Not one bit of this news is "new" to your readers.

The future more than portends, it assures, there will be so many more that listing the "fallen" will be a rather boring numbers game.

Whosoever did not recognize the risk will experience the unprotected, unprepared-for consequences. And this too is not new news.

For the prudent who indubitably will be termed "the shrewd" and maybe, like the posting above, the conspiratorial, opportunities will abound if attention has been paid to protecting the store of value against the unhoped for probability of currency collapses throughout the first world.

For readers here CR has continued to post rather tempered, rather conservative views about the direction of economic reality. History has proven his commentary should be read with great caution as his err is towards the unlikely, rather than the distastefully discomforting...that is for all who have not been positively pessimistic.

@ GaudiaRay | 06.07.08 - 11:05 am | #

huh?
that means everything's going to fine. right?

right?

And Jimmy Rogers went long airlines(!)

That said, the unemployment number did look a tad off.

How about some predictions for Monday?

Okay, I might as well give this a try. I see two things that are going to affect sentiment on Monday: (1) whether joe sixpack starts to flinch and pull money out of equities (he should) and (2) how the yen holds up. The yen is crucial, to the point where if you plotted the strength of the yen versus equities over the last six months you'd find the two lines are practically mirror images of each other.

Given the unemployment news sinking in, I think it will become obvious that the Fed isn't going to raise rates any time soon. That cuts off the recent dollar strength at the knees... thus pumping the yen and, apparently, leading to a decline in stocks.

That's my guess, anyway: strengthening yen, falling stocks.

I was expecting another "Sex" in the headline...

Jobless and Surge in Oil Spread Gloom and Sex on Economy

First hand slip-slider survey of UofWashington, Tacoma biz school grad's employment ratio.

Friend is graduating in Accting. He's scored a job. He reports none or nearly none of the finance majors have jobs. Accounting majors...the very large majority haven't found employment.

That was known weeks ago. This is old news. Statistical facts are OLD NEWS.

What's really on my mind is the dramatic impoverishment of the upper middle class. Finally, the price of oil is biting them and will cut their egocentric #$^$ off, finally!

Out here in NC/SC/TN, the guys I'm talking to, the white collar guys, flat out refuse to consider moving closer to their factory jobs.

This is the turning point. They're not able to sustain their lifestyles and as of today they refuse flat out to consider moving closer in. They fit right in the Rambo mentality and will get slammed right into the "I'm broke" wall, and they'll enjoy it, too. What a bunch of jerks. Ah, America...love it, love it, love it.

Is Barney Frank really going to push for a 2nd stimulus package??

Yes, but I think this one will require a gerbil and a can of Crisco.

Re: NY Times article.

The administration also argues that jobless benefits should not be extended, with the unemployment rate still low by historical measures. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Friday’s report did not change that position.

Is the White House serious about fighting unemployment extensions?

girlbear: i'm going to buy a vespa...

Let me tell you two stories. Both true.

First story: I'm in high school, driving a Vespa. I am stopped on a two-lane road, hand signal out to make a left turn, waiting for oncoming traffic to allow the turn. Next thing I know, I am flat on my back, hit from behind by a car whose driver "didn't see me." I am lucky, limping away with only bruises and scratches.

Second story: Fast forward, oh, fifteen years. My brother is on his motorcycle on his way to work. His headlight is on. A car turns left immediately across his path. My brother has nowhere to go. He lays the bike down and slides into the car. He was in the hospital for months. Broken pelvis. leg bones broken in numerous places. Ankle permanently fused into one position. Numerous skin grafts. Thanks to his helmet, no head injuries.

What do these stories have in common? Neither car driver "saw" the two-wheeler he hit. And both of us were at a distinct disadvantage in a collision with a larger, much heavier vehicle.

Just something to think about...

Hmmm, where are the longs this morning?
Leftys Liquors

i'm sure there at the beach, on ht yacht, or flying somewhere glamarous.

they've engineered a fine , fine bull run.. as long as they are n ot overlevered, they can live happily ever after.

superduperdave writes:
So, all you bears, at what level does the Dow start to look cheap again? Where is the natural support?

With the Dow at 12,200 and a trailing PE of 89---and recession PE's of about 12 at the end, it would look something like this
89:12,200::12:1,645

that puts the Dow at 1,645 for bottom support, maybe?

how to avoid heavy traffic.

i think that's the point with 4-5-6$ gas. Heavy traffic will be a think of the past.

i've noticed a Major difference in the last 14 months.

"mock turtle writes:
i get it...theoretically half the country could be out of work but if the remaining 50 percent sell more than twice as many widgets and service fees as before then the economy is growing and we have no recession."

Historically, the opposite happened. Roughly half of the adults "started" working during the war/post war period. I.e., women started working outside the home in large numbers. Looking at the GDP and other data that don't count people, it would be hard to tell that such a structural change occurred.

So yeah, the process could be reversed. But it would take time. More realistically, people losing jobs and businesses failing will create a domino effect of lost incomes on other entities, the weaker of which fail. Etc. Welfare programs act to counter this, but it only softens the blow.

However, returning to topic. The rise in oil prices means there is a loss of income domestically, which has the same effect as failing businesses. Which is why (I believe) that the bond market is not as paranoid about inflation as the consensus here. We no longer have an environment where unions can demand wage increases to keep up with oil prices, and so all that happens that there is less money to buy non-energy related goods. Which means that non-energy prices may fall or stagnate, not rise. Certainly that's the case in housing, and people sink a lot more money into shelter than they do into their gas tanks.

CNBC headlines:-

"Stock Selloff Offers Good Chance to Seek Bargains"

OK. Here we go again.

Frank-Dodd Rescue Prolongs Housing Crisis by Deferring Defaults

Frank-Dodd Rescue Prolongs Housing Crisis by Deferring Defaults - Bloomberg.com

"Bob Dobbs writes:
'We no longer have an environment where unions can demand wage increases to keep up with oil prices...'
Unless the dollar falls; in which case prices on imported goods still rise. Which is to say these days, most factory-made consumer goods. I see deflation in houses and perhaps services, inflation in electronics, clothing, furniture, and anything else we consume which is made in Asia or the third world."

Some products will go up in price, especially if there's a high energy content. But that means there's even less money available for other goods, and volumes consumed will fall.

Falling volumes of demand is the classic way to bring prices down. Asian producers have historically not dealt well with overcapacity - they slash prices to keep revenues stable.

In order to scare the bond market about inflation, you need a mechanism that raises domestic wages. Arguably, massive stimulus would do the job. But the current plan is a drop in the bucket relative to total GDP.

Well if I knew a resource was running out and I need to use it. Will i even sell it to you at ANY price? or vice versa, will you sell it to me if the tables were turned.

As it is I guess the oil producers still want useless dollars, money is a means to an end not an ends in itself.

So things aren't as bad yet..or are they?

Saudi to Keep Oil for Itself. - Scitizen

Oil minus the 'froth' on top is still on an uptrend and will continue am afraid.

"mock turtle writes:
it's a backwards looking thing, and we will only know for sure where the line was after we are way passed it.
theoretically makes sense no resource is never ending, and over at the oil drum they make a good case for us being close to the turning point."

The OECD should be looking into alternative energy on geopolitical/environmental grounds anyway. It makes no sense to be dependent upon the Middle East for anything.

And yeah, there's no way supply can keep up with the exponential growth India and China are undertaking. Limits would be hit sooner or later, even if we find some big fields.

I'm trading exclusively in small-caps, exclusively long.)

dense defines you... he wanted a BEAR's opinion.

Maybe CR or Tanta will post about this soon, but it is going on today in the same town/city where I live.

The article
The attendee list

"Ben Bernanke, Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton amongst a host of other global power brokers have all convened in Chantilly Virginia to secretly discuss the future of the world - yet not one mainstream U.S. corporate media outlet has uttered a single word about the 2008 Bilderberg conference.

Bilderbergers seem to enjoy visiting the U.S. because they can be assured that in the "land of the free," the American "free press" are certain to follow orders and not print even a puff piece about a confab of over 125 of the globe's most influential movers and shakers."

"mock turtle writes:
there's convincing evedence that petrochemicals came from ancient organic matter.
...
it's interesting that many coal beds, at the margins show signs of processing to crude AND fossilized plant material just at the edge of being turned to coal can also be found."

My understanding (largely based on reading the "Deep Hot Biosphere", along with limited other reading) is that the evidence could easily be explained by biological matter leaking into non-biological oil. The crust is filled with heat-loving micro-organisms.

Coal (in the non-biological theory) is the result of hydrocarbons infiltrating existing sedimentary rock. I.e. the fossils we see in coal existed first in sedimentary rock, and then it turned into coal later. Thus you see the edge effects you mention.

When they face problems explaining where oil is sometimes found, geologists (even seen on forums here) bend themselves into contortions saying that oil flows to places it's not supposed to be. I also saw the assertion here that the deep digging in igneous rock which hit petrochemicals in Sweden was the result of an experimental screwup. This was an incorrect reading of reality, or a lie if you want to be impolite.

The biggest problems I have with the biological origin theory:
(1) They cannot demonstrate an actual laboratory method to convert crushed biological matter into oil or carbon.
(2) No explanation how biological matter can be stockpiled anywhere in enough size in order for it to be converted into the freaking huge volumes of petrochemicals that are extracted from the crust. Anywhere you look in the real world, you see creatures scavenging almost any biological matter lying around.

No other body of scientists worries about solving these "problems" as they think the whole idea is a joke.

I don't know where to find oil; the geologists generally do. But then again, my 3 year old knows where to find the presents at Christmas (under the tree), but I hate to say that the "Santa Clause" theory of their origin is incorrect. To my opinionated mind, the geologists are in the same boat as my 3 year old.

Petroleum doesn't come from "dinosaurs" but from the dinosaur "age", i.e. 200 million down to ~60 million years ago. It accumulated in marine sedimentary rocks - it's exact source is still a matter of speculation, but the "animal" part of it isn't dinos; it's probably forams or other microscopic protozoans. The oils are deposited in rock and then "baked" out to form the underground pools of the easier-to-extract oil fields.

OT
The 2008 European Football tournament started
today. You'll see a productivity drop in Europe
this month.

Obviously 'Bond Guy' isn't going to say where he went to school for the Geologists to be the 'dumb' guys. Just because Bong Guy reads a bunch of crackpot theories makes him right and the rest of the fossil fuel producing industry wrong.

In Bond Guy's defense there are a handful of Universities where the Geologists are the 'dumb' guys. I went to one called Colorado School of Mines. The smart guys were mostly Petroleum or Chemical Engineers.

Well, in my corner of the world, graduating geology PhD's are getting flown to the the Exxon's, Mobile's, and the BP's with a week paid vacations for the whole family, while they interview.

They may not have been the brightest, but they are definitely in demand now. Lots of demand means smart ones will diffuse that way in the future.

--Fewlesh

My understanding (largely based on reading the "Deep Hot Biosphere", along with limited other reading) is that the evidence could easily be explained by biological matter leaking into non-biological oil. The crust is filled with heat-loving micro-organisms.

You really should look at some other sources, too. Lots of what Tommy claims therein is simply not true.

Coal (in the non-biological theory) is the result of hydrocarbons infiltrating existing sedimentary rock. I.e. the fossils we see in coal existed first in sedimentary rock, and then it turned into coal later. Thus you see the edge effects you mention.

Haven't looked at much coal in place, have you? It's clearly part of the sedimentary sequence. "Coal" is just another sedimentary rock, and it indeed grades into other sedimentary rock types. It also occurs in all thicknesses, down to little non-economic layers interspersed in (and gradational with) in other sediments. You don't see evidence of "infiltration." You see evidence of deposition.

This is the sort of crackpot notion that merely indicates the authors haven't even looked at the rocks themselves.

When they face problems explaining where oil is sometimes found, geologists (even seen on forums here) bend themselves into contortions saying that oil flows to places it's not supposed to be.

Wrong. To get an oil deposit, you need (1) a source of hydrocarbons, which is organic-rich sedimentary rock; (2) a porous and permeable reservoir that can hold the hydrocarbons (commonly a sandstone, but often other rocks); and (3) a trap to keep the hydrocarbons from just flowing on out (a cap of impermeable rock, like the evaporites in the Middle East, or a fault, or some other geologic barrier). Oil always "flows"--you need to have it flow to a place where it will collect. Saying it "flows to places it's not supposed to" merely indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

I also saw the assertion here that the deep digging in igneous rock which hit petrochemicals in Sweden was the result of an experimental screwup. This was an incorrect reading of reality, or a lie if you want to be impolite.

Oh, really? Any evidence for this? I was at the meeting and saw the gas chromatography presentation. Again, you really need to dig deeper. As it is, your assertion is simply false.

The biggest problems I have with the biological origin theory:
(1) They cannot demonstrate an actual laboratory method to convert crushed biological matter into oil or carbon.

Wrong again. It's easy to cook lipid-rich material into hydrocarbons. That's where oil comes from. (Google, e.g., "sapropel" or "kerogen") For crying out loud, we see sedimentary rocks that can get cooked into oil. That's what "oil shale" is. It's lakebeds, from the bottoms of stagnant (and anoxic) lakes. Processing oil shale into oil is merely doing technologically what happens naturally under the right geologic conditions.

And any organic matter is easily processed into carbon! You've heard of soot or charcoal, surely.

(2) No explanation how biological matter can be stockpiled anywhere in enough size in order for it to be converted into the freaking huge volumes of petrochemicals that are extracted from the crust. Anywhere you look in the real world, you see creatures scavenging almost any biological matter lying around.

Not true. Biological matter accumulates in anoxic (i.e., air-free) environments, because there are no scavengers there. And that's where the organic-rich sedimentary rocks that can get processed into oil form. The Black Sea is an excellent current example. Below a very thin layer of oxygenated seawater, it's completely anoxic, and is accumulating organic matter as we speak.

But, as I have repeatedly and wearily said, those of you that think the pros are all wrong are welcome to try finding oil yourselves.

Well instead of the stupidity of invading Iraq to please Israel, or to topple a "dictator' or for whatever reason, or none, Bush should have sent in enough troops to occupy the Saudi oil fields and facilities and pump out the oil for us. Course he didn't want to do that since he really didn't invade Iraq for the oil and he was buddies with the Saudi monarchy. Now the GOP is paying the price, as are we all, for that mistake.

BTW.any of you WATB Republicans want to join me

bond guy,

Yeah, well, all the easy to find & get stuff has been found -- that's the basis for Peak Oil anyway. There's plenty left, but you just can't find & get it as quickly and cheaply, hence the eventual (and likely here) peak in total worldwide production.

If anyone were interested, energy field jobs are those with a future. Like the rigs themselves, the current workforce is small and aging rapidly. Anyone with the right degree will find a buyer's market for years to come.

mock,

About that 50%... unfortunately, those that have held onto their jobs so far are all government types.

mock turtle.

guess you misunderestimate sarcasm.....

Iran is not getting nukes. Period! People must come to terms with that...

char,

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but... I'm still not sure oil can drop that far. Care to put a dollar figure on what you call "precipitously"?

deserve a spanking for driving the final nail in the coffin of glass-steagel (with help from repub phill gramm)
mock turtle
surely this is not the same Phil Gramm who is McCain's chief economic advisor and coauthor of "The Evilgelical Book of Economics"

"tj & the bear writes:
bond guy,

Yeah, well, all the easy to find & get stuff has been found -- that's the basis for Peak Oil anyway. There's plenty left, but you just can't find & get it as quickly and cheaply, hence the eventual (and likely here) peak in total worldwide production.
If anyone were interested, energy field jobs are those with a future. Like the rigs themselves, the current workforce is small and aging rapidly. Anyone with the right degree will find a buyer's market for years to come."

I don't disagree that all the easy to find stuff has been found. I just threw in a slur about geologists to satisfy the inner troll in me. In any event, as I pointed out originally, if you stop investing in production, production stops going up. This may be an amazing observation to people educated in some faculties [troll alert!] but the rest of us don't think this is on the level of the Uncertainty Principle.

In response to the meticulously argued post above that said I'm an idiot (I think it was more polite), I can't legitimately argue with you. Mainly because I don't have time to waste on disputes in academic backwaters; I used to do that earlier in my life. I prefer to cling to the null hypothesis - since matter outside stars are largely hydrocarbons, why do we need some elaborate theory how they showed up on earth?

Although I'd agree that energy jobs are likely the wave of the future, the problem is which jobs. Once hydrocarbons start getting expensive, a lot of alternatives start becoming economical. Especially if you add in geopolitical costs associated with oil (Iraq...), never mind global warming fears. If prices don't collapse, more energy will be "created" via conservation than will be via sticking pipes into the ground. And those "energy" jobs will be mechanical engineers, materials scientists, etc.

I knew a lot of geologists looking for work in the 1980s-90s (which is why there's the openings now), so I've seen the market blow up before.

In other news, all the peregrine falcon babies that lived on top of the WaMu tower in Seattle died.

You sure they weren't canaries???

Char:
We are in for a very deep recession. People must be delusional if they think our economy can weather $140.00 oil, the greatest drop in home equity since WWII, the greatest drop in real estate prices since the great depression, the largest budget deficit in history, bankrupt municipalities, and a severe over extension of debt. It all adds up to an economy that is fucked. All thats left now is to assign blame.

For this reason, and given that the sh!t won't hit the fan until after Nov., I always thought that McCain should be the next president, even though I disagree with ALL of his policies. He's the only one that I can see falling on the sword (sort of like GHWB), because his party kind of hates him anyways. Raise taxes, cut spending, and finally kill the Medicare and Social Security beasts (that's 4 of 9 trillion debt right there).

As charismatic as Obama is, he (as with all the candidates) must be totally be clueless for the economy to sneak up on them like that. Universal health care and broadband seem like such pipe dreams right now. And I'm not sure the public can decouple race or gender from failure, even if these forces have been in making for decades. Herbert Hoover doesn't get that luxury and neither will Obama. The buyer's remorse will be bad, and HRC will be set up for 2012. eh.

"But there's no doubt it will be U.S. and Israel on one side and the radical Muslim world on the other."

Unfortunately, there will be tens of millions of non-radical Muslims who will be against us as well.

One of the facts about Iranian society that the attack-Iran enthusiasts don't want to understand is that Ahmadinejibberjabber and his minions are intensely unpopular among large swaths of the Iranian populace, largely due to his complete mismanagement of economic affairs. Not only that, but his nutty views about Israel are not regarded positively by some prominent conservative mullahs, and Amhadinejibberjabber has been publicly critized recently.

But beyond that, it is a fact that large numbers of Iranian young people actually view western and American culture positively, and chafe against the attempts by the Muslim conservatives to impose strict standards of behavior and dress. It is the policies of the Bush Administration in particular that draw their ire, not American culture per se.

The huge irony of an attack is that it will appear to confirm everything that Ahmadinejibberjabber has been saying in the minds of the Iranian public, will serve to rally moderate and liberal Iranians to his side, and will give him all the political support he needs to actively crush all those who advocate for an open and truly democratic Iranian political framework. The Cheneyites are still laboring under the delusion that an attack will spur opponents of the ruling gov't in Iran to overthrow the mullahs, and exactly the opposite will occur: the mullahs will be stronger than ever before. What Cheney and Kristol and Bush never seem to understand is that strategic bombing has never once in history induced the citizens being bombed to overthrow their own government. It didn't happen when the Nazis blitzed London or Russia; it didn't happen when Allied forces bombed Germany and Japan; and it didn't happen when the U.S. bombed North Vietnam or Iraq. That doesn't mean that strategic bombing isn't the right thing to do in a given situation, but thinking it will induce those being bombed to thank the bombers for the impetus to attack their own government is just another absurd fantasy that the current crew of Republicans like to engage in.

The law of unintended consequences is iron, unyielding, and universal. The attack on Iran (I believe it's inevitable) is no doubt regarded by Bush and Rove and Lieberman as a sure-fire way to guarantee McCain's election. It is just as likely it will do something entirely different.

That's too bad about the WaMu falcons. The group atop the S&P Building in New York seems to be doing well though!

"With rising inflation what are the 1.00 stores going to do?"

While in Detroit recently I saw a Dollar Store with a big banner screaming "Clearance!" You know times are tough...

...never seem to understand is that strategic bombing has never once in history induced the citizens being bombed to overthrow their own government
bluestatedon 7:20 pm

what war with iran will do is allow more neocon friends to profit,which is the main goal and move us closer to "armageddon and the rapture" to please neocon supporters. if we wanted a democratic government in iran, we had our chance with Mossadegh

Woodburning stoves sales triple in advance of winter.

Cleveland, Ohio News, Weather, Sports, Entertainment , Cleveland Cavaliers, Cleveland Browns, Cleveland Indians - WJW

Almost wish I still had my Y2K supplies.

Hi,
Bong(d)guy,

Try to run that TRASH by they Yahoo forums.
Better yet , go to The Oil Drum.
Run your ideas by them.
Ya' ought to to shred those 'Geology / Petro Guys .
BEST WISHES ,

bluestatedon: the core problem for the US is the fact that Israel controls our Middle East policy. If we were free from Israeli domination we could easily come to terms with the Muslim "terrorists". They simply want us to leave them alone and get the hell out of their lands. WE are the imperial aggressors and it is because Israel goads us on in hopes of using us to crush any upstart Muslims nation that might oppose it. Israel should take care of itself; it has nukes. It has an army. We need a divorce from Israel.

Nunca,

Even if it did take more energy to produce solar film panels than they produce over their lifetimes, as long as their production was non-fossil fuel based, it's still a net to make them. Distributing them amongst millions of households would eliminate so much coal use it would make up for their production plants using hydro/wind/whatever else.

Iran hopes that Israel will disappear. You get scared easily and don't really understand what the Pres. of Iran said. You need lessons in Farsi or should visit the site run by Juan Cole to get your head straight. He never threatened to attack or nuke Israel, but Israel would like the world to believe he did.

Israel wants to scare and goad the US into an attack on Iran the way it goaded Bush into the stupid Iraq war that Bush's own press man now says (he needed a long time to wise up) was needless. Smarten up about where Israel is coming from and dont' be a dupe of the Israel Lobby. If you don't know all about that read your Mearsheimer and Walt.

But, Chris, why is Israel such a sore point with you, but Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States, is not a problem? I think we all can guess the reason why Chris doesn't like Israel.

If Israel and Iran want to mix it up, so be it. The US should have no position, they are both equally our friends.

The Persian culture is beatiful, regardless of how ugly the impostor Muslim Mullahs would make it. My support is with the people of Iran and the people of Israel. I wish them the best of all worlds. May their God shine on them.

Back to reality, the US is dealing with it's own religious nut cases. Is it not amazing how they can justify their actions in the book of fairy tales. (the bible). The sooner the bastards are gone the better.

Best wishes to all.

after reading most of bond guys comments, i've come to the conclusion he trades series EE

I am surprised no one has called me anti-Semitic. That is the usual catchall shut-up device to deflect all criticism of Israel.

Chris, it sounds you would prefer that the United States attack Israel instead. (You know, like the Arabs did in 1948, 1967, 1973, 1991, and off and on since 2000.) Why would that be? You make lots of excuses for Iran, but there's something about Israel that bugs you--what would that reason be?

Even if construction of solar panels takes more energy than they produce, it can still create positive effects. Think "Time Shifting" and "Location Shifting". ie, I can use cheap nuclear or even hydro energy in non-peak times or locations to produce the things, and the pay-off can be during peak summer hours in transmission constrained (or overly polluted) areas.

The concept is similar to batteries. Certainly more energy goes into them then comes out, yet they are still useful, right?

Anonymous writes:
Iran has said it wants Israel wiped off the map.

anyone ever been to iran? if you go to a book store or such, to buy a map, Is israel on it?

Chris,
Good points..Iran is running out of oil and already has rationing in place. They are using it for power, not war..

Isreal controls the press and many other parts of mainstream america..

Iraq should have led to this admin's ouster but the sheeple of america would rather just watch american idol.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is clearly not thinking.

When the president lies and nobody cares it reminds me of the video posted the other day of the hit and run incident in Hartford. Were scared sheeple. Someone should have chased those 2 cars and ran them off the road.

Bring back the death penalty, cut off a rapists/child molesters member. We will be better off. Wont happen because of the f@#$ing human rights organizations..I can tell you that anybody harms my family, the law will be similar to the 1800's...

I'm not the conspiratorial type (NWO and all that crap), but this whole Bilderberg thing is fishy. Even if the event is just an innocent, boring little conference, the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO press coverage of a meeting with 100+ of the world's most influential people stinks to high heaven.

It's funny how the tough talkers are so fearful. "Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States" -- ooh, scary! Who cares.

(2) No explanation how biological matter can be stockpiled anywhere in enough size in order for it to be converted into the freaking huge volumes of petrochemicals that are extracted from the crust. Anywhere you look in the real world, you see creatures scavenging almost any biological matter lying around.

Aren't the permafrosts of siberia huge carbon stores (hence the concern that as they defrost they will release megatons of CO2) and huge stores of organic matter. It seems entirely reasonable that such stuff can get covered, eventually turn to hydrocarbons then pool to oil (or coal).

either way it doesn't really matter where oil comes from because we're using what there is orders of magnitude faster than new deposits are plausibly being formed: If it is being formed at the rate we're using it, the entire planet - being more four billion years old and all - would have created a volume of oil that approaches the entire volume of the "lithosphere" - the global mantle down to 60 miles deep.

Since you asked about bear positions, I guess you can include me in that position except I think myself more of a trader. The current market will not reward an investor or a saver.

Here is my current porfolio: 40% Cash, 35% Short term bonds, and 25% government contractor. I woudl sell out my government contractor but expect to take advantage of a tax loop hole when I convert from a 401k to a Roth in 2010. Well, that is the tax law doesnot change by 2010. I sold at May 31st and will remain on the sidelines until the last day of the Olympics. At that time, I expect to shift some cash into my MGEMX for a China currency play as I expect China to revalue the Yuan by at least 5% after the Olympics. Yes, I know that the Fed is on the sidelines and should increase the interest rate later this year. I do not see the Fed raising or cutting the rate this year but I could be wrong.

As far as US stocks, I had projected on Dec 31st of last year that the US market would be down 5% and the international markets 10%. So far, my prediction is doing well. As far as my results, I am up approximately 5% so I am not negative.

I personally don't believe Israel or the US will attack Iran, but I definitely believe that Isreal will outlast Ahmadinejad.