It would appear to be axiomatic to say that there are few benefits from an oil price over $100 per barrel. Nevertheless, during oil's latest climb to the stratosphere, some have argued that a high oil price is 'net-positive for the global economy,' or 'a long-term good thing.'

Economist Glen Langan has a word for insta-analysis like the above. "Misguided," he calls them.

Not that Langan is an ardent advocate of oil use; hardly. Would that the developed and developing world could shift today to an alternate, renewable, and more environmentally-friendly energy form, he says. But the world can't, and as is some times the case in social science circles, "the normative influences the empirical," he says, and leads to curious conclusions like an 'oil shock being net-positive for the global economy.'

For the record: an oil shock is never net-positive for the global economy, Langan argues.

There are some benefits, to be sure, such as increased conservation, increased research on alternate/renewable energy forms, a transfer of some wealth to some developing nations and, of course, astounding increases in wealth in those connected to oil and oil services, but the overall effect is net-negative. Oil traded Thursday up $5.46 to $121.42 per barrel.

In light of oil's rise to triple-digit prices, the United States' inability to pass an energy policy aimed at increased efficiency, renewable energy, and energy independence, represents an opportunity squandered -- on two fronts: transportation and power generation.

True, oil has retreated from the $135 range to the $125-128 range, but the nation now faces record-high gasoline/diesel prices, along with high prices for heating oil, natural gas, and coal. As a result, the broad-based disposable income -- so essential for U.S. economic growth -- has been squeezed, with many economists now arguing adequate GDP growth is not possible, if energy prices remain at current levels.

At minimum, the U.S. faces a period of economic and social adjustment -- corporate, public, personal -- as it copes with the brave new world of $4 gasoline ... and that's if gasoline remains in the $4 per gallon range. A variety of scenarios could quickly send gasoline over $5 per gallon and higher in 2009.

The world has endured (survived?) two of them.

They led to transformations in energy use and economic activity twice in the modern era, in 1973-74 and 1979-1980.

They are oil shocks, and right now Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, argues in a Financial Times column that what is unfolding before us is the world's third oil shock. (Oil traded Thursday at $128.60 per barrel.)

Further, Yergin argues that those who say the world could take $80 per barrel oil in stride amid strong economic growth should not feel emboldened about the world's ability to continue to grow with an oil price that's $60 higher in the near future. The contraction ripples have started. In the airline sector. In the auto sector. Note the lighter traffic at your local mall. And did you notice that last food bill for the same shopping cart of items you bought?

Bad news, good news

Yergin's bad news? (And short-term, it is bad news.) Supply, short-term, will not be able to prevent the shock, in other words, lower prices to levels that would maintain (restore?) adequate global economic growth. Engineering skills and oil equipment are in short supply, drilling costs are rising, and equally damaging, selected governments are restricting access or postponing decisions that would bring more oil to the market in the shortest possible time.

Yergin's good news? Demand is already responding to record-high oil (and in the U.S., gasoline) prices, except in those countries where prices are controlled or subsidized. The oil shock is propelling changes (finally) in public policy, corporate/consumer behavior, along with technological development and implementation. Hybrid cars/vehicles, once fringe, are now in demand. The U.S. Congress increased automobile fuel efficiency requirements for the first time in 32 years. And billions of dollars have been added to speed the development of battery technology.

The economic landscape -- particularly for the United States -- certainly looks different than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

Globalization, the internet, and the rise of a second major economic power in Asia are all developments that would look rather odd to someone in, say, 1973-74. The world in 2008 is one characterized by economic change -- one that may usher-in even more historic political change in the months ahead.

But there has been one constant between the two eras (overlooking cyclicality): the price of oil. It was high, in real terms, in 1973-74, and it's high now. And one thing economists like Glen Langan know regarding economic conditions when oil's price is high -- it simply makes the cost of moving things, the cost of doing pretty much everything, more expensive. Whether it's dropping the kids off at little league baseball or at soccer practice, or transporting a supply chain order of refrigerators across the country, a high oil price "simply increases the cost of motion," he said. And there are few positives for the U.S. economy. Further, it takes dollars that could create spin-off economic effects -- disposable income that could be spent somewhere else -- and simply removes them from the economy.

The "Totally Informal Economics Roundtable" (TIER) met this week. For those unfamiliar, the Roundtable achieves a quorum whenever yours truly and my three astute economist friends from graduate school convene to discuss matters economic...or to celebrate the birthday of one our school-age children.

This week's the topic was OPIC. That's OPIC, not OPEC.

Most readers/investors know about OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

With the markets' choppy/consolidation pattern continuing, it's best to consider a defensive stock or two for your portfolio, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (NYSE: ADM).

The argument here is not that the biofuel trend is over; hardly. However, the frenzy that accompanied the financial world's realization that biofuel could represent a suitable alternate energy form, for some energy users, appears to tapering.

Biofuel interest remains high, and ADM is likely to benefit from wider and wider use these fuels. Most analysts see accelerating annual earnings growth on strong corn and soybean demand, with pricing power. Further, it's worth underscoring in these high-energy-cost times that ADM is foremost a large, vertically-integrated, food commodity company (wheat, corn, soybeans), and food rarely goes out of style. The Reuters F2008/F2009 EPS consensus estimates for ADM are $2.58/$2.97.

Note: Technical analysis agnostics stop reading here; all others continue.]

Technically, ADM's chart looks adequate. A base appears to be in place in the $32 range, and the stock has moved back above its 50-day and 200-day moving averages. Further, ADM's low p/e of 11 also reduces the stock's risk/return ratio.

Stock Analysis: Archer Daniels Midland is a moderate-risk stock not suitable for low-risk investors. Investors with an investment horizon longer than 2 years should be rewarded from ADM's shares. Sell / Stop Loss: $24.

Visit AOL Money & Finance for more earnings coverage