-First, Matthew Simmons does NOT see recent high oil prices as the cause of the recent economic catastrophe. In this I think he is absolutely correct. He is so correct to point out that much of the industrialized world has long paid a gasoline price that would reflect $300 barrel oil, and lived nicely advanced and prosperous lives (Europe comes to mind, as does developed Asia)

The price paid for gasoline in the USA, Europe or UK is not relevant - whether considered in absolute or relative terms, it makes no difference. What does make a difference is the time period over which each economy arrives at its price.

The typical UK and European price is considerably higher than the price in the USA but it was arrived at over many years, people gradually adjusted their budgets to accommodate the price of gas. The timescale involved also allowed the car fleet to change to reflect the value of gasoline to each economy - hence the preponderance of small efficient vehicles in Europe.

The elasticity of peoples budgets was broken by the pace of the oil price increases when they rose close to $150 a barrel. This was more the case in the USA than in Europe because a $1 per gallon increase in the USA meant a 100% increase, but the same increment to the end user in the Europe had less impact because prices were already high.

The ability for either the USA economy or European economy to adjust to a sudden increase in price is a function of available discretionary expenditure - if people's budgets are already at breaking point, then a sudden and significant increase in price of any commodity might have been the straw that broke the back, and once broken it went into free-fall.

When the cost to fill your gas tank more than doubles in a short period of time (the USA), then it is quite possible that this could happen at a pace that is faster than most peoples ability to stop drinking a large latte every day, stop the gym membership, cancel the newspaper and other subscriptions, and so on and so forth. A lot of people probably thought they could use their credit cards as temporary buffers, maybe were late on a utility bill, then got hit by a jump in the credit card interest rate, etc. Then compound the impact by adding in the end of low introductory interest rates for sub-prime mortgage holders (probably for largely the same set of people) and you have the ingredients for the perfect storm.

Once again, I do not think the absolute or relative prices in the USA or UK etc. are relevant - it was the fast paced rate of increase combined with a low initial price in the USA.

I believe that if the USA already had prices that matched those in Europe and had a similar vehicle fleet instead of stupid SUV land yachts and monster trucks and also less urban sprawl, then the price run up caused by limited supplies would have had a smaller impact - maybe to the point that the subsequent economic crisis would have been manageable.

Instead we have Armageddon.

This economic situation has got more to do with discretionary expenditure. The cost of energy and food increased dramatically over a short period leaving few people time to change thier circumstances. Interest payments also increased over a number of years and people moving from fixed rate deals to tracker mortgages exacerbated the issue. The poorest communities, some on 100%+ mortgages were forced to default, as their outgoings increased too quickly. I think that this was the start of the deflationary spiral we are now seeing as people lose confidence in the riskier debt. Most of the money the banks were making were from the riskier financial products. In a more global context, the increase in the money supply drawn from these products were not backed up by material assets mainly in the form of energy. The lack of growth in industry, home sales, and therefore the lack of job creation, promotion etc. was due to the higher expenditure on energy. The banks would not lend to each other because they knew that the growth in development, industrial or commercial, would not match up to the growth in the supply of credit. The growth in the supply of credit was dependant on an increase in output (increase in energy supply) that did not materialise.

To quote Colin Campbell:

May 2005:

"banks lent more than they had on deposit because the banks had confidence
that the resulting expansion of all this investment.. was sufficient collateral for todays debt... this expansion is not going to go on anymore without the cheap energy to make it happen, that means the massive amount of debt throughout the world is losing its collateral. The crisis that might emerge could come instantaniously to the bankers..."

This economic situation has got more to do with discretionary expenditure. The cost of energy and food increased dramatically over a short period leaving few people time to change thier circumstances. Interest payments also increased over a number of years and people moving from fixed rate deals to tracker mortgages exacerbated the issue. The poorest communities, some on 100%+ mortgages were forced to default, as their outgoings increased too quickly.

How does that differ in meaning from what I wrote? Is the "has" in italics some kind of tacit agreement? You appear to have largely précised my comment.

Sorry. I was in agreement - I thought i would expand on your argument. Didn't mean to detract.

No problem. Obviously I also agree with what you have written.

It would be great if credit card banks published meaningful statistics so that it is possible to see if their was a run-up in debt that ran parallel to the run-up in oil price. This would indicate that in general people were hoping to use credit as a buffer whilst waiting for a 'return' to normal. If main-stream-media at the time was also only able to chant a mantra of "recovery and return to normal", then this would have made the case worse.

Alas, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, that is supposed to regulate the credit card banks and represent the interests of the people, has failed miserably since the beginning. In my dreams the credit card bank statistics would include details of the number of people subject to hikes in interest rates, actual interest charges and late fees etc.

My suspicion is that the banks, by screwing the public, effectively also screwed themselves. The claims by the USA Administration that the banks need to be protected from failure to protect the public have got it backwards - the public was already hurting long before the banks started to hurt. I say let the banks fail and crucify the banksters.

I googled for some graphs and these caught my eye:

National Debt

Total Debt

The run up in oil price occurred around 2004. The first graph shows the upturn more effectively.

I dont think that the OCC would have had much choice regarding regulatory measures. It is interesting to note that real gdp has been falling since 2004. Less development surely means a greater need for debt. I agree though, the banks do deserve to fail. However, any government intervention, whether it helps the bankers or the public, encourages the expansion of credit. I personally think that eventually the entire financial framework will have to be reinvented. When growth becomes impossible, debt becomes meaningless.

Largely agreed, except:

I dont think that the OCC would have had much choice regarding regulatory measures.

They could be forgiven if they had actually publicly tried to do anything. For example, they could have attempted an injunction preventing credit card banks hiking interest rates to 30% on the basis of information from third parties that should have been confidential - e.g. miss a utility bill, up goes the credit card interest rate. Obviously the credit card banks probably have it in the small print of the contract that they can do this. One has to wonder though, why the utility companies might be so willing and ready to help screw their own customers and not for their own profit.

I believe that if the USA already had prices that matched those in Europe......then the price run up caused by limited supplies would have had a smaller impact - maybe to the point that the subsequent economic crisis would have been manageable.

Europe has not handled things any better than the US in this economic crisis but it has little to do with last years price spike. The current crisis is still substantially rooted in the financial system rather than any real shortage of petroleum. There is a crisis of confidence in the future but but little understanding that the source of that fear is, or should be, energy decline. The USA may "get this" earlier than Europe. In fact I think you can already see how energy is a major and persistent theme of US politics in a way that is absent from other countries. Acknowledgement of having an addiction is the first step to recovery and it seems that America is far more advanced in this thought pattern than the rest of the world. The Oil Drum itself is a microcosm of global thought that originated and continues to be dominated by Americans even though it is open to a global audience.