As all the new money being printed to finance this consumption is being recycled by those at the
top of the Malthusian chain (i.e. Dubai and Norway). Our outdated measures of economic growth will continue to look like everything is fine (until it isn't). In the late 70's, there was an actual and significant
decrease in the amount of oil consumed in the US - this was the cause of the recession, not high prices.
Only the poor will really feel it this time, and in our economic metrics, they don't seem to matter much.
Abandoned Ford F-150s with 0% financing in the trailer parks are the tell. Even the repo man does not want them.

That is my take as well.. the oil price as a percentage of global GDP has it all backwards.. The total GDP is the profit from burning the oil

The economy is your power consumption. The price is what exactly? The gap between the fuel cost and the total GDP is your profit margin or a measure of efficiency if you like.

Boris
London

Mention of money gets my attention!

In a series of postings at Question Everything I have been exploring the question of "what is money?" in reality. All talk of comparing oil price in monetary terms with GDP (also in monetary terms) is doomed to erroneous conclusion. Dollars as a measure of anything are notoriously rife with error and distortions. The problem is that the dollar is no longer representative of a real physical unit. Noting that energy available to do work is the only REAL currency in the world (economy + ecosystems) that has unambiguous meaning, I have proposed that we adopt an energy standard as the basis of valuation of money.

You can follow some of my reasoning and analysis of large-scale impacts of adopting this standard at the above link.

Trying to understand the price/cost of oil using the current measuring device is like trying to measure distance using a rubber yard stick (Samuleson).

George