In the face of rising oil prices alone, we are still making decisions in this city to expand our transportation infrastructure on the assumption that our traffic volumes are expanding... we need a truly multi-modal system to move our region forward. Using the same thinking that got s into our current state of affairs is only to well defined as __________.
Dr. Knob needs a serious economics lesson before he tries try putting together a graph that shows oil over $500/barrell by 2013. There's definitely a need for renewable and aleternative energy, but get these garbage "facts" out of here. Buffalo Rising isn't an elementary school forum
Well said Dr. Knaub. I like to hear clammer about the need for Buffalo to become a leader in "green" energy. I hope there are some people in this area with the resources and wherewithal to make it happen. The Steel Winds project is clearly a step in the right direction and I hope the RiverWright is as well.
The automotive industry in large part has enough foresight to provide vehicles that run on alternative fuels so that they will not be drastically hurt by the decline of availability of crude oil. This is evident in the increase in production of automobiles powered by electricity, ethanol, and hydrogen fuel cells.
Other than automobiles and gasoline, what is the second and third largest use of crude oil? Plastics maybe?
Steel/Queen/WCP...Can we get an update on the RiverWright project?
No credibility. I just heard that the US supply of gasoline is at a 15-year high. The current price has to do with the decline in the US dollar and trading speculation.
In the mean time, if you have a long commute, dump you SUV and buy a nice Honda Civic. Your highway mileage will almost double.
No other city can match Buffalo's God given resources to answer the call for ethanol. I can see the idle grain elevators in the Buffalo River pumping out prosperity once again. When the other cities are out of water, electricity, fuel, and suffering the effects of "global warming" - Buffalo will be the King City once again!
I move that we initiate a moritorium on new residents before it is too late.
Ethanol is crap. Driving up the cost of corn is better than driving up the cost of oil? It's less efficient than oil-burning engines despite being technically renewable. Biodiesel is a far better bet because at least a diesel engine is 30-ish percent more efficient than gasoline. Biodiesel/electric hybrids would be good. Hydrogen fuel cells that emit water are great too as the technology improves and becomes more efficient, but an entire new fueling infrastructure would need to be developed.
But positing as fact that a barrel of oil is going to cost $500 in the foreseeable future is somewhat absurd. US oil production peaked in the 70s, but this is about the 5th time in the last 60 years that global peak oil has been predicted, and it's by no means a scientific fact right now. Estimates of remaining oil reserves range from about 3 trillion to 10 trillion barrels throughout the world of oil of varying quality and location. This is not sustainable in perpetuity, but is sustainable for the time being while viable, renewable alternatives are being developed.
The article suggests that the spike in oil prices recently is proof positive of peak oil. But it ignores the real world, and genuine economic/geopolitical issues. A barrel of oil costs $105 now for a variety of reasons, including:
- weak dollar driving investment to commodities; - OPEC production cuts in the past few years to adjust the price of oil upwards from $20-ish / barrel; - international unrest (see Venezuela/Colombia, Iraq, Iran embargo) - militant attacks on Nigeria's production and distribution infrastructure; and - incomplete, aging refining infrastructure in the US
A simple google search of "Army Corps of Engineers" "peak oil" reveals that the Army put out a report in 2006 that said that a peak in oil production is likely to be imminent. Not that it's peaked in the past tense, as claimed in this article. Some citations to the author's sources would have been quite helpful.
In essence, if the goal is to incentivize oil alternatives and transportation alternatives, I'm sure there are better ways to do that than to post hypothesis as fact; educated guesses as events that occured in the past, and otherwise use scare tactics.
I can't believe people think ethanol is a good idea. Ethanol subsidies need to go, along with most other agricultural subsidies
until we are turning switch grass or some other cellulose based plant material ethanol is only a hold over. It is too energy consumptive to grow corn only to re-process it as a fuel. We need to take advantage of the emerging technologies of biodiesel like BP said. But if that means ethanol is a starting point to get these facilities up and running and then the transfer over is easier I saw we should be all for it. We need to get our foothold into the market, start to reliven some of our natural and locational resources (energy, rail) and put us at a competitive advantage over other areas.
What percentage of north america's population live within a 1 day drive from Buffalo? 60% (or something like that) With cheap power, wind resources, rail infrastructure and biologically productive farmlands, we can and should serve a larger role in the green technology movement.
As do all those in India......
One could also move 1/2 the distance closer to work/shopping etc. That would also 1/2 our fuel consumption without changiing our vehicles at all.
One could also move 1/2 the distance closer to work/shopping etc. That would also 1/2 our fuel consumption without changiing our vehicles at all.
What does one do when, say, one spouse works in Batavia and the other works in Buffalo?
part of the changing dynamics of fuel is land use. We can't continue to allow people to build where they want. The the self centered dynamic of American choices doesn't mean we have the best interests of the country at heart. The rate of sprawl that continues to happen in this country is staggering. Metro Atlanta is the size of Rhode Island. Erie County has lost population in 30 years but has increased land usage. No one is saying we should all live in tenement houses again but we must start to put restrictions on where you can live.
Farmland and other biologically productive lands shouldn't be converted into subdivisions (especially where population in declining) Waterways should be preserved and not placed into culverts. There is still room for growth when needed but choices need to be made. Otherwise we won't be only dependent on foreign oil but water and food as well.
BuffaloPundit,
The purpose of the ethanol initiative is to lower our reliance on foreign sources of fuel, so that we are better protected from a sudden cut in our supplies. We are also attempting to lower the transfer of wealth to enemy nations. So we should remember here that the primary purpose of ethanol is not to save money, it is to make us more self-reliant.
Historic Buffalo was a symbol of the self-reliance that the country is working to recapture. With our own source of water, harbors, grain elevators, hydro-power, enterprise, inventiveness, and a cool "global warming" resistant climate, Buffalo will recapture our very own self-reliance.
In our past, Buffalo lead in oyster consumption (we even used to build our road pavement out of the crushed shells). Next time around for the King City - the world is our oyster!
Good topic. The rising cost of oil affects nearly EVERYTHING in our economy. Transportation, food, jobs, you name it.
BP, you're absolutely right about ethanol being crap. The EROI ratio is pitiful (the energy yielded from ethanol isn't much great than the energy put into producing the fuel) and it takes tons of fertile farmland for feeding cars instead of people.
The article suggests that the spike in oil prices recently is proof positive of peak oil. But it ignores the real world, and genuine economic/geopolitical issues.
BP, mother nature (the one who supplies the oil) couldn't give two shits about human economics and geopolitical squabbles. Many of the most respected oil geologists now concur that we're at, will be at soon, or have already passed the global supply peak. The hard ugly truth is the world is vastly overpopulated and the upper echelon of people (mainly citizens of industrialized nations enjoying an energy-rich standard of living) are sucking a finite world's resources dry.
Energy resource depletion is real and we must do something about it that goes far beyond superficial technofixes like re-insulating the house or buying a car with slightly better gas mileage. Americans could slash a huge amount of energy consumption by simpling cutting down on their driving by half and living in neighborhoods and cities where they don't have to drive everywhere do to every godamn thing possible.
Relocalization:
The only way the Buffalo-Niagara region (along with the rest of the fertile northeast) will make it though this economic and energy crunch is to re-localize the economy. A majority of food will have to be produced with a 200 mile radius of the city. Consumer goods (whatever the hell we'll be able to afford after this oncoming economic train wreck hits us) will once again have to be produced domestically in cities along key rail nodes. I do mention rail, because commercial long-haul trucking will soon collapse under the weight of higher and higher fuel prices. Rail (and water I might add) is many times more energy efficient a means of transporting goods over long distances.
Funny enough, Buffalo could actually really gain from economic problems that will hit our nation like a shower of bricks. Buffalo's true strategic resources--fertile land, plentiful water, natural electricity source, and rail infrastructure will put us leaps ahead of the irresponsibly-built sprawlers (that so many people stupidly attribute as being "successful") down south which lack the necessary resources to support large populations with using tons of oil and disappearing water supplies.
This is a wake up call; high time for Buffalo to finally get it's shit together.
One could also move 1/2 the distance closer to work/shopping etc. That would also 1/2 our fuel consumption without changiing our vehicles at all
Good point MJ we should set up governemt incentives to help companies move the remianing white collar downtown jobs to the suburbs where the vast majority of their workers live. This would not only save them gas money but also parking money. In addition with the increased tax base the suburbs could lower their property tax rates. Everybody would WIN!
High priced oil could not be better for Buffalo. Actually, the higher it goes, the better off we will be.
Let's think about this:
- One can drive from nearly anywhere in the Buffalo Metro region to another point in 5-10minutes. So in terms of relative size, there is a huge advantage. - We have the resources to be able to grow food virtually year round, and in relatively close proximity to the city. This bodes well for projects like Paul Snyder's idea of busing unemployed to 4th and 5th ring towns to start farms. - Buffalo's relatively low income levels makes discretionary spending difficult, therefore saving the majority of the paycheck for necessities, like housing, food, utilities, and less for BestBuy/Box Mart Chinese (oil consuming) goods. If we can take it to the next step, and learn to wash our shirts instead of buying new ones at WalMart every week, and stop buying kids millions of Chinese crap toys, we could really benefit from the shortage. - By taking advantage of public transportation (and demanding more built) you can save a large chunk of cash, and maybe even try walking?
Please stop consuming like you are Bill Gates and learn to live like your grandparents.
The world oil production peak will only be determined after production information from around the world is gathered and tabulated, so we won’t know that we hit it until several years after it happened.
The Corps’s predication of peak oil is just one of several, other dates are 2010, 2013 and 2020, but they are all within 15 years of each other. The bottom line is that once it happens, there is going to be in increase in cost for everything that has a connection to oil. That means plastics, transportation, a lot of chemical based products, energy and anything dealing with cars or trucks.
We know it is going to happen and it is going to happen in the next 15 years. We also know that once it does there isn’t to be any “extra” money to retool the economy. Like saving for retirement, it SHOULD be something that we are proactive about. Since that word is not one that gets used a lot in Buffalo, let me explain that proactive means planning and working ahead of a deadline.
Sally - wrong
The point is to get as many jobs IN the city, the suburbs cannot survive without the city (Sorry Amherst)
Hey, did they borrow this hockey stick graph from the UN's global warming report? ;)
"What does one do when, say, one spouse works in Batavia and the other works in Buffalo?
One starts looking for a new job?
Limited resource on a global market. Want to live with everything spread to hell and back? Be prepared to pay to play. The free market will sort it all out.
sally, but also most people don't cluster in one or another suburb. Most workers dispersed all over which is why downtown can and should become a more important hub. It might mean that 20% of the employees have a longer commute than if their company was in their suburb but the rest would probably see a shorter commute distance. Distance traveled is the key. It doesn't matter if you get an extra 2 mpg or save 10 minutes in time on the highway if you are driving 50% longer to get from point A to B.
DT buffalo to NT via Delaware about 10 miles DT buffalo to NT via 190 15 miles.
Our radial street network is a very efficient way to locate businesses and people and move them about (when the focus is on downtown) otherwise is becomes a mess.
How wouldn't the suburbs "survive" without the city? Buffalo and region is a great example of "bull's eye" city - jobs and residents in the center surrounded by urban residential and industrial areas in various states of decay - this is all surrounded by a ring of suburbs where the bulk of the regions jobs, residents and retail are located. It's quite possible for people to live their entire lives in the suburban ring. It's also possible but much much more difficult for residents of the center to do the same.
While I understand concerns about urban sprawl I think that the idea that higher oil prices necessarily mean an end to people's preferences for suburban lifestyles I think that we will see increased fuel efficiency as well as the development of alternative fuel sources long before people are basically "forced" to live back in the city.
Just to localize the ethanol comments a bit... it's my understanding that the ethanol plant near Medina is purchasing all the corn it can buy at the price set by the Chicago Board of Trade. Historically corn in that area has been purchased under the board price, so that transportation can be added in, to ship the corn out of the area (or the southern tier). Farmers are selling all of their available corn to the plant, and additional fields will be put online to supply the Medina plant.
With the increase in potash prices (for fertilizer)... it's hard to see where inflation will be put in check any time soon. I'd be preparing for even higher prices following the next growning season.
I agree with LastCall and RubyGreta that the prediction cited by Dr. Knaub of $500/barrel by 2013 doesn't look credible.
Here's what industry experts with great knowledge of global supply/demand trends are predicting future crude oil prices will be in 2008 US dollars (and risking big money based on) via the NY Mercantile Exchange as of today:
http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_CL
April 2008: $105, May 2008: $104, June 2008: $103, Sept 2008: $99, Dec 2008: $100,
June 2009: $100, Dec 2009: $99, June 2010: $86, Dec 2010: $97
June 2011: $98, Dec 2011: $93, June 2012: $99, Dec 2012: $97
June 2013: $86, Dec 2013: $92, June 2014: $88, Dec 2014: $87
June 2015 $87, Dec 2015: $89, June 2016: $87, Dec 2016 $90
As shown, consensus of their best estimates predicts a slight decline in coming years, with 2013 prices around $86 to $92, which is less than one fifth the $500 prediction. If he or anyone else strongly believes the $500 prediction, or even half that price, they have great opportunity to benefit by putting some money on it. I'd advise against doing that. Hillary Clinton somehow made predicting future prices of cattle look very easy way back when, but in reality future prices of anything are very hard to predict.
Supply growth doesn't always require new discoveries, although new sizable oil fields are still found - a very large one in Brazil last year for example. Ongoing technological advances make a big difference, allowing extraction of significantly more oil from known reserves. Rising prices encourage such advances and additional investments in equipment upgrades, more exploration, etc. Results of all that then help control price growth and of course can even cause prices to fall.
The self-righteous dictation as to how people should live their lives is almost as amusing as this South Park episode.
No tonyarmani I am correct - it is far less disruptive to society economically to move the relatively small office square footage than it would be for the suburban workers to abandon tens of thousand's of homes to move into the City. It's simple math - the typical offoce provides for about 100 sq feet (or less) per employee while the typical home supplies about 1,100 square feet (or more) per WORKING resident - exclusive of non working family members. Plus the workers are happy where they live and surely would not mind having their offices closer by.
Again lower suburban property taxes, gas saved, no parking fees. A WIN, WIN, WIN situation.
No tonyarmani I am correct - it is far less disruptive to society economically to move the relatively small office square footage than it would be for the suburban workers to abandon tens of thousand's of homes to move into the City. It's simple math - the typical offoce provides for about 100 sq feet (or less) per employee while the typical home supplies about 1,100 square feet (or more) per WORKING resident - exclusive of non working family members. Plus the workers are happy where they live and surely would not mind having their offices closer by.
Again lower suburban property taxes, gas saved, no parking fees. A WIN, WIN, WIN situation.
Have to agree with you sally on that - plus how ecologically sound is it to have thousands of people drive in heavy traffic (by Buffalo standards) downtown when they could have a much shorter commute if their offices where simply located closer to home.
Have to agree with sally on that - plus how ecologically sound is it to have thousands of people drive in heavy traffic (by Buffalo standards) downtown when they could have a much shorter commute if their offices were simply located closer to home?
i would admit that a barrel of oil @ $500 sounds a little far fetched - but i also thought it would never hit $75, $90 or $100 dollars either.
oil production is only one side of the equasion. the elephant in the room is china, africa, india, and the second and third world in general.
as other nations gain econmically, their economies demand more energy. each car in china or power plant in sub-saharan africa goobles up oil. not to mention the plastics, lubricants or chemicals that the emerging economic world will demand. even if production continued to expand, could it ever meet demand?
------
on a slightly different subject the cost of commuting and/or sprawl is not just what it takes to fill your gas tank. just as the price of oil influences food prices, it will also influence the cost of an expanding sprawlprint (i just made up a word!). there are the hidden costs of infrastructure like roads, schools, etc that require fossil fuels since they all consume materials, construction vehicles, etc.
----
on a final note, world stability is the other great infuence on oil prices. south america is on the brink of war. russia is playing games with europes economy. instability continues in africas oil fields.
that is of course not counting earthquakes, floods, solar flares, whatever.
frankly we are pretty close to the precipice, anything could throw us off.
The idea is when you concentrate job into a singular location (CBD) instead of all over the place, OP to Clarence. You provide the opportunity and demand to create more efficient modes of transportation to and from work. Transit routes become viable and instead of tens of thousands of people traveling in every which direction you are traveling faster and shorter distances as a whole with higher efficiency vehicles (train, subways etc)
And it isn't about telling people where to live, it is about tell them where you can't live. Food producing, carbon sequestering, air and water purifying country is important to everyones health, suburban and city. We need to get food from somewhere. And with population around the planet expanding and food demand soaring we can't expect it to magically appear on our shelves every day. Plus we have some of the most fertile countryside in the country, why should we be allowed to despoil it for a thousand years by putting tar laden asphalt, lawn fertilizers and plastic homes all over it. There is no going back from what is done. We have lots of suburbs that people can and should continue to use. The investment has been made but that doesn't mean we should just continue along as if nothing has happened for another 50 years.
The choice to live where we want is proven to be one of the largest mis-allocation of responsibility in our history. It is obvious we would rather ruin the potential of our grandchildren to feed themselves and live good lives for our 3 car garage today. I think we as an American culture, just as a negligent landlord, has lost its ability to choose wisely and probably needs someone to smack our hand and say no more. I would like to think the 'market' will do this but I doubt anything will change until some sort of catastrophe happens.
SBROF - your "idea" of job concentration is based upon a 19th century environment and not the 21st century. In this day and age of instant communications the 'old fashioned' CBD is no longer necessary nor necessarily even desirable from a societal point of view. Can you say 9-11 anyone?
In re-reading the article, I’d like to point out that there is no prediction for $500/barrel oil. It just says IF you apply the same increase to a world oil peak that occurred after the US oil peak, THEN if that peak was in 2007 the present price/barrel fits on that curve and what 2009 would look like.
Price will affect demand and that would most likely effect higher prices, so $500/barrel oil probably wouldn’t happen. That is most likely why Dr. Knaub only mentioned 2009 prices.
herdsman,
it is true that the article did not say $500 dollars a barrel - but the graph above it does. whats the diff?
And it isn't about telling people where to live, it is about tell them where you can't live.
I fail to see the distinction.
Happily, despite other people's dictates as to what is an appropriate place to live, this remains a free society and while you can certainly have an opinion about it, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.
^^^^ Pundit, where the heck can you find a cup of coffee for a dollar these days? ^^^
BP unfortuantely those who you are telling to get a cup of coffee want to pay for it with your dollar.
Herdsman - what al-alo said +1. After the doctor mentions the red line, his next paragraph's first sentence says about the alleged oil production peak "this is just the tip of the iceberg and we are headed straight for it". Not any hedging in that alarmist choice of words.
Then he goes on about very dire consequences. It's clear in the rest of the article he's saying to his readers that the exponentially growing red line is what to expect, not the other lines. It's possible there's a first time for anything, but I doubt the price of any natural resource commodity in the history of the world has every grown exponentially over a six year period in a manner like that. Market places generally don't work like that, to say the least. It's a very extremist position. Who drew that graph? Since Dr. Knaub's article doens't attribute it to anybody else, we're left to think he did.
As I noted earlier, the consensus of oil futures market traders are collectively predicting a pretty flat price curve over that time interval. We'll see what happens.
What I’m getting here is that a number of you think that there is no cause for concern, largely because you disagree with a projection based on one set of data. Any statistician will tell you that you shouldn’t base any decision on one set of data. They will also tell you that if you have only one data set to look at, that you can’t ignore it either.
Seems to me that the good doctor didn’t do either, he pointed it out and warned that when world oil peaks we will have to contend with major inflation. That is just common sense. He did use the one available data set to suggest how bad it will be, but he’s not making predictions past 2009. I can live with that.
For those of you that can’t, does the fact that British Petroleum, recently the worlds largest oil company, is halfway into a 20 year business plan to get out of the oil business tell you anything? On their website, when they began it, they showed graphs of the remaining oil reserves and showed them running out (not peaking) by the mid-2030’s.
I think this is a lot like the tee-shirt that reads “I’M A BOMB TECHNICIAN, if you see me running try to keep up!”
You are such a trouble maker...:))))..go for it...give em some shock value..the only way to get this country green is to hit them in the pocket book..which I think may be the plan anyway...
This peak-oil argument is rediculous. We willl never see a higher yield of oil than we have in the past? Sure, if we stiop drilling or ignore the recoverable reserves in the U.S., Canada, Russia, etc.. The higher cost of oil has already led to an increase in investment and exploration by all the major oil companies. Wells that were deemed "dry" 30 years ago are being utilized once again with better technolgy. And it takes time for new sources to be brought on line and have any impact on price. Not to mention that a large chunk of world oil supply is controlled by a friggin CARTEL! Greater world demand for oil resources will lead to greater exploration and extraction. In other words, the Environmental lobby can only stop free market forces for so long before clear headed folks say "enough!" Today, Alaska contains 18 billion bbl. of off-limits crude. We've embargoed at least an additional 30 billion bbl. beneath our coastal waters. Alberta's tar sands contain 180 billion bbl. recoverable with current technology. The Green River Basin, which lies in parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah contains 1 TRILLION BARRELS of oil! The technology used in Alberta could be used in Green River, but the U.S. Congress continues to block any exploration funding there. If we have reached an oil-peak, it is because we have chosen it!
Herdsman - Looks like you're mistaken about British Petroleum having plans to leave the oil business. Neither wikipedia nor the BP web site says anything about that.
does the fact that British Petroleum, recently the worlds largest oil company, is halfway into a 20 year business plan to get out of the oil business tell you anything?
To the contrary, they're continuing to spend billions exploring for oil around the world, such as in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Angola and the Gulf of Mexico. A BP press release from 2 weeks ago, Feb 27, 2008:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7041569
BP Can Pump Four Million Barrels a Day Until 2020, Even Without New Finds
Release date: 27 February 2008 BP replaced its annual production by 112 per cent in 2007, taking its proved reserves of oil and gas to 17.8 billion barrels. It also added some 2.4 billion new barrels to its non-proved resource base which now stands at a further 42.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent.
Assuming a $60 oil price, the strength of this position - reinforced by recent access to new opportunities in Oman, Libya and Colombia, along with heavy oil in Canada - supports production potential of around 4.3 million barrels a day by 2012, BP chief executive Tony Hayward said today.
Highlighting key elements of the company’s annual strategy presentation to financial analysts, Hayward said that in a $60 price world BP was confident not only of boosting output over the next four years but of being able to sustain production of at least 4 million barrels a day until 2020 even with no new discoveries or access to new opportunities. “However, bearing in mind a rise in exploration spend to nearly $1 billion this year together with significant additions of fresh acreage in established areas such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and a continuing drive to access new provinces around the world, we expect to do better than this,” Hayward said.
...The recent year-on-year 31 per cent dividend boost ... reflected increased confidence in the likelihood of a continuing higher oil price, as well as stronger gas prices and refining margins than have been the case historically.
Exploration & Production chief executive Andy Inglis said BP had found a major new reservoir below the Shah Deniz field in Azerbaijan, one of the largest discoveries in the world last year. Other big finds were made in Egypt, Angola and the Gulf of Mexico.
The company added 2.4 billion barrels to resources in 2007, boosting the resource base to 42.1 billion barrels. This combined with year-end reserves of 17.8 billion barrels, took resources plus reserves to 60 billion barrels, extending the life of BP’s production from 41 to 43 years at current rates. ...
The red line isn't a data set at all, and he doesn't even claim it to be. And it wasn't 'the one available' data set even if we kindly call it a data set. I found the current futures market prices though 2013 with one fast Google search, so right there was a second available possibility or data set, and there's no doubt many others if a more balanced outlook had been desired.
...He did use the one available data set to suggest how bad it will be, but he’s not making predictions past 2009.
And clealy his graph is predicting well past 2009. He made the graph (or if not he should ahve atributed it to whoever did) so he could have ended it at any year he wanted and chose 2013.
To publicly predict, or even to strongly hint as a serious possibility, the red line's exponential price growth of a free market fungible commodity for six straight years looks to me like crying wolf.
People are free to give it as much respect as they want. None of us know the future, and I'm sure not claiming to. But the commenters here who challenged the article have plenty of reasons. Again, the many experts putting their money at risk in support of their predictions instead are on balance saying about $86 to $92 per barrel is their best estimate for 2013. That's a guess too, but the result of a diverse group of experts worldwide who trade on the NY Mercantile Exchange. Those people have access to tons of data and research capabilities. Westside4life gives a lot of very good examples of future supply growth possibilites, and there's many many others across the world too.
Sally - while I appreciate the point you are making about moving the white collar jobs to the suburbs, the square footage per worker argument and the potential for more convenience, I do have a couple observations: How exactly does it help a white collar worker (like me) who lives in Buffalo, if his company takes your advice and moves to Williamsville or some other suburb? Presumably, you are assuming that most of the area white collar workers live outside the city. While that may be true, how do you decide which suburbs these companies go to? I would think someone from East Aurora would prefer a commute downtown as oppsed to Amherst or Williamsville. Does that mean they leave their company and only look for jobs in East Aurora when all the white collar jobs get spread out amongst the suburbs? Seems pretty haphazard. Companies have already move to the suburbs for various reasons (taxes, parking among others). However, given that Buffalo, like most cities, is surrounded by its suburbs, it is naive to think that the employee commutes are going to improve in aggregate, unless they all happen to live in the same suburb where the company relocates (highly unlikely). The argument for a central business/downtown location is that it enables good companies to draw a work force from all surrounding areas. Thus - all employees have some commute but few have extremely long ones. It's a trade-off.
The best part of Bushnomics is the idea that while wealthy America can absorb the high cost of fuel, the remainder of the non oil producing states cannot. This means that the pain will be borne by people overseas that must abandon their cars and find another mode of transportation. That will inevitably drive up inventories and oil prices will drop. Then we gorge ourselves some more. When does this kick in? When Argentines, South Africans, Greeks and so on give up driving. While we flinch at these market prices, they reel at them and ultimately their economies get set back even further. Just as we sloughed off the cost of the Iraq war to the Chinese, we are sloughing off the high cost of fuel to everyone else. But, I hear you asking, wouldn't the petroleum states simply cut production? Never. Their social safety nets and heavily subsidized commodities require a steady income of petrodollars to keep those programs in place. The alternative is political upheaval and regime change. That's why the Bushies couldn't care less about the value of the dollar and that's why oil producers like the U.A.E with huge dollar-denominated investments abroad are screaming at us. But they can't stop pumping and they can't stop investing because their own opaque economic controls are weak, and in the case of Dubai, are setting them up for a nasty hangover. Right now we're squirming but wait and see how in typical American fashion, we'll be feasting at every table again soon. "The Carbon Empire Strikes Back": coming soon to a gas station near you.
Hey folks let's all agree that the price of oil is rising and the consequences of that is economic decline because of inflation. Let's also agree that there are strategies to mitigate the problem and possibly the good Doctor is saying better act on this information now than later.
Debating or fine tuning the stats about the predictions won't alleviate the problems, recognition that prediction may have merit is the starting point, as the good doctor appears to point out.
My local and distant suppliers have been raising pricing consistently for six months , which corresponds with the increase in energy costs, the next time you buy bakery or diary products check todays price against last years. Anyone who can't perceive a decline in discretionary income has their head in their rectum .
Having living quarters in both the city and country, I can tell you there are advantages that both situations offer and both are affected by declining discretionary income. Where a person chooses to live has less effect on the ability to be self sufficient than choice of activity. Maxim productivity is more about desire and commitment than location.
I can assure you though , those who have the ability to ad value to their material assets, will be doing so and be the first enjoy more stability.
Report this