per capita GDP refutes "recession" explanation
(I think readers will benefit more from learning how to refute Nelder-isms on their own)
Per capita GDP is the counter-argument to the recession argument. A recession is a decrease in aggregate GDP - we're not even seeing a decrease in per-capita GDP. Long way from seeing a recession over the entire 2005-2012 time span.
You bring up the recession explantion - I explain why there is no recession. There was a recession (a biggie) in the middle of your time frame, but the economy has more than recovered from that recession, in an aggregate sense.
Perhaps the rise in unemployment explains things a bit. But I don't think the total number of employed people has dropped much (or at all) from it's 2005 number. It's more like the population has grown and jobs have failed to keep up. So it's hard to explain declining oil production from fewer workers.
" But then, that's your game..." your game is that of some of my math students. Present an obiously wrong answer via an elaborate and non-standard technique, then say "if you think I'm wrong, show me where" .... it cracks me up that you think this is the way to become an "energy expert". Cracks me up a lot.
