Michael Ringold

One Tank of Ethanol = Food for One Year

It's made from more than switchgrass; it could be made from anything laying around that otherwise would go to waste.

Anyway, it would be irrational, and a detriment to our economy and therefore the global economy, to avoid ethanol technology on the basis that what drives its production just so happens to be the raw material that is used to make food. We're simply optimizing, creating new wealth in new industries. The best thing these poor folks could do isn't wait for a hand-out but start growing corn, grain, or anything else that we're consuming voraciously and driving up the prices for. That's a win-win for everybody, but sometimes it's hard for socialists to understand that. Much easier to play a guilt card.

U.S. Trade Deficit: Not as Ominous as it Sounds

I'm sure it's of interest to some, but bringing up the deficit as something scary I think is just politics. The trade deficit is just a tiny, tiny thorn in the side of GDP calculations, with growth in the other far more important categories completely swamping it. It'd be nice to have it positive, but only in the same way it'd be nice to have a higher valued currency; vague bragging rights, not any real substantive advantage.

Oil's Slippery Slope: Why Crude and Oil Stocks May Be Headed Down, Fast

Macroeconomic analysis is something I'm more comfortable with than trying to predict short-term swings, but you're painting a "best case" scenario in every possible way. China's attempts at 'curbing consumption' will only slow its growth in that consumption, not keep it from rising. SUV sales might be getting whacked, but the F150 still outsells any other vehicle, and Hybrid production numbers are too small to even count. I think you're also giving the consumer too much credit for self-sacrificing behavior like putting up with higher household temps in the summer and lower ones in the winter..

Why make all these elaborate points that all have such simple counterpoints when a much more traditional concept would do just as well? Something like this: Consumers fail to reduce energy consumption, and instead must make cuts elsewhere. Those other cuts slow the economy, slowing compensation growth, boost unemployment, etc. Those that aren't making as much or are out of work won't be consuming nearly as much energy, thereby moderating energy prices a little.

As in many things in life, the truth if often somewhere in the middle. It won't be doomsday, and I'm pretty sure it won't be as peachy-keen as you're thinking it will be either.... in the long run.

In the short run, you might be right, for a few months. Given that it's debated outside the investing world whether supply can expand much beyond its current level even if it wanted to though, I personally find the "reference" projection, or something slightly more cynical but not "worst case" much more believable than a long-term return oil below $40. If this were a normal business that could expand supply to meet demand, sure, but when 'god', or Earth, doesn't allow supply to expand, well then...