When he is backed into a corner about equities, Rogers says he is short emerging markets and the Nasdaq, and questions why more investors are not investing in commodities. He even suggests the channel name should be changed to CommoditiesNBC.

The full video clip is below. After watching it, tell us what you think. Are we facing $150/barrel oil? What is your take on commodities vs. equities?

For our full mid-year economic outlook, check out the July issue of Futures magazine, online June 25.

Here are some highlights:

“Fundamentally this is a bear market. It’s a market that is drawing a flow of buying on issues that are not directly related to the physical crude oil market, such as the weakness of the U.S. dollar and broader inflation expectations. So we are using crude oil as a hedge against a weaker dollar and as a hedge against inflation; and that’s why it’s $107 per barrel. We don’t have tight inventories; we have gasoline inventories at their highest level since March of 1993. And apparently, that is not enough inventory to turn the market lower. And so to my eye this looks like a bubble.”

He doesn’t claim to know how long the bubble will last, but notes that the internet stock market bubble lasted four years after Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan’s famous “irrational exuberance” remark.

He says that that there seems to be an effort to redraw the market such that current higher than average inventories become “the new tight,” and that this sort of “new paradigm talk” is ultimately dangerous, because “the laws of economics have not been repealed.”

Evans adds that the four-week average U.S. petroleum demand is already down 3.4% year on year, and while some of that is weather related, demand will not recover under these price levels.

“So it’s short-term profit for fund managers and long term implications for the supply and demand of oil.

Eventually, it will all end badly, he says because the downside will not be supported by physical tightness. Evans expects 2008 to look more like 2006, when the market fell from $78.40 per barrel to $49.90 in early 2007, a 36% decline in price; and that decline didn’t include a recession or a year-on-year demand decrease.

“There may be further upside potential because the bubble is still expanding (as of today). But what are we setting ourselves up for here? There is a lot of fundamental risk on the downside and the higher we go, the larger that risk becomes, because the fundamental implications of higher prices are all bearish.”

On the energy front, today the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on regulation needed to address price manipulation in the energy markets. Committee members discussed the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)’s recent haggling over exclusive jurisdiction over energy futures markets. They said that the “Enron loophole,” which allows for gaps in the regulation of energy, needs to be closed. At the hearing, Laura Campbell of Memphis Light, Gas and Water recommended “multiple cops” on the regulation beat and said she hoped the CFTC and FERC could work together in policing the energy markets. Some members of Congress said they wanted FERC to have the ultimate authority in regulation. It looks like the battle over energy regulation could heat up some more this winter. For more on the CFTC’s regulatory scrum and the stall of the Farm Bill, check out the January issue of Futures magazine.

“OPEC’s not adding production in the market was expected,” Eric Wittenauer, energy analyst at AG Edwards, says. He called the market oversold in the near term and said he remains bearish on the market overall.

According to the Associated Press, light, sweet crude for January delivery fell 83 cents to settle at $87.49 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, oil’s lowest close since Oct. 24. Prices drifted lower in after-hours trading, dipping below $87, the AP said.

Commissioner Chilton, who was sworn in last August, took a firm stance on fixing the CFTC’s actions –or rather inactions – of late. “We have the responsibility to look at what we’re not doing right…they’re not huge issues. We just need to get down to brass tacks and finalize these things,” Chilton said.

The panelists discussed exclusive jurisdiction in the energy markets in relation to the CFTC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) ongoing legal scuffle with Amaranth, as well as a possible merger between the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

William Brodsky, chairman and CEO of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, felt that merger talk was just the tip of the iceberg in futures regulation, saying, “We need a fresh look at the whole thing…this goes way beyond the concept of a merger.”

On FERC and CFTC’s skirmish over energy regulation, FIA President John Damgard said, “FERC is sticking their nose into a process that was working well without them.”

Chilton called for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be set up for new product approval, and said periodic and public accountability sessions with the SEC and CFTC are needed. “We don’t need to trouble Congress to solve these problems. We can solve them on our own.”

Brodsky called Chilton’s comments “refreshing,” but remained a bit skeptical about the CFTC’s ability to accomplish Chilton’s stated goals. “Good words and nice intensions have not solved [the CFTC’s] problems” in the past, Brodsky said. “I’m impatient because there’s lots of good will but very little action.”

Maybe Chilton can help the CFTC take a cue from Elvis and offer up a little less conversation, and a little more action.

-submitted by Christine Birkner