I do agree with the statement “the world once so interconnected is now finding itself isolated.”

One of the benefits of an oil shortage would be that food would be locally grown. It would also encourage home based manufacturing since shipping goods across the globe would be prohibitively expensive. We would all depend more on our neighbors and probably get to know them better than we do now. Self contained communities would replace the suburbs.

The sad part of the coming oil crisis is that we are unprepared and therefore will suffer needlessly. We should have been working on this problem decades ago, instead we are ignoring it. Politicians will blame the oil companies for high prices and eventually for shortages. They will also blame oil producers and seek military solutions to gain the much needed oil.

I’m telling you it is going to be a mess for a while and all so needless. I wish our politicians would listen to men like Matt Simmons who have real solutions. Instead they concentrate on getting themselves re-elected. At some point politics will have to give way to solutions….the problems will demand it.

Nearly everything we use is connected to oil. Many of our medicines would vanish without this valuable resource. In my opinion, Peak Oil is a more clear and present danger than Global Warming. But as I have said, “Solve Peak oil and you automatically solve MMGW.”

BTW, when considering using food crops for energy one must consider the amount of energy it takes to produce 1 BTU from let’s say corn or soybeans. If it takes 1 BTU of energy to produce 1 BTU of energy, you are basically wasting your time.

The point of NO oil is that we go back to living the way people did 200 years ago. Just think of all the things, including many modern medicines that come from oil or are somehow connected to it. Outside of water I can think of no other more valueable resource and we burn it!!! WE BURN OIL!!! Decades from now, future generations will look upon what we did with oil and wonder what on earth were we thinking of?

Anyway if you get a chance watch the program, I think it comes on at 10 PM tonight. I recommend it to everyone. The LOOMING oil crisis along with Sovereign defaults will be the highlights of the next decade. Eventually we will have to face the energy shortage by using less of it. Unfortunately, instead of preparing for Peak Oil we will be reacting to its reality. This alone will cause global economic stress and as nations begin to default on their debts, the whole financial house of cards will come crashing down. Then and only then will people demand that we return to an asset backed monetary system. Ideally, it would going back to using gold and silver coin but I doubt the banksters and politicians would be in favor of giving up so much power.

No here is a question no one has ever considered. “The US holds the biggest hoard of gold of any nation on earth. That gold is valued at $42 per ounce. We all know that gold is trading (China, India, and even Venezuela are buying it) at over $1100. Why does our government continue to value gold at $42?”

Hint:The right answer to that question, would expose the fraud inherent in the currency.

Good Analogy Alert: the U.S. and Collapsed Emerging Market Economies In the upcoming issue of The Atlantic, Simon Johnson — M.I.T. professor
In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn’t be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn’t roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Johnson shows how financial firms became more and more profitable, and a bigger and bigger part of the U.S. economy. More capital meant more political capital, he argues, which eventually meant nobody prevented the melt-down. The same political entrenchment makes fixing the banks difficult.

The obvious solution to the financial crisis, Johnson says — informed by his time at the I.M.F. — is simple. The United States should determine which banks can’t survive and temporarily nationalize them, instead of simply recapitalizing them, he says. But the relationship between top financiers and the government means this won’t happen — at least not unless things get much worse.

Still, his article includes a list of the policies (or lack thereof) which most contributed to the bubble and burst. It’s a great crib sheet of what Capitol Hill and the G-20 Summit will tackle, piece by piece, to reform the system. (I believe this will only occur when the system itself has either collapsed or is near collapsing. Right now the trajectory we are on is unchanged.)

• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

• the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

• a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

• major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

• an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness;

• and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation.
It’s fascinating, scary reading.

That is my point. The supreme court, in my opinion has no right in interfere in state laws that do not directly violate the Constitution. The 10th Amendment has been trashed by “modern” Supreme Court rulings. Keep in mind that deciding Constitutionality has never been part of Supreme Court authority. This is a power it basically granted itself.

That said, like it or not, this is the system which is now in place. Congress and the executive branch can act to curb the power of the court but to date no one has the courage.

I agree with you that the “Liberal” court has been one of the most destructive forces on American culture and society. Somehow we continue to be in the wisdom of handing over enormous power to a handful of men. This was never the intent of our Founding Fathers.