High Oil Prices Will Fracture the World and End Globalization

Economist Jeff Rubin speaks with U.S. News about the future of the world's economy

May 29, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (2)

In what way is today's push to move off oil similar to the push of the 1970s?
A lot of the initiatives are the same, and you hear a lot of the same things. But the irony of the 1970s and the 1980s is that all of the government policies that encouraged greater energy efficiency, and this is as true in the U.S. as it is in Western Europe, ultimately led to us consuming more and more energy. For all the improvements in the internal combustion engine's efficiency, the average car or vehicle in the United States consumes just as much oil as it did 30 years ago because we've consumed all those efficiency gains in bigger and faster cars with more energy-sucking options. The real challenge going forward is we've got to become more efficient without the reward of cheaper energy prices.

Tags:
globalization,
energy,
oil

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

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

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

advertisement