$4 per gallon?

[RiversideGator]

Zed: Interesting charts and figures, but you have not shown any nexus between the existence of household or other debt and a great economic crash that you seem to be forecasting. It could be that modern financing is simply the oil that greases the wheels of capitalism today. For example, in the early 1900s, people tended to just save money until they could afford to pay cash for a home or a car. While this practice surely makes the savings rate go up, is it really better for economic growth for everyone to be putting off purchases like that? Wouldnt this in fact retard economic growth?

Also, I think the more relevant figure is what is the average net worth of people rather than how much debt do people have. Donald Trump, for example, has far more debt than I do, but he also has far more assets and a much greater net worth. Debt is therefore not intrinsically bad. Perhaps we are using in America the savings of Asians to advance our progress (at cheap interest rates). In this sense, they are subsidizing our economic growth. So, what is the problem with this?

Also, I think we need to know what are the debt figures for other first world nations? How do we compare with the rest of the developed world in terms of debt? And, all of the nations which are on your pie chart as holding American debt have a lower per capita GDP than the US. Are you alleging that Mexico is overtaking the US because it is a creditor of ours??

[I-275westcoastflorida]

Zed:  Interesting charts and figures, but you have not shown any nexus between the existence of household or other debt and a great economic crash that you seem to be forecasting.  It could be that modern financing is simply the oil that greases the wheels of capitalism today.  For example, in the early 1900s, people tended to just save money until they could afford to pay cash for a home or a car.  While this practice surely makes the savings rate go up, is it really better for economic growth for everyone to be putting off purchases like that?  Wouldnt this in fact retard economic growth?

Also, I think the more relevant figure is what is the average net worth of people rather than how much debt do people have.  Donald Trump, for example, has far more debt than I do, but he also has far more assets and a much greater net worth.  Debt is therefore not intrinsically bad.  Perhaps we are using in America the savings of Asians to advance our progress (at cheap interest rates).  In this sense, they are subsidizing our economic growth.  So, what is the problem with this?

Also, I think we need to know what are the debt figures for other first world nations?  How do we compare with the rest of the developed world in terms of debt?  And, all of the nations which are on your pie chart as holding American debt have a lower per capita GDP than the US.  Are you alleging that Mexico is overtaking the US because it is a creditor of ours?? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Back in the 1900's things did not cost as much for example a ford t model was what $500? A house could start at 10k point is things were alot cheaper then even though people made less its still was way easier than today to buy something like a house or car which today for an average decent car is 20-30k and for most of the country an average house is $100,000-$200,000 and of course there is the west where its twice as much and the northeast where its also a little more.

Also the countries individual debt is high id say half the country is in major debt why do we see these pay off ur credit card bill commercials all the time? The fact is people making 40k per year shouldnt go buy a lexus or a 300k house this is what contributes to making our banks have less then they could. But also they are making $$$ off of this imagine how low the intrest rates woukd be if we did. Paying cash isnt an option anymore costs are too big for the average person to do this.

Also that thing about china they may become the next superpower buit not long they have too many problems that it would catch up so they wouldnt stay long. Also our economy isnt doing all that well while it is still managable it isnt doing very well our airlines are going bankrupt and our biggest car company GM isnt doing that well either where do you think this whole employee discount for everyone came from?

Finally suburbs are never going to go away the fact is in this point and time nobody is going to build this big building and build 1500sqft which is america's average house size for an average family anyway build a building thats affordable in most cities, even europe and australia and asia have suburbs. Of course most of you who critize suburbs are thinking of the ones in Texas and Georgia where every other house is the same and uses cheap matierial to build them and not everyone in the suburbs has an SUV and 1/4 of an acre. Thats what the common suburb is referred to as but i noticed a difference between the suburbs outside city limits and inside city limits. State also depends on what kind of suburb it is. The best is to have the best of both worlds, a mix of the 2.

[RiversideGator]

I-275: I am completely confused as to what you are trying to say. Please try to properly punctuate sentences and maybe limit each sentence to a single thought.

As to the cost of cars and houses being more today, so what? People also make a lot more too. Inflation has caused both wages and prices to rise. I think the costs of cars is less today as a percentage of per capita income than it was 80 years ago.

No one ever made money in betting against America. Doom and gloomers are seldom right. Relax.

[zed]

Zed:  Interesting charts and figures, but you have not shown any nexus between the existence of household or other debt and a great economic crash that you seem to be forecasting.  It could be that modern financing is simply the oil that greases the wheels of capitalism today.  For example, in the early 1900s, people tended to just save money until they could afford to pay cash for a home or a car.  While this practice surely makes the savings rate go up, is it really better for economic growth for everyone to be putting off purchases like that?  Wouldnt this in fact retard economic growth?

Also, I think the more relevant figure is what is the average net worth of people rather than how much debt do people have.  Donald Trump, for example, has far more debt than I do, but he also has far more assets and a much greater net worth.  Debt is therefore not intrinsically bad.  Perhaps we are using in America the savings of Asians to advance our progress (at cheap interest rates).  In this sense, they are subsidizing our economic growth.  So, what is the problem with this?

Also, I think we need to know what are the debt figures for other first world nations?  How do we compare with the rest of the developed world in terms of debt?  And, all of the nations which are on your pie chart as holding American debt have a lower per capita GDP than the US.  Are you alleging that Mexico is overtaking the US because it is a creditor of ours?? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering massive debt is typically a precursor to an economic crash, I didn't figure I had to explain that. With the massive debt load established, how long can rising energy prices continue before people begin to realize they can't afford to continue making payments on houses, SUVs, and credit cards and instead begin defaulting on loans? You like to fixate on per capita income, but the reality is that in the US that income is increasingly concentrated in the hands of "the wealthy". What this means is that the largest section of the economy is seeing their real wages decline as inflation outpaces wage growth. This segment of the economy is already living with little savings and high debt loads and are thus at increasing risk for default in large numbers. When debt servicing outweighs production, calamity is at hand. That will always be the endgame of endless borrowing - it's the magic of compound interest.

You are correct that modern financing is the key to our international shell game economy. Before 1970, the US dollar was tied to the value of gold, meaning our currency had actual value and debt accumulation was limited by a physical quantity. The key attribute of modern finance is the fiat currency - that is, a currency with no actual value and tied to no physical quantity. Without such a link, governments are free to print as much as they need and accumulate as much debt as people will buy. This is exactly what the US has done, starting in earnest with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. This is why the dollar has lost over 90% of its value since the gold standard was removed - and why it will continue until the fiat dollar has lost all of its value. It allows for a great binge in economic growth that would not otherwise be possible, but binges are followed by hangovers - and in the economic sense these hangovers are caused by excessive debt.

Look at the history of fiat currency. It includes notable fiascos like John Law's Royal Bank of France, the USA's revolutionary currency (the Continental), the French revolutionary currency, US civil war currency, Weimar Germany, and Peron's Argentina. Not a single fiat currency has withstood the test of time. All have resulted in an eventual loss of faith and complete loss in value. The US dollar (and the Euro, the Canadian dollar, etc) will follow the same path as governments give in to the temptation to jack up inflation to escape onerous debts.

The saving grace of the US dollar for the past 30 years has been its status as an exchange medium worldwide and also as the unit of currency for international oil markets such as NYMEX. This has ensured a steady demand for dollars and guaranteed the US government would always have parties interested in buying new debt. If oil supply stops growing, or countries get sick of buying dollars because of concerns about US debt, or dislike of US foreign policy, the party stops. With no one to buy its debt, the government either has to spend less, raise interest rates, or inflate the currency to escape past debts. The ownership of debt is increasingly moving to nations whose strategic interests do not parallel the USA and the risk of hostile action against the US dollar increases. Basically, what has supported the fiat dollar in the past is increasingly tenuous going forward.

The question you seem to not ask is: can the USA continue racking up debt like it does today? If so, who will buy it and why? If not, what will happen when people are forced to do with less? Another question is: what has the USA used its debt to purchase and what kind of future returns will it realize? I think it is fantasy to even pretend consumer goods, suburban sprawl, wars in southwest Asia, or a Medicare drug benefit are investments that will benefit the US in the future and allow us to more easily pay off the debts used to finance them.

It's also interesting that you bring up the term 'first world nation'. It used to be that 'first world nations' generated wealth with a large manufacturing base serviced by 'developing' nations which exported raw materials. The USA has largely turned its back on first world status, using the aforementioned modern finance to raise the value of the dollar in fiat currency markets and support a globalization scheme which has led to destruction of much of the US' manufacturing capacity. We are left with a flagging service-based economy whose only role in the global economy is that of a binge consumer racking up debt. What is the endgame for this scheme?

Your comment about Mexico, while flippant, is partly correct. Mexico is indeed taking over (parts of) the USA with complete support of our government. But that is a topic for another post...

[RiversideGator]

Zed: I cant figure out if you are an extreme leftist or a paleoconservative. I tend towards the latter. Either way, I agree with you on the Mexican takeover of the SW, although this is unrelated to the economy and debt.

I still dont see how "massive debt is typically a precursor to an economic crash". Your graph did show a bulge in debt in the US prior to the Great Depression. However, I dont think you have established a cause and effect relationship. And, there have periodically been recessions during the time shown on the graph and I dont see how they fit into the graph. For example, there was a severe recession in the early 80s yet debt continued to rise. Perhaps the cause for the fall off of debt after 1929 is that there was an extreme shock to the system with a bad recession which was made much worse by both protectionist policies (Smoot Hawley tariff) and Roosevelt's socialist "remedies" which actually made the depression worse and more prolonged.

As to hard versus soft currencies, I know of no currency which is tied to a commodity. I thought this was an argument which had been settled around the time of the absolute monarch debate. The Gold Standard was an untenable situation and unnaturally preserved US currency dominance in a world where the economies of other nations had recovered from WWII. This fixed currency situation therefore actually worked to the detriment of the US b/c Japan and Europe could sell goods at artificially low prices in the US. Either way, this is a very complicated topic and I think almost every modern competent economist agrees that the floating currency system is the best way to do things since it allows the free market to control. For a history of the pre-floating currency days, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference

As to the current economic system being a "shell game", I think this is utter nonsense. Of course it relies on the good faith of people and governments operating within the system and people being willing to accept an intangible unit of value (i.e. a dollar) for goods and services rather than a tangible manifestation of value (i.e. a gold coin), but this seems to have worked quite well for some time now. I dont even know how to discuss matters with someone who doesnt even believe in the system. That is kind of like questioning our own existence. I think it is in everyone's best interest to work hard within the system rather than sitting around and complaining that "the rich" are keeping them down and then simply ending up old, poor and bitter. The truth is the US offers the greatest upward economic mobility of any country on earth.

[zed]

Zed:  I cant figure out if you are an extreme leftist or a paleoconservative.  I tend towards the latter.  Either way, I agree with you on the Mexican takeover of the SW, although this is unrelated to the economy and debt.

I still dont see how "massive debt is typically a precursor to an economic crash".  Your graph did show a bulge in debt in the US prior to the Great Depression.  However, I dont think you have established a cause and effect relationship.  And, there have periodically been recessions during the time shown on the graph and I dont see how they fit into the graph.  For example, there was a severe recession in the early 80s yet debt continued to rise.  Perhaps the cause for the fall off of debt after 1929 is that there was an extreme shock to the system with a bad recession which was made much worse by both protectionist policies (Smoot Hawley tariff) and Roosevelt's socialist "remedies" which actually made the depression worse and more prolonged.

As to hard versus soft currencies, I know of no currency which is tied to a commodity.  I thought this was an argument which had been settled around the time of the absolute monarch debate.  The Gold Standard was an untenable situation and unnaturally preserved US currency dominance in a world where the economies of other nations had recovered from WWII.  This fixed currency situation therefore actually worked to the detriment of the US b/c Japan and Europe could sell goods at artificially low prices in the US.  Either way, this is a very complicated topic and I think almost every modern competent economist agrees that the floating currency system is the best way to do things since it allows the free market to control.  For a history of the pre-floating currency days, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference

As to the current economic system being a "shell game", I think this is utter nonsense.  Of course it relies on the good faith of people and governments operating within the system and people being willing to accept an intangible unit of value (i.e. a dollar) for goods and services rather than a tangible manifestation of value (i.e. a gold coin), but this seems to have worked quite well for some time now.  I dont even know how to discuss matters with someone who doesnt even believe in the system.  That is kind of like questioning our own existence.  I think it is in everyone's best interest to work hard within the system rather than sitting around and complaining that "the rich" are keeping them down and then simply ending up old, poor and bitter.  The truth is the US offers the greatest upward economic mobility of any country on earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you feel the need to label and/or pigeonhole me for whatever reason - I suppose that is just how you are. But I consider myself neither of those things. I am merely someone with an interest in how the world works.

I also see you still don't address the question of how long things can continue as they are, racking up more and more debt every year. Or whether increasing energy costs (which are basically the costs to running our economy) could ever make servicing existing debt more difficult?

My main point of posting the debt graph was to show that debt in the USA has skyrocketed in the fiat currency era, now reaching 300% of GDP. Meaning, as a nation, we owe 3x what we produce with no end in sight. This is unheard of in the postwar era, or any era in US history for that matter. For what it's worth, in 2001 Argentina defaulted on foreign debt equal to about 50% of GDP and triggered a crash of Great Depression-like proportions. The USA is in uncharted territory, debt wise.

I do agree that the Bretton Woods gold standard was flawed. However the problem throughout history with fiat currency is that governments abuse it and use inflation to gradually erode and destroy the value of such currency. Basically, the dollar has no actual value and our government is treating it as such - no restraint on spending or money creation through debt. Our world system of worthless paper currencies all tied to each other is an economic experiment on a massive scale - one I believe will end in tragedy. The dirty secret about economics is that with all the infrastructure supporting modern globalized trade - they are making it up as they go along. The long-term plan for American debt (if there even is one) is included.

I also think your repeated attitude of "America is the greatest" is one of the biggest problems in modern American political discourse. It seems you have an interest in silencing discussion instead of being open to the possibility that the status quo is flawed and reaching for something better. It's actually quite appalling to me that someone can seriously look at the modern USA - living on borrowed time with endless debt creation - and think it is acceptable or even praiseworthy. But I suppose that explains why we are where we are..

[monsoon]

I believe there are a few things that are different now than in the past that are a cause for concern.

National Debt - Already discussed here but the one thing missed is that we are running up the debt at historically new levels. During GW's first term, the USA borrowed an enormous amount of money to pay for tax cuts and the war. I have heard the amount is equal to the total amount borrowed during the nation's first 200 years. (I have not verified this claim) The interest servicing on this debt will be a drag on the economy for decades.

Interest Rates - They are simply too low for the amount of debt out there. I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain the reasons for the low rates, but the low rates are delivering a false economy in the USA. Eventually this will have to give way and when it does, the housing bubble will pop and take a lot of other industries with it. When the above mentioned recession occured in the early 80s, mortgage rates had reached 16%.

Manufacturing - There is a wholesale transfer of the USA's manufacturing base mainly to China. Aside from the magnitude of the transfer the other new difference is the transfer is going to non-USA ownership. (China does not allow foriegners to take an ownship role in its companies). The long term efects of this transfer are unknown as it has never happened before in USA history.

Technical LeadershipWhat incentive is there these days for a student to enter college to become an Engineer or Programmer in the USA? The jobs are no longer there and we have developed a society that discourages the kind of study and work in the schools that it takes to get one of these degrees. This is a relatively new phenomenia that I have seen in the time I have been around. I heard this mentioned the other day. "American boys are good at drinking beer and watching TV, Chinese boys are good at making cans and building TVs." Unfortunately it is all too true.

The bottom line is the entire world can't live as we do in the very affluent USA. However in enabling vast portions of China and India to do that very thing, expect competition for all types of natural resources in the future, and the USA's ability to do much about it (short of fighing more wars) is not going to be very good.

[RiversideGator]

Look, I agree that the feds should not run a perennial budge deficit. I think most people agree with this. I also would say that Bush has spent far more than someone who claims to be a conservative should (I guess this is where the "compassion" comes in - big spending). The budget deficit is being reduced now through additional tax revenue though, which is the proximate result of increased economic activity caused by the Bush tax cuts. See http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment...00506270902.asp

The budget deficit and national debt should also be reduced by spending cuts on social programs.

As to personal debt of Americans, I think that this is certainly a potential problem. My point is that you have not done comparisons with other developed nations as to this issue. We are really in uncharted territory here, and no one really knows what will happen with this. The reason why rates are still so low is foreigners prefer to loan money cheaply to Americans b/c we represent one of the safest investments around. This can change and the fed is taking steps to increase the rates and reduce borrowing. The high interest rates of the early 80s were really an anomaly though and there have been rates this low before, in the 50s for example, if you look at the rate charts.

With the monetary system, of course we are making it up as we go along. How else would you do it? It does seem to work though and anything other than fiat money is absurdly impractical in the 21st century. I think our monetary system is like democracy - the worst system on earth, except for all the others.

As to manufacturing, in the 1800s, the height of technology in manufacturing was textiles and first world countries of the time (i.e. the US and Britain) had vast textile plants. Over time however, textiles were superceded by manufactured products of greater importance and value and which required more expertise to build. So, textiles are made in China or Mexico or India now and we now make surgical instruments or airplanes or generators or new medicines. There also has not been a decline in the output of the manufacturing sector of the economy, just in the numbers of people employed there since technological advances allow for greater output per worker.

In terms of technical leadership, we are world leaders in technological advancements and new patents. These are produced either by homegrown talent or by immigrant scientists. I dont think there is a problem here although the education system (which is hamstrung by the liberal teacher's unions who care more about protecting their own jobs than the education of children) could certainly be improved.

I am really disturbed by the pessismism displayed on here. I am glad y'all were not present at Lexington and Concord or we would still be bowing to the Queen. After all, there is no way a small country on the edge of the world could defeat the great military of the British Empire.

[zed]

I am really disturbed by the pessismism displayed on here.  I am glad y'all were not present at Lexington and Concord or we would still be bowing to the Queen.  After all, there is no way a small country on the edge of the world could defeat the great military of the British Empire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will not respond to most of the last post as it is completely adrift from the topic of whether rising energy costs will affect the American way of life.

However, comment above bothers me. I believe you honestly see parallels between life today and life during the American Revolution. The Revolutionary leaders had a clear vision for which they fought, a vision based on freedom and democratic government which existed nowhere else in the world at that time. It was a vision for which almost everyone (myself included) would fight for.

What is the vision of today leaders? The leaders who are running up huge deficits, rolling back environmental protections, supporting trade policies which devalue the American economy, passing the PATRIOT act and REAL ID act, and waging wars overseas that 'will not end in our lifetimes'? None of these leaders state what their vision for tomorrow is - so we have to make our best guess. In my opinion, debt, pollution, big government, and wars based on deception with no stated objectives are not worth fighting for.

It is my opinion that the USA has been reduced to desperation tactics trying to preserve the 'good life' it achieved in the immediate post-war era. This desperation is backward-looking and will never offer any kind of vision other than attempting to recapture the 'good ole days' of fiscal discipline and a booming economy. The ultimate source of postwar American prosperity was abundant domestic energy supplies. These supplies have depleted and as they get more scarce worldwide it will put increasing strain on the American economy. What is needed is a radical new vision on how the US consumes energy. But this will mean rethinking and abandoning much of what is now considered 'the American way of life'.

Some grim news appeared just the other day. Exxon has stated that natural gas production in North America has likely passed its all time peak production and is in permanent decline. The implications of this are huge...

Exxon Reports Natural Gas Peak

[Captain Obvious]

What is the vision of today leaders?  The leaders who are running up huge deficits, rolling back environmental protections, supporting trade policies which devalue the American economy, passing the PATRIOT act and REAL ID act, and waging wars overseas that 'will not end in our lifetimes'?  Exxon Reports Natural Gas Peak

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does the patriot act or real ID act have to do with whether $4 a gas gallon is going to happen? ... or if $4 a gallon gas happens, how or to what extent it will damage our economy?

If you don't like our administration, that's one thing. But it seems like some people like to externalize their Bush-hate onto any and all issues, no matter how loose the relationship. Perhaps you earnestly want to believe in doomsday oil scenarios because it would justify your dissatisfaction with contemporary public policy?

So what's the true causal connection? Does the fear of disaster fuel your desire to "abandon the American way of life"? Or does you pre-existing desire to abandon the American way of life create your visions of disaster?

Well, there's one sure-fire way to abandon the American way of life. I know it sounds trite at this point ... but numerous other industrialized nations are very interested in your citizenship. It's not that hard for an American to gain residency in a European nation with much less oil dependency. Canada even actively encourages immigrants! (seriously.) So why aren't Americans jumping ship?

[monsoon]

.....  The ultimate source of postwar American prosperity was abundant domestic energy supplies.  These supplies have depleted and as they get more scarce worldwide it will put increasing strain on the American economy.  What is needed is a radical new vision on how the US consumes energy.  But this will mean rethinking and abandoning much of what is now considered 'the American way of life'......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually we had this in the 1970s when we discovered that developed domestic supplies where not sufficient to supply our way of life. When the Arab's cut off the oil in the 1970s, the USA was immediately placed into a tailspin of years of depression, gas lines, unemployment, price controls, and a host of other problems we have yet to see now. (mainly because this time the Arabs are pumping oil as hard as they can)

During that period a number of new visions came to light on alternative energies and how we would get rid of our dependence on foriegn oil. By the late 70s, all stations were selling gasahol, there were tax credits for individuals and businesses to develop and install solar and wind power, and other ideas that if we had stayed the course, we would not be having this discussion now.

What happened? All of it was abandoned by the late 80s. The Bush family made friends with the arabs, the taps got turned back on and gasoline got very cheap. In 1986, I was paying 64 cents/gallon for gasoline! The other change was the creation of this idea of continued increasing consumption which crept into people's minds as something good. Advertising and control of everything by the corporations has led to this so every year our energy and oil needs on a per/person basis continue to rise.

We lost 30 years and now we have to learn the lesson all over again.

[Captain Obvious]

When the Arab's cut off the oil in the 1970s, the USA was immediately placed into a tailspin of years of depression, gas lines, unemployment, price controls, and a host of other problems we have yet to see now. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's extremely revisionist history. While the oil embargo was very harsh on the Americans, the vast majority of the financial turmoil in the late 70s was caused by Jimmy Carter's economic policy. $2 gas (in their dollars) was nothing compared to the burden of the high taxes and inflationary monetary policy.

But frankly, even in fairness to Jimmy Carter, we hardly had "a tailspin of years of depression." It was just a recession. This leads me to believe that $4 gas (about the adjusted equvalent of their $2 gas) might not even cause a true recession today, since we actually have low taxes, low inflation, and low unemployment compared to the baseline in the 70s.

Oil dependency is certainly a problematic economic policy. But the economic "visions" of the anti-corporate crowd is a strong example of the cure being far worse than the disease.

Besides, if we really cared about oil dependency, we'd be building nuclear pwoer plants like crazy ... since our power plants burn ten-fold more oil than our cars.

[monsoon]

That's extremely revisionist history. While the oil embargo was very harsh on the Americans, the vast majority of the financial turmoil in the late 70s was caused by Jimmy Carter's economic policy. $2 gas (in their dollars) was nothing compared to the burden of the high taxes and inflationary monetary policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that's not the case. The 70's recessions (sorry I did incorrectly say depression) began in 1973 directly after the first Oil Embargo. Which BTW was 3 years before Jimmy Carter was elected. And gas prices really don't matter much when you can't even buy it. There were many days around here where all of the stations were just closed because there simply was no gas. That type of stuff had a devastating effect on the economy. This isn't revisionist, I lived through it.

In addition, the high taxes and price controls which added to the pain, were from the Nixon/Ford era. By the time Carter was in office the ball was already rolling down the hill.

[JunktionFET]

Talks of rising oil prices and decreased foreign supply were very prevelent in articles dating much earlier than Carter. Even simple automobile articles from 1970 make mention of it. I guess this wasn't mentioned on conservative talk radio?

[zed]

If you don't like our administration, that's one thing. But it seems like some people like to externalize their Bush-hate onto any and all issues, no matter how loose the relationship. Perhaps you earnestly want to believe in doomsday oil scenarios because it would justify your dissatisfaction with contemporary public policy?

So what's the true causal connection? Does the fear of disaster fuel your desire to "abandon the American way of life"? Or does you pre-existing desire to abandon the American way of life create your visions of disaster?

Well, there's one sure-fire way to abandon the American way of life. I know it sounds trite at this point ... but numerous other industrialized nations are very interested in your citizenship. It's not that hard for an American to gain residency in a European nation with much less oil dependency. Canada even actively encourages immigrants! (seriously.) So why aren't Americans jumping ship?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now now. I'm no rabid Bush hater. I don't like his policies, but he is merely a symptom of a larger problem. The issues I am talking about go back at least 30 years through many presidental administrations and congressmen. You would do well to realize there really is a Washington consensus and political campaigns today are limited to frivolous non-issues like 'gay marriage' and smear tactics.

I notice you don't try and rebut any of my points, you just go off on some tirade and accuse me of having an agenda. The concern I express is a legitimate belief that our way of life is not sustainable, a belief that rests on far more evidence than its counter. I know many people dislike being told the good times will eventually be over, but that is reality. Of course, in modern America reality is something to avoid, so responses like yours are quite common. But there is no evidence the USA (or the world for that matter) can continue consuming massive quantities of resources and not face the consequences.

[zed]

Besides, if we really cared about oil dependency, we'd be building nuclear pwoer plants like crazy ... since our power plants burn ten-fold more oil than our cars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is completely inaccurate. Oil is barely used for electricity production in the USA. I'll give you a quote from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html:

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003. Of this, motor gasoline consumption was 9.0 million bbl/d (or 44% of the total), distillate fuel oil consumption was 4.1 million bbl/d (20%), jet fuel consumption was 1.6 million bbl/d (8%), and residual fuel oil consumption was 0.8 million bbl/d (4%).

Electricity is not even mentioned, I believe I have seen 2% mentioned as a number. Clearly from this quote transportation (at least 52%) is the greatest consumer of oil in the USA. That is where the biggest, and most vexing, problem is.

As for nuclear, I believe it is our best hope for generating the massive amounts of energy needed to ensure civilization will be able to progress in the future.