High Oil Prices Will Fracture the World and End Globalization

Reader Comments
Back to article

Very good article. I understand Jeff Rubin theory, but I do not believe things will be so radical. Due to the recession companies have problem dealing with their expenses. In order to lower expenses companies prefer to send their industries abroad where the minimum wage is lower. According to Jeff Rubin, even that will not help, because the oil price will be too high so the transports expenses would be tremendous. I do not believe the oil price would be that high to end globalization because globalization is not only based on transportation.

Jamila Bamba of MD 2:08PM November 22, 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16752803/
With so much visible evidence within the New World Order of the flaws behind linear thinking and using false tautologies to justify legislative action, you would expect a treatise by a "noted economist" on 'oil and the end of globalization' might at least try to think massively parallel, instead of drop-foot premise-thesis-summation.
"...when unions ... understand that the industries that their members work in emit one third to one half less carbon than the factories overseas that are stealing their jobs, **they're going to want as high a price on carbon emissions as possible**."
The Federal Budget Office estimates Federal Carbon Cap & Trade tax revenues of $935B, the equivalent of an 18% - 20% increase in Federal income taxes, and not considering the tax burden impact of State governments eagerly lining up to impose the same tax sanctions, at a minimum, $3,000 per family, at a time when healthcare alone is sucking down 29% of GDP, just where does Mr. Rubin suppose these "high price carbon emissions" will be absorbed?
The fact is that his "Green.con" is an exact replicant to the Dot.con virus, and most of these green companies will never turn even a single quarter's profit as their IPO soars on speculation, as Wall Street eagerly sharpens their Carbon.con knives.
We are not going to see triple digit oil again, that was Wall Street commodities futures speculation, despite the denials, contracts in oil traded 30 times before anyone actually took delivery. The IEA released their own predictions on oil: demand will decline by -17%, at a time when the world is **flooded** with oil and gas, to where oil companies are parking tankers offshore to avoid taking delivery and to feed the futures frenzy.
So Mr. Rubin's premise begins to fall apart, with it his thesis, so that his summation is suspect, and why? Ahhh, he's pimping speculation! "And the way we're going to get the compliance of other countries is by charging a carbon tariff." I don't think so. A tariff war would destroy what little is left of US manufacturing. 136,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing last month, more than all other job sectors. No, instead of tariffs, we will see more illegal tax subsidies, the same as corn ethanol and 'green' coal and oil depletion allowances, all paid for by the US taxpayer.
That goes again to Mr. Rubin's premise. What planet does he think WA DC can impose an 18% - 20% carbon tax industrial subsidies surcharge on, and not destroy domestic spending?!
The catch phrase these days is "unintended consequences", but if you don't even bother to work through the numbers in formulating your premise, the consequences of government action aren't 'unintended', they're deaf, dumb and blind.
Turn them all out on the street and make them sell apples and pencils, then write their 'high-standard' pop economics novella, from a former Goldman commodities huckster, just another pump-and-dump hack!!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1675280

Peter Piper of WA 1:13PM July 04, 2009