants to make any mention of the fact that, if peak oil is obscured, a huge motive for committing a false flag on 9/11 is also obscured.

Look at the chart above about the price of oil and the timing of recessions. Peak or no peak, the control of vast oil reserves provides tremendous economical power. Look at the EROEI charts for oil vs any other energy source. One doesn't need peak oil to make acquiring oil reserves a military priority.

Occam's razor is a useful surgical tool for ridding oneself of cancerous beliefs that get in the way of working towards real solutions to our problems. Please practice using it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

flickervertigo on November 5, 2008 - 10:58am

occam's razor dictates that people who said they wanted "a new pearl harbor" must have had a motive for making their "new pearl harbor" happen, especially in view of the fact that, shortly afterward, they were installed into positions from which they could make their "new pearl harbor" happen, and shortly after that, their "new pearl harbor" did happen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Cornucopia on November 5, 2008 - 3:37pm

Actually, this just goes to show that you are ignorant and havn't looked up things for yourself. You just buy whatever the conspirac loonies write.

If you've actually read the report from New American Century, you would know that the Pearl Harbour-quote is taken out of context, and is just mentioned in a passing statement.

Conspiracy theorists are "reaching", and trying to make connections that simply aren't there.

The report is available for reading at

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

"A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. "

From this conspiracy theories deduce a proof that the writers of this 78 page report planned and executed the 9/11 atrocities. From a single sentence, in a report that is about something completely different.

And this level of standard is typical for all conspiracy "proofs". Reaching.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

flickervertigo on November 5, 2008 - 3:46pm

ah.

so you're saying that these guys went to all the trouble to write a 78-page wish list, and didnt want to implement it as soon as possible?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

flickervertigo on November 5, 2008 - 4:14pm

want to comment on the fact that the PNAC signatories were installed into positions to make their "new pearl harbor" happen by an election recount in a state governed by the brother of the president-elect?

want to comment on the fact that that brother, jeb bush, is a PNAC signatory?

want to comment on the fact that cheney made a speech in 1999 showing he's perfectly aware of peak oil?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

flickervertigo on November 5, 2008 - 5:31pm

oded yinon in 1982 recommends balkanizing muslim states, particularly iraq.

1992, paul WOLFOWITZ and scooter LIBBY, cheney's convicted ex-chief of staff, produce a defense policy guidance paper. the paper was the first generation of what was to become PNAC and later official US foreign policy, and recommended attacking iraq. the paper was leaked to the new york times, and public outcry was such that wolfowitz's paper was disowned and revised.

1996, richard PERLE and some of the usual likud israeli american suspects write a paper for bibi NETANYAHU calling for the occupation of iraq

1997, PERLE forms PNAC with nominal founders robert KAGAN and bill KRISTOL, and all the usual likud suspects

september 2000, PNAC issues a document, "rebuilding america's defenses", calling for wars to control the oil in the middle east and central asia. the document says that these wars will be slow to materialize without a new pearl harbor to mobilize america

september 2001, PNAC's "new pearl harbor" materializes in the form of four hijacked airliners

september 2002, PNAC's "rebuilding america's defenses", the document that called for the "new pearl harbor", is adopted by the bunnypants administration as its National Security Strategy, in some cases, verbatim.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

flickervertigo on November 5, 2008 - 5:28pm

...calling for wars to control the oil in the middle east and central asia...

i admit that i'm uneasy with that statement... i cant recall seeing anywhere in the PNAC documents an explicit call for "wars for oil".

on the other hand, it doesnt take very good eyesight to read between the lines, especially once you look at the checkerboard and see how the pieces are being moved.

it's just too damn bad that russians play chess, and chinese play go.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davebygolly on November 5, 2008 - 3:54pm

If you want to believe in a conspiracy, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

This is no longer an adequate response. The US gov't and media FORCED everyone to become conspiracy theorists on 9-11. They presented a conspiracy theory to explain the events of that day, and then turned around and asked people NOT to believe in conspiracy theories! There is no one, I dare say, who believes 9-11 was a series of unfortunate accidents. It's obvious by now what happened.

Now, saying that conspiracy theories in general can't automatically discounted is not the same as buying into any particular one. Crises are endemic to capitalism, and there's no need to invoke conspiracy to explain them. And I don't think this meltdown was planned either. It doesn't seem to have benefitted politically those who might have orchestrated it.

On the other hand, the bailout plan was drafted before the meltdown, so it would seem that there was at least contingency planning. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and several other pieces of legislation ALL point to significant amounts of contingency planning, scenario spinning. The 47 billion intelligence budget (not including the military) isn't spent entirely on video games.

Also, the collapse in energy prices has temporarily shifted some of the balance of power back to the US. I suspect that this too might have been at least foreseen.

Anyway, how much conspiracy has been an element in this whole thing is a fascinating subject, not easily fathomed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

114 comments on Jeff Rubin: Oil Prices Caused the Current Recession

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)