I don't think that part is a given. We WILL make the transition, no doubt about that since the economics will force it. But if we let idiots push policies that pretend that we can continue to use petroleum derived from ever more expensive sources of production, and then wait until the last minute to make the switch, we will feel some pain. Some of the more progressive countries are definitely going to be ahead of us on the changeover, and I think that gives them a real competitive advantage. But if China beats us on that, game over. We will never overtake them in anything again after that.

Even if the nations with factions dedicated to maintaining the status quo try, the prize is too great to suppress innovation forever. Somebody with nothing to lose (and everything to gain) will keep pushing. Germany maybe? Japan? China? They have little or no oil so nothing to lose there. But they do have strong economies, technological know-how, and just maybe the ambition to be the provider of the next wave of energy production.

If the US and others don't want to do it, somebody will. Might even be the Saudis, since they can afford anything their hearts desire.

Hopefully their experience with churning out massive quantities of semiconductor devices cheaply is the final push needed to make solar energy start showing up on the pie charts that show the sources for generated power. From then on it should continue to grow and grow and grow...

I'm not claiming to be knowledgeable about the history of these commodities trading tools, but if this statement is correct:

The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991...

Then how is this statement (coming from a guy who made his money in the field we might note) possibly true?

Anyone who thinks the oil market would work just fine with only producers, refiners and end-users has never spent a day trading, or seen liquidity vanish just when a specific transaction was most desirable or necessary, because there was no middleman willing to take it on as a bet.

If I recall correctly, prior to 1991 petroleum/gasoline were readily available because you could make money selling them, since, well you know, they are actually useful products.

ps-I like how he calls the transaction a bet, which to me implies everyone who is not offsetting actual risk from doing business (like a producer, refiner, or distributor ) should be doing their "transactions" in a separate marketplace. I think they call them casinos, which is where you usually try to make money when you don't actually do anything useful.

If only knowledgeable speculators were losing their shirts with AND my home value weren't negatively effected, I agree that no protection is warranted - let people take their chances. But the world has no shortage of suckers, and just because people can be taken advantage of does not make deceiving them any less of a crime, just easy pickens for greedy people with low morals. I want to see those people punished.

As for the big fish that believed the bond ratings on the bags full of turd loans that they bought, thinking they were bags of roses...why don't you sue the bond rating guys if no criminal charges come up? Either they they are criminals or their models are sh!t and they are totally incompetent. I don't understand why those guys are not getting hammered, the losses are huge and they played a central role in the whole fiasco.

unless you needed to get demolition done in a hurry.

Drat! Now you have to rebuild what you just blew up.

I think the assignment of blame in the mortgage mess is a classic example of people not acknowledging that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Borrowers made many bad choices with loans and houses.

Lenders made many bad choices with who they made loans to.

Some of the borrowers didn't do their homework, got greedy, or were just not all that smart. The difference in the case of the lenders is that it was a systemic thing, repeated over and over. They are in the business and should have known better. The fact this did happen and that it now hurts everyone (hopefully you're not needing to sell your house right now), shows that strong regulation is needed. Even if you don't think the borrowers deserve any protection from unscrupulous lenders, it is clearly in your and my best interests to prevent something like this from happening again.

I'm in agreement with h0tr0d, the debates should be where the tide turns overwhelmingly against McCain. They get lots of coverage and I fully expect Obama to completely outclass McCain.

I think it really comes down to how good the questions are at the debates. By good I mean do some of the questions actually challenge the candidates to think on their feet just a bit, or do they all just serve as launching pads for talking points. I'm hoping McCain has one of those moments where he gets flustered and just goes blank and can't even spew out a canned answer to some simple question. That might show voters that this guy is not someone you want as president, even though you might still respect him.

Than to see one of the cocky favorites lose the gold to someone who ran his hardest the whole race. For chrissakes, some of these races only last 10 seconds, and your at the Olympics. Easing up is one thing but shutting it down is just asking for trouble. A runner fading and getting caught near the end when the lactic acid kicks in and the legs slow down is one thing, but losing because you underestimate your competition and try to cruise to save a little energy or to play a head game is being pretty arrogant.