Oil Bubble?

[mungkiman]

"dbspl

PS Please note that nowhere did I mention anything about lowering the price at the pump. Gas prices will remain high, and that will take care of the conservation and alternative fuel side of the equation."

From what you are saying, we don't need to even consider drilling.

Where in this statement do I claim conservation and alternative fuels will replace all the foreign imports? Developing our own resources (drilling), is the only way I see that can guarantee that. That was the basis of the post.

If all you guys want to believe that technology is available on the required scale to replace our dependence on oil, that's fine with me. I hope you're right. Personally, I prefer to have a safety net.

Enjoy all the furture OPEC oil...

dbspl

You didn't claim that conservation and alternative fuels will replace all the foreign imports, but you did state that "Gas prices will remain high, and that will take care of the conservation and alternative fuel side of the equation." We already have high prices. Remind me of the benefit, as the "safety net" you speak of is only a temporary one. If you think relying on foreign oil is the problem, you're only looking at half of the picture.

We need to think big picture, and make long term decisions regarding energy policy. Our society is more willing to pass these problems onto future generations, so that we don't have to give up any of our own comfort now. If being able to drive a car is what defines our freedom, we're doomed.

[mungkiman]

We will be dependent upon oil for as long as it is "available", unfortunately, but there is no reason not to take alternative actions.

When oil prices come down, I'll bet we are encouraged to believe that conservation and alternatives are working!

[dBspl]

We will be dependent upon oil for as long as it is "available", unfortunately, but there is no reason not to take alternative actions.

When oil prices come down, I'll bet we are encouraged to believe that conservation and alternatives are working!

So if we're "dependent on oil for as long as it's 'available'", why can't we simply develop the reserves we have rather than depend on foreign governments?

Oil prices are high because, currently, the demand is higher than what can be pumped out of the ground. And there's no signs that will change anytime soon. The days of cheap oil are over. But, as prices increasee, that will encourage conservation and competitive alternative energy sources. You can see it happening now. I doubt we'll ever see crude oil prices much below $100, and it will probably be more like $200 or $300 dollars in a couple of years.

We'll know that conservation and alternative energy is working when we see a reduction in consumption, and alternative energy embraced on a much larger scale.

dbspl

[oldtimer]

It then becomes political economics.

[billybob]

We are much farther along than 1% solar. When on commercial rooftops like large malls, I noticed that solar panels some with actuators to help follow the arc of the sun, in our orbit, are, and will be the gap to some freedom, now. Just a trend that will escalate.

If oil falls again into reasonable levels, most will not forget the lessons of the past, unlike before. There is too much money to be made, along with good paying jobs, to let solar lie dormant. Companies know this, and are investing into their having a future. It is a survival thing!

[Fish]

Sounds like the opening shots in the"you don't really need a car"lobby to me.I can tell ya,without being"able"to drive a car at will there will be NO freedom worth having for me.

[billybob]

Sounds like the opening shots in the"you don't really need a car"lobby to me.I can tell ya,without being"able"to drive a car at will there will be NO freedom worth having for me.

No sir, we all need a car, of some sort. Muscle cars will have their place too, sometime, in the garage bay, waiting to be fed.

[Brac]

you won't need car when the government tells you where you have to live. Don't worry they will put you near a nice government controled store and govenrment controled job.

[Jeff Matthews]

If being able to drive a car is what defines our freedom, we're doomed.

That's a powerful thought mungkiman. Well said.

I wish all these smart, young people would hurry-up. I'm still wanting one of these...

[Jeff Matthews]

you won't need car when the government tells you where you have to live. Don't worry they will put you near a nice government controled store and govenrment controled job.

I hate to say it, but Brac's point is well-taken. There's been a lot of sarcasm about people using the term "communism," but if you look at what is going on, the list of "thou shalt nots" is getting longer and longer.

Thou shalt not drive over 60. Thou shalt not use a gas-guzzling SUV. Thou shalt not waste energy. Thou shalt not over-eat. Thou shalt not drill on thy own property. Thou shalt not cut trees from thy own property. Thou shalt not export the products thou produceth. Thou shalt not create jobs overseas.

There is a lot of lunatic reaction going on today to this so-called oil crisis. Once again, consideration is being given to pass speed limit laws in order to secure massive contracts for the sign producers. What is the count so far? I think it went from 70 to 55, to 70, to 65 to 70. I wish these goofs could make their minds up. Talk about flip-flopping. I wish the "sign-lobby" would be exposed.

[Jeff Matthews]

Re: solar panels. Mark, you might want to check on this, but I seem to recall that the solar panels themselves have limited life. I believe I recall the life is about 10 years. That would explain why only the money-wasting, elitist, environmentalists own them. Just as you begin to break-even on the expensive purchase, it's time for a complete replacement. (Not to mention all the upkeep and maintenance required from hail storms and falling branches, etc.).

There was a program on TV about how Germany is really pushing solar panels. Way more than we are. If you want to see where government is at its most absurd, look up that story. Germany subsidizes solar energy practices out the wazzoo. Okay, so far, but get this.... The utilities supply electricity at, let's say, 20 cents per kwh. Yet, due to their superior, environmentally-conscientious government, the subsidies are used so that the utilities buy excess electricity back from the solar-mongers at 50 (that's five-zero!) cents per kwh. WTF? Adam Smith even knew the way to profit is buy low, sell high

[Jeff Matthews]

America's having stupid policies does not make the German's policies smart. So.... let's get past that. Anytime you buy something for 50 cents with a resale price of 20 cents, you are stupid - painfully stupid. "What does that stupidity mean?," you might ask. It means that, clearly, without that stupidity, solar power is not a worthwhile investment at this time. If it made economical sense, they wouldn't get stupid with government money like they do.

[Fish]

Rory Gallagher "Mississippi Sheiks" Photo Finish

[Jeff Matthews]

Hang on---

The principle at work is subsidy. Our entire economy depends on subsidies. Sooooo????? HUH?

There ya go!

[Jeff Matthews]

Smart.

Ugly. I'll pay the $135 per year just to keep my rooftop pretty.

Mark, I am all for some good ideas, but the government shelling out subsidies is not good policy. Subsidies = taxpayer money. Now that we're clear on whose money it is, who wins? Do you think the taxpayer really wins due to subsidies?

[Jeff Matthews]

Yes, I agree on all points. It's in our national interests that those with natural resources prosper. Hungry mouths are easy to reproduce. Land is not.

[Colin]

The purpose of government is NOT a legitimized means of transferring wealth to the landed.

Ever since an ape swung a jawbone to take over the watering hole, the first and foremost reason for government is defense. Nothing should, or ever will, replace this imperative.

From its inception in 1600, the East India Company grew from a mere trading to a nation ruling company, in 1857. The founding fathers were knowledgeable about European governments. Although Machiavelli certainly knew about the Medici, it is unclear how much the fathers knew about the political threat of super-large corporations, such as the East India. Yet one thing is clear. If they considered the awesome bottom-to-top influence of super-large corporations upon all levels and agencies of government, they would have created a public forum for large corporations to have a vote, and a limit to their powers.

Today, while one industry lobbies Congress for one break or another, other industries lobby against it. The result is that the most powerful lobbies represent collections of the little people: the NRA, AARP (admittedly a corporate front, and yet still one of the most powerful lobbies), truckers, teachers’, lawyers’ and doctors’ unions, along with the political parties.

If companies like Boeing and ADM grow fat off the public coffers, it must be that the system is working, because aerospace and agriculture are our chief exports. If it isn’t working, the revenues of the federal government, based on income taxation, would be shrinking. Instead, the economy (GDP) is moving along at a steady clip. Bush Jr. has done the same thing as Reagan; he raised a lot of federal revenue.

Most people would NOT be far better off, or even just plain better off, with all subsidy money going to directly public works rather than indirectly to private coffers, because - - - surprise - - you are right! There IS no money in it.

In a barren dessert economy with only one oasis, giving fruit directly to the poor, who will only eat it, gives us liberals some momentary pleasure. Yet give the fruit to the businessman, who plants it, raises many fruit and charges us each time we eat one, provides more fruit for everyone.

Public work projects may employ people, but they do not increase production. You can pave the road around the oasis, but until you build a road to trade with other oases, there is no increase in commerce. And who do you want to pave these roads? Bloated, lazily governments? Or efficient, greedy corporations? The great American progressive social experiment finds that a combination of private & public oversight, financing and enterprise works best.

While government may indeed be transferring some wealth, it is NOT legitimate.

BTW, the wealthiest people change with each generation. How many of the Forbes 400 inherited their wealth from grandpa and how many earned it thorough sheer determination and their own companies; concepts known as entrepreneurship and free market capitalism.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

[Jeff Matthews]

The purpose of government is NOT a legitimized means of transferring wealth to the landed.

Jeff: Well, that is not it's stated purpose, but I assure you it is the wealthy who rule it. It is the wealthy who grab up benefits from giving mediocre politicians a handful of dollars to insure they will still keep their do-nothing government jobs.

Ever since an ape swung a jawbone to take over the watering hole, the first and foremost reason for government is defense. Nothing should, or ever will, replace this imperative.

Jeff: Funny how it's gone way beyond that. This comment means very little when you look at where we are today.

From its inception in 1600, the East India Company grew from a mere trading to a nation ruling company, in 1857. The founding fathers were knowledgeable about European governments. Although Machiavelli certainly knew about the Medici, it is unclear how much the fathers knew about the political threat of super-large corporations, such as the East India. Yet one thing is clear. If they considered the awesome bottom-to-top influence of super-large corporations upon all levels and agencies of government, they would have created a public forum for large corporations to have a vote, and a limit to their powers.

Today, while one industry lobbies Congress for one break or another, other industries lobby against it. The result is that the most powerful lobbies represent collections of the little people: the NRA, AARP (admittedly a corporate front, and yet still one of the most powerful lobbies), truckers, teachers’, lawyers’ and doctors’ unions, along with the political parties.

Jeff: Please define "powerful." Last I checked, Halliburton (through KBR) was doing quite remarkably with its no-bid contracts to do laundry at $99 a load and sell 6-packs of Coke for $45.00 ea. Don't get me wrong, some "union-type" organizations have done well. I will note that I doubt it has much to do with government benevolence toward the "little guy." Perhaps we should check the size of campaign contributions they raise. I don't see the teacher's union enjoying a contract to sell 6-packs of Coke for $45.00. If we "little people" could just have that, I mean..... well.... I don't know what I would do...... except sell a HELL of a lot of Cokes.

If companies like Boeing and ADM grow fat off the public coffers, it must be that the system is working, because aerospace and agriculture are our chief exports. If it isn’t working, the revenues of the federal government, based on income taxation, would be shrinking. Instead, the economy (GDP) is moving along at a steady clip. Bush Jr. has done the same thing as Reagan; he raised a lot of federal revenue.

Jeff: Let's see. "I can't compete in the market. BooHoo. Would you please give me some money so that I can sell these things below my cost, so that I can compete? BooHoo.... Wah.... If you do, I promise you can get PART OF IT back by taxing my profits." It is ludicrous to measure the economy by the effect of subsidies. Without subsidies, maybe people would go back to doing things that are INHERENTLY PROFITABLE.

Most people would NOT be far better off, or even just plain better off, with all subsidy money going to directly public works rather than indirectly to private coffers, because - - - surprise - - you are right! There IS no money in it.

Jeff: That's right, the money is in having someone give you money for engaging in a losing venture. I wish I was so lucky.

In a barren dessert economy with only one oasis, giving fruit directly to the poor, who will only eat it, gives us liberals some momentary pleasure. Yet give the fruit to the businessman, who plants it, raises many fruit and charges us each time we eat one, provides more fruit for everyone.

Jeff: The old worn and torn "trickle-down theory." If you give the money to the consumer, I suppose it would trickle up. Not only that, it would be more efficient. Why flood the market with rewards for inferior products that have no demand? The "build it and they will come" mentality is the flaw by which supply-side economics should be measured. If your product sucks, let it die a natural death. Why reward a producer of a crappy product by making him artificially profitable? Instead, try demand-side economics, and put the money in the hands of the consumer, who will vote in the marketplace with their increased spending power. Much more efficient, eh? Of course, that won't work because we know who owns government.

Public work projects may employ people, but they do not increase production. You can pave the road around the oasis, but until you build a road to trade with other oases, there is no increase in commerce. And who do you want to pave these roads? Bloated, lazily governments? Or efficient, greedy corporations? The great American progressive social experiment finds that a combination of private & public oversight, financing and enterprise works best.

Jeff: Who do I want to pave these roads? Hmmmm. How about the millions of deadbeats sitting in jails and the pen, getting 3 squares, air conditioning and cable TV. Maybe it's time to re-think what it means to be humane. But anyway, that was a bit OT, so I'll go along with the fact that it is best for private outfits to have contracts with gov't to build roads. That is less the issue than "whether" the road is needed. That's where lobbying is most effective. Another corollary of this is the pleasure the campaign contributor enjoys when, after election-time, he gets to say "Oh, lookie! Isn't that nice? They're building a new road right adjacent to that tract I bought a few years back!"

While government may indeed be transferring some wealth, it is NOT legitimate.

Jeff: But it sure is real.

BTW, the wealthiest people change with each generation. How many of the Forbes 400 inherited their wealth from grandpa and how many earned it thorough sheer determination and their own companies; concepts known as entrepreneurship and free market capitalism.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/54/richlist07_The-400-Richest-Americans_Rank.html

Jeff: Maybe you can tell me. Either way, I don't think it would make much difference.

My responses above. This debate is why it is best to shrink the heck out of government - not expand it.

[Fish]

Well.......the verdict,if we used some of everyones ideas we'd see a drastic improvement in all energy needs and uses.The downside,human nature,each believes they're right about every issue.Of course we know no one is right all the time,for sure in such complicated matters,except me,lol.

As always,when we work together we'll solve any issue.

[Fish]

A better idea. Everyone get's together and works together to make a good fruit harvest with enough for all, but no waste. The people are energetic and healthy. The land is preserved and fruitful, and there are no mounds of wasted fruit. All winners, no losers.

WOW,That sounds great!!!!!!!!!!!!We'll all frolic through the woods and play the freakin flute too.