There is a general problem with the strategy of hanging on to the industrial development successes of previous generations and never trying to develop a new industry ... different people weigh the bird in the hand versus the bird, or two, or twenty birds in the bush differently.

This is a more specific industry-specific problem. Peak Oil when it hits hard will slaughter the automobile industry, so irrespective of someone's attitude on the spectrum of "bird in a hand vs two in the bush" ... this is a bird in the hand that is not going to be there for us twenty years from now.

The question is how to create new industries, as previous generations did, and as we in the US stopped doing from the 1980's on.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

1 in 6 US worker is directly or indirectly dependent on the automobile.

What matters is not the eventual transition but the speed of the transition compared to the speed of the impact of peak oil. Transitioning to battery driven electric vehicles powered by wind and solar thermal energy could allow the existing 1 in 6 to remain employed while providing a large boost to capital spending, which is highly stimulative, and permanently reducing our need for foreign oil. It would also create a significant number of permanent, domestic high wage jobs in the energy sector.

If we can largely transition to self sufficiency Modern Monetary Theory can deal with the costs much more easily. But we still need to deal with the oversized, life draining financial sector. One last round of above ground n.........NO! surely we can do better than that, can't we??

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."