^^ Public perception.

3/7/2012 3:06:30 PM

That would imply that demand is not "almost totally inelastic" if mere public perception can throw it off, let alone prices.

3/7/2012 3:14:41 PM

Oil is inelastic because it takes ridiculous prices for demand to suffer. No matter how high prices go, people still have to go to work and products still need to be shipped. People would be revolting in the streets (more than they already are) if they raised prices too high. But if they raised them on the pretense that the government cut subsidies they could get away with it.

Kind of like how the US went to war in WWII. The public absolutely did not want to be the aggressor and jump into a fight we had no part in. But fuck be damned if we let those asshole Japs attack us without retaliation.

Public perception plays a huge role in political and social issues. It can shape cause and effect in the context of history.

3/7/2012 3:24:49 PM

We see today (on the very last page) that they can raise prices and claim the government's fault even when it's not the government's fault, and people seem to by-and-large buy it, so still I don't see why an actual move by the government (dropping subsidies) would be much different?

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2012 3:44:13 PM

Because then people who know the president bit is bullshit get pissed and they're way smarter and more organized than dumb people.

3/7/2012 3:51:48 PM

Quote :

"Promoting policies for long-term profitability. Increasing economic stability. Removing or accounting for externalities. Minimizing environmental degradation. Discouraging waste. I feel like sustainability is a specific enough term. We generally have enough knowledge of basic cause and effect that is agreed upon but we don't apply this knowledge. I'm not talking about micro-managing the economy in an attempt to fine tune every aspect of every industry. I agree that this causes unforeseen negative consequences. But creating a framework of regulations for economic activity that promotes stability and limits dangerous risk is a good thing."

i agree. we should get rid of alot of government meddling. no limits on liability. no bailouts. no umlimted borrowing limits at the fed. no farm subsidies. etc... etc.. etc...

3/7/2012 4:04:50 PM

Quote :

"But creating a framework of regulations for economic activity that promotes stability and limits dangerous risk is a good thing."

I don't believe a legislature in the history of mankind has ever produced a law that satisfied all these requirements.

Libertarians do not object to government because we cannot imagine a perfect law. Our objection is that government consists of flawed humans and any laws they produce will fail to resemble the perfect we can imagine, either in language, meaning, or implementation. As such, the best we can hope for is a framework of regulations that reasonably balances the unintended and intended harm caused by the regulation itself against the good done for society while at the same time satisfying the regime's special interest power brokers. The problem is that what the regime views is in their best interest rarely correlates with what we would all agree is good policy.

3/7/2012 4:08:02 PM

Very good points on the last page. It's refreshing to have a TSB thread where everyone is civil.

Quote :

"Oil is inelastic because it takes ridiculous prices for demand to suffer. No matter how high prices go, people still have to go to work and products still need to be shipped."

You're also forgetting how many products are made out of oil. Transportation is really just tip of the ice berg.

3/7/2012 4:48:59 PM

So you admit that government is at least capable of creating positive policies and is not inherently evil? If a certain policy creates more positive outcomes than negative outcomes would you oppose it based on ideology alone? If a policy helps 70% of citizens but hurts 30% would you oppose that? 90% vs. 10%? 99% vs. 1%? Could the economy have benefited from regulations to prevent the housing bubble or subsequent financial bubble in 2008? Where exactly does the role of government end in situations where it can prevent disaster from happening? Are there any instances of government intervention with which you agree?

What do you think of the auto bailout? How do you feel about the positive and negative outcomes from that piece of legislation? Do you think the country would be better off if hundreds of thousands more people had become unemployed? Is there any cost that would be low enough for you to think it was worth it or would you always oppose it based on principle?

These are questions I'm left asking about the libertarian perspective. It frames the world in such a black and white way with no room for middle ground or compromise. I agree with the premise of libertarianism but it is purely theory (having never been put to the real world test) and often fails to address reality on a number of issues.

3/7/2012 5:03:25 PM

Quote :

"Could the economy have benefited from regulations to prevent the housing bubble or subsequent financial bubble in 2008?"

those bubbles were caused by gov't regulations and interference.

3/7/2012 8:55:26 PM

3/7/2012 9:10:30 PM

can we get a response showing how MSNBC was spinning it at that time?

3/7/2012 9:16:02 PM

^that's your job.

3/7/2012 11:02:19 PM

Quote :

"If a certain policy creates more positive outcomes than negative outcomes would you oppose it based on ideology alone?"

Ideology is a complex thing. Some of it is moral based, IE, it is wrong to murder people, even if murdering 1% makes the 99% left better off. And some of it is derived from the greater good. IE, murdering 1% would not actually make the 99% better off in the long run, as those 99% will now live in fear that one day they will be the 1% being murdered.

The list of policies that are moral based in my head is very short. I suspect nearly everything you support that I oppose, I oppose on this latter ground of the greater good. As an example, you may believe bailing out the creditors in this last round of failures served the greater good, lessening the recession and easing the pain. But I believe the scales will tip in the long run, where creditors will continue to make risky investments and we will be right back here in the future with ever larger bailouts until the government itself is insolvent, then the people will dream fondly of a merely severe recession.

Quote :

"Could the economy have benefited from regulations to prevent the housing bubble or subsequent financial bubble in 2008? Where exactly does the role of government end in situations where it can prevent disaster from happening? "

As I believe the severity of the bubble was caused by regulation which was believed at the time to be bringing stability to the financial industry (creditor bailouts in the 80s, 90s, and 00s), stabilizing society through home ownership (tax deductions/credits, Fannie, Freddie), and engendering equality through home-ownership among the poor (Fannie/Freddie again), the answer is no. When all the politicians in Congress believe it is right just and proper that house prices only ever go up then there is no chance in hell they will ever do anything to prevent a housing bubble. We know this because we just had a housing bubble collapse and sure enough, nothing was done to prevent the next bubble. Housing is still subsidized, risk is still subsidized, and Fannie and Freddie are not only still operating but have gotten much bigger.

Bubbles happen. They end in crashes and lots of people losing their shirts and even jobs. The reason this crash was so severe and so spectacular was because government was attempting the entire time to prevent disaster by abolishing risk from the financial sector. But risk of loss is an important force in a free economy. Attempting to legislate it away cannot eliminate bubbles, merely make bubbles last longer and be more destructive when they burst.
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/RUSS-final.pdf

Quote :

"Are there any instances of government intervention with which you agree?"

Yes. The benefits of legislation against murder and formalizing a system of property rights far outweigh the costs. If you mean more recently, then the work my city and county are doing is quite good. If you mean specifically federal, I don't know enough about it but the ban on CFCs seems to have been worth it. The same goes for the Pareto taxation of sulfur and some other air-quality pollutants.

3/7/2012 11:22:46 PM

Quote :

"And some of it is derived from the greater good. IE, murdering 1% would not actually make the 99% better off in the long run, as those 99% will now live in fear that one day they will be the 1% being murdered."

Again, a libertarian failing to apply theory to reality. Why are you talking about murder? That is nowhere near the kind of issue I had in mind when I was asking those questions and you know it. Stop being stupid and talk about something actually controversial.

Quote :

"As an example, you may believe bailing out the creditors in this last round of failures served the greater good, lessening the recession and easing the pain."

I believe the jury is still out on this one. At present, the bailouts seem to have worked as intended. We won't know they are going to fail until they actually do. The difference between you and me is that I don't want them to fail simply because I've already made my mind up on the issue. I believe they could work, but it is currently undecided. With these types of things, we can never know how well they worked until history proves them right or wrong. So far history has not proven them wrong so I refuse to believe they are wrong until they are actually wrong. Am I wrong?

I read to about page 14 of that article you posted, which I'm sure is more than you thought I read and I suspect more than you read. I only skimmed the part of Fannie and Freddie but if you did read as much as I did, I can't possibly understand how you can only blame government bailouts for the bank failures. I agree, as I believe 99% of all Americans do, that bank bailouts are undesirable and a shitty solution to an even more shitty problem. But this is a problem that attempts to fix the situation after the fact. The article explains the whole time that the only reason bankers were leveraging themselves to high hell was that there was an implicit government agreement on bailouts. But he even admits bankers were never 100% sure of this.

Listen, I completely agree that the likelihood of a government bailout increases the risk-taking around certain businesses. But there are many other factors of equal importance in play. Why were the banks allowed to leverage their assets at more than 10-1? Fuck, if only there were some sort of commission that had the power to regulate securities and exchanges. Could that possibly have prevented this from happening, I wonder?

And don't trot out that old line about Fannie and Freddie being the major players at fault for the housing crash. First of all, if their restrictions hadn't been loosened to take on no down payment loans, they wouldn't have given out so many. Second of all, after 2003, Fannie and Freddie primarily bought MBSs. MBSs that were rated by private companies as AAA. Why the fuck is a quasi-governmental organization trading with private companies? I think there's room for a modest government housing loan program, but yeah... allowing a company that is backed by the government to trade risky assets with private companies is a dumbass policy and should never have happened in the first place.

I'm not arguing against the point that government backing of failed banks encourages risky investments. I'm pretty sure most people agree with that. It makes boatloads of sense. But how can you argue against basic rules for the financial industry, like maximum leveraging of assets at no more than 15-1 or something simple like that? There's no ambiguity in that law and it's widely accepted as a responsible business strategy. Why should we allow monolithic industries that are able to bring down the entire economy to operate without basic regulations? Because Ron Paul told you so? Fuck that, I'd rather have a financial industry that isn't able to hold a gun to our collective head in the first place.

I think you should watch this Nova documentary on how people treat financial decisions. http://video.pbs.org/video/1479100777/ Hint: It's not nearly as rationally as you believe they do.

3/8/2012 2:05:23 AM

Lonesnark I know it's fun to talk about ideology since there's no requirement that you link what you say to the real world, but I'd still like to know how you came to the conclusions you stated on page 1 about US oil production and world prices.

3/8/2012 9:21:37 AM

Quote :

"The difference between you and me is that I don't want them to fail simply because I've already made my mind up on the issue."

I don't want them to fail either. But I believe they will fail regardless of what I, you, or anyone else wants to happen. I believe the current policies of our government will end badly. The policies can always be changed. But whatever policy exists I don't want to live in a bombed out hell-scape anymore than you do.

Quote :

"With these types of things, we can never know how well they worked until history proves them right or wrong. So far history has not proven them wrong so I refuse to believe they are wrong until they are actually wrong. Am I wrong?"

I accept there is uncertainty. It is possible the policies will not work out as badly as I believe they will. Maybe investors are now sufficiently worried by the tea party movement that they will stop relying upon government money to backstop their bad investments. Maybe Congress is going to disband fannie and freddie any day now. Quite possible. Just not very likely.

Quote :

"but if you did read as much as I did, I can't possibly understand how you can only blame government bailouts for the bank failures."

To have the possibility of government bailouts you must first have bank failures. Let me repeat what I wrote above: "Bubbles happen. They end in crashes and lots of people losing their shirts and even jobs." Failure serves a necessary function in a free economy. As such, a completely healthy and well organized economy has failures. Society needs a way to get rid of bad organizations with bad ideas. The question is what should the government do about it. Bailouts impede this necessary function by keeping bad organizations around and diverting public resources to bad ideas.

Quote :

"I'm not arguing against the point that government backing of failed banks encourages risky investments. I'm pretty sure most people agree with that. It makes boatloads of sense. But how can you argue against basic rules for the financial industry, like maximum leveraging of assets at no more than 15-1 or something simple like that?"

I don't think I have wasted my typing on such an opinion. I would mock such attempts to micromanage the financial industry. I believe such attempts will fail. I don't know how they will fail, maybe book-keeping tricks, maybe cross border subsidiaries, maybe regulatory capture and the SEC issues everyone waivers, maybe they will get around the debt/equity limit by investing in even riskier investments (a 30 to 1 leverage in mortgages was crazy, but a 10 to 1 leverage in Greek bonds is no less crazy). What I know is that there is government money on the table and whatever it takes to get at it, an army of very bright people are going to be working on it. Take the government money off the table and the cat and mouse game of such micromanagement becomes irrelevant.

^ Well, to completely repeat myself as you have not said which part of my post you find questionable, much of the third world has price controls on oil. As such, their consumption is entirely independent of world oil prices. In econ-speak, perfectly inelastic. As worldwide demand therefore could be classified as fairly inelastic, economics textbooks tell us we can expect demand and supply shocks to have a significant impact on prices.

3/8/2012 10:54:10 AM

Quote :

"^ Well, to completely repeat myself as you have not said which part of my post you find questionable, much of the third world has price controls on oil. As such, their consumption is entirely independent of world oil prices. In econ-speak, perfectly inelastic. As worldwide demand therefore could be classified as fairly inelastic, economics textbooks tell us we can expect demand and supply shocks to have a significant impact on prices."

Right, now show me that the US could actually produce significant enough quantities of oil on a daily basis to affect world prices. You seem pretty confident, so I assume you have some idea what numbers go into determining the impact.

If you really want me to walk you through it:

1. What % of current production do US well contribute?

2. How much would (1) increase if we opened up Alaska or the OCS or whatever?

3. How much would total supply increase?

4. How low do you think OPEC would be willing to cut production to keep prices up?

That's a start, I just need to see something substantial that leads you to the conclusion you've reached, not theoretical arguments.

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2012 11:44:56 AM

Quote :

"And don't trot out that old line about Fannie and Freddie being the major players at fault for the housing crash. First of all, if their restrictions hadn't been loosened to take on no down payment loans, they wouldn't have given out so many. Second of all, after 2003, Fannie and Freddie primarily bought MBSs. MBSs that were rated by private companies as AAA. Why the fuck is a quasi-governmental organization trading with private companies? I think there's room for a modest government housing loan program, but yeah... allowing a company that is backed by the government to trade risky assets with private companies is a dumbass policy and should never have happened in the first place."

Wouldn't this suggest, then, that Fannie and Freddie were certainly players in the failure? We shouldn't fault them for selling no down payment loans, simply because they were allowed to do something so dumb in the first place? They sure didn't show much restraint, but it's not their fault, right? Then, they bought a ton of MBSs, you know, the very instruments that helped lead to the who fiasco in the first place? They facilitated the crash by giving companies a place to dump bad loans, but that's not Fannie and Freddie's fault? Come on!

3/8/2012 12:19:37 PM

no, you cant blame government agencies for anything they do.

3/8/2012 12:46:22 PM

The mortgages handled by Fanny and Freddy were, in fact, among the less toxic, and made up a minority of the total next to the private sector. They played a part, yes, but the right vastly, vastly blows their role out of proportion, for obvious reasons related to their agenda.

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2012 1:37:53 PM

Quote :

"They played a part, yes, but the right vastly, vastly blows their role out of proportion, for obvious reasons related to their agenda."

Because Fannie and Freddie doing something stupid and losing taxpayer dollars is a political issue and the political system needs to address it. That a bunch of investors went out and lost their own money would normally be a private matter and not a political issue. I admit we then proceeded to bail them out with taxpayer dollars, thus making private stupidity suddenly a political issue, but I digress.

Quote :

"Right, now show me that the US could actually produce significant enough quantities of oil on a daily basis to affect world prices. You seem pretty confident, so I assume you have some idea what numbers go into determining the impact."

Right, now show me that the US could not actually produce enough quantities of oil on a daily basis to affect world prices. You seem pretty confident, so I assume you have some idea what numbers go into determining the impact.

3/8/2012 2:03:34 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index.htm

Quote :

"According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information Administration, opening up waters that are currently closed to drilling off the East Coast, West Coast and the west coast of Florida would yield an extra 500,000 barrels a day by 2030. The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then would likely be using over 100 million barrels. After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping 3 cents a gallon, the study said. "More production from anywhere would tend to lower prices," said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. "But the amount that we're talking about domestically, it wouldn't move gas prices from $4 a gallon to $3.""

Full EIA report: http://bit.ly/kzV1Gg

Quote :

""You might, under really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production," said Lynch, who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians' arguments. "On a global scale, it's significant. But we would still be big importers -- we would still be dependent on foreign oil." And prices would not move much because of it, the analysts explained. Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand -- and thus the price -- for fuel. "In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices," said the EIA's Martin. "It just gets lost. It's not that much." And boosting drilling in the outer continental shelf? "What comes out of the OCS is about 1 percent of the world total, and that's not enough to affect world prices," Martin said, even noting that she believes there are even more untapped reserves than officials can estimate at the moment."

Now for the part where Lonesnark asks a string of questions for pages and pages, trying to poke holes in this, and never produces a shred of evidence to actually support his own position. He has no sources, no evidence, jack shit, so the best he can do is muddy the water to try and make me appear as clueless as him. To him, this is a victory and a validation of his claims. Lonesnark, put up or shut up.

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 2:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/8/2012 2:09:30 PM

Quote :

"That a bunch of investors went out and lost their own money would normally be a private matter and not a political issue. I admit we then proceeded to bail them out with taxpayer dollars, thus making private stupidity suddenly a political issue, but I digress."

Just an aside, but lol at the idea that 'a private matter' and 'private stupidity' with economy-wide repercussions only became a political issue when they were bailed out.

3/8/2012 2:27:17 PM

^^ Well then, might as well get started.

The crux of the study you link is the assumption that Saudi Arabia will cut back production when confronted with increased U.S. production. This is apparently true right now, as Saudi Arabia just last month reduced exports, so the discussion kinda ends there.

But, it is not obvious OPEC can maintain sufficient production given their dysfunctional economic organization far into the future. As such, increasing our supply can work to keep OPEC in the marginal producer and price setting business, rather than subjecting the world to price setting by marginal consumer, which is perhaps twice the current price for oil.

Also, there is always the more optimistic possibility that perhaps we are all wrong about how much oil can really be extracted from currently unknown discoveries or new fracking techniques, perhaps enough to produce a repeat of the 1980s when Saudi Arabian officials became terrified that their attempts to maintain the price floor meant they would soon no longer be an oil exporting country, causing them to give up, open the taps, and crash the price of oil to less than $10 a barrel.

3/8/2012 7:25:46 PM

Quote :

"The crux of the study you link is the assumption that Saudi Arabia will cut back production when confronted with increased U.S. production."

No, the crux of the study is that even the most optimistic predictions of our productive capacity puts us well below the mark of significantly impacting global supply.

Quote :

"But, it is not obvious OPEC can maintain sufficient production given their dysfunctional economic organization far into the future. "

OPEC is made up of a variety of countries, with a variety of economic systems in those member countries, and as a whole have probably been the most consistently powerful, influential economic consortium aside from the EU. I really don't see where you're getting this speculation from.

Quote :

"As such, increasing our supply can work to keep OPEC in the marginal producer and price setting business, rather than subjecting the world to price setting by marginal consumer, which is perhaps twice the current price for oil. "

To say this you have to show that we can increase our supply enough to dent the world market.

Quote :

"Also, there is always the more optimistic possibility that perhaps we are all wrong about how much oil can really be extracted from currently unknown discoveries or new fracking techniques, perhaps enough to produce a repeat of the 1980s when Saudi Arabian officials became terrified that their attempts to maintain the price floor meant they would soon no longer be an oil exporting country, causing them to give up, open the taps, and crash the price of oil to less than $10 a barrel."

Yes, I agree, there is always a set of optimistic fantasies not based on anything resembling reality but just wishful thinking. There is always the possibility that a secret ocean of oil is just a few inches below our deepest well that no expert or surveying organization knows about at all. This possibility is clearly something we should base policies on!


Again, Lonesnark, put up or shut up.



[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 9:31:26 AM

You already put it up. We can produce at least 500,000 barrels a day. And if OPEC finds itself with zero spare capacity in ten years, us producing an extra 500,000 barrels a day would return them to 500,000 barrels a day of spare capacity. The price for oil increases a lot once OPEC is completely tapped.

Quote :

"and as a whole have probably been the most consistently powerful, influential economic consortium aside from the EU. I really don't see where you're getting this speculation from."

The Soviet Union was powerful and influential, doesn't mean they could make a good car. Similarly, there is no doubt their oil exports make OPEC powerful and influential, but that doesn't mean they have the technical and organizational ability to extract ever more oil out of their depleting oil fields well into the future.

System matters. And state-run enterprises have difficulty operating well.

Quote :

"Yes, I agree, there is always a set of optimistic fantasies not based on anything resembling reality but just wishful thinking."

We have no idea or way of knowing what reality is given the limited test drilling there has been. We cannot see through rock and ground sonar is wildly unreliable. I guess your theory is that God would never put much oil in such a place. But for all we know 90% of the oil on the planet is right there, we've just been unlucky with our test wells. We are no where near being able to assign probabilities to what is likely.

But the real question is, why are we having this discussion? Neither you nor I are interested in invested our own money in offshore drilling. If there is no oil there, then the drillers will lose their shirts and go home. If there is a lot of oil there, then the drillers will heavily dent OPEC market share. This is how a free economy works. I don't need to justify to you that Raleigh needs yet another McDonalds before I can open one up. Why do these oil drillers need to justify to you they will make a huge difference before you will allow them to ply their trade?

3/9/2012 10:03:21 AM

Quote :

"You already put it up. We can produce at least 500,000 barrels a day."

Current world oil production is over 80 million barrels per day. 500k barrels is 0.63% of that. Not. even. one. cent. .

Quote :

" And if OPEC finds itself with zero spare capacity in ten years,"

Source for this expectation?

Quote :

" us producing an extra 500,000 barrels a day would return them to 500,000 barrels a day of spare capacity. The price for oil increases a lot once OPEC is completely tapped. "

Now you're talking about them being completely tapped?

Quote :

"System matters. And state-run enterprises have difficulty operating well. "

Hey more speculation, this time based on your ideological prejudices, even LESS empirical basis than the prior speculations.

Quote :

"We have no idea or way of knowing what reality is given the limited test drilling there has been. We cannot see through rock and ground sonar is wildly unreliable. I guess your theory is that God would never put much oil in such a place. But for all we know 90% of the oil on the planet is right there, we've just been unlucky with our test wells. "

Hey, now you're openly admitting this is all based on fantasy and completely unproven speculations. How do you know Saudi Arabia wont stumble on a second ocean oil below their current one? Or Russia? Or China? Or every other country on Earth? Why do you hold this uniquely optimistic fantasy about America alone?

Quote :

"We are no where near being able to assign probabilities to what is likely."

You position amounts to "We have no way of being 100% certain of our measurements. Therefore I am 0% confident in them." And yet you assert that opening up drilling will reduce oil prices, based on you making an even greater number of probabilistic assumptions than I am.

Quote :

"But the real question is, why are we having this discussion? Neither you nor I are interested in invested our own money in offshore drilling. If there is no oil there, then the drillers will lose their shirts and go home. If there is a lot of oil there, then the drillers will heavily dent OPEC market share. Why do these oil drillers need to justify to you they will make a huge difference before you will allow them to ply their trade?"

First, because there are environmental externalities to drilling, and I personally think the natural resources of a nation should be subject to some democratic control by its citizens as the inhabitants of the land itself, not sapped by whatever international agent has the money to sap it. Especially when the untimely depletion of such resources can lead to worldwide crises unlike any we've ever seen before. I'd much rather save the oil until we really, really need it. Now is not that time, the imperative to do so now is based on dollars and cents, 50 years from now that imperative could be millions of human lives.

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2012 11:26:18 AM

^idiots like this think that keeping production as-is will keep the price the same too

fucking moron

3/9/2012 2:17:30 PM

Because coastal residents don't want their beaches to smell like ass like they do in the Gulf? I know this point is lost on the transplants among you, but us native (some more than others ) North Carolinians are exceptionally proud of our historic coastline and will fight to preserve and protect it.

3/9/2012 3:06:48 PM

I live in southern Califirnia, within sight of offshore drilling rigs in Santa Barbara. The beaches certainly don't smell like shit out here, despite the fact that oil has been leaking from the bottom of the ocean out here for thousands of years.

3/9/2012 3:20:31 PM

Fair enough. Perhaps those operating along Alabama and Mississippi coasts can adopt the same practices.

3/9/2012 3:24:07 PM

Not much they can do about all the putrid swampland

3/9/2012 3:43:45 PM

The coast of California typically doesn't have to deal with hurricanes.

3/9/2012 5:06:28 PM

The reason it is that way is because the currents in the Pacific flow away from the coast.

3/9/2012 5:22:29 PM

Quote :

"And yet you assert that opening up drilling will reduce oil prices, based on you making an even greater number of probabilistic assumptions than I am."

I said no such thing. I don't know who you think you are arguing with, but your responses don't seem to have much to do with the text you are quoting.

Quote :

"Hey, now you're openly admitting this is all based on fantasy and completely unproven speculations. How do you know Saudi Arabia wont stumble on a second ocean oil below their current one? Or Russia? Or China? Or every other country on Earth? Why do you hold this uniquely optimistic fantasy about America alone?"

Where did I imply that I did? If Canada hits big then OPEC market share will fall. If the alternative to a major discovery is a tapped out OPEC then the impact on prices could be huge.

Quote :

"Hey more speculation, this time based on your ideological prejudices, even LESS empirical basis than the prior speculations. "

So you reject the numerous historical examples of state run enterprises operating poorly in comparison to their private counterparts? East Germany versus West Germany?

Quote :

"Now you're talking about them being completely tapped? "

It could happen. As we don't know how much oil is left, it is possible that not much is left, and oil prices will shoot way up in 30 years time when OPEC has no spare capacity.

Quote :

"First, because there are environmental externalities to drilling"

Those externalities can only take place if we actually strike big oil. A hand-full of drilling platforms would go unnoticed to most citizens.

Quote :

"Especially when the untimely depletion of such resources can lead to worldwide crises unlike any we've ever seen before. I'd much rather save the oil until we really, really need it. Now is not that time, the imperative to do so now is based on dollars and cents, 50 years from now that imperative could be millions of human lives. "

Now this is insane. Oil is just energy. The world is full of energy sources. We use oil because it is cheap. If it becomes scarce we will use other energy sources. There is no way that a mere doubling or even tripling of energy costs (the difference between oil and nuclear or solar) could cost millions of human lives. Given raw energy we can manufacture oil if we decide we need it.

3/10/2012 3:07:47 AM

Numbers, Lonesnark, just once I'd like to see you use an actual number of some kind.

3/10/2012 12:07:15 PM

Quote :

"I said no such thing. I don't know who you think you are arguing with, but your responses don't seem to have much to do with the text you are quoting. "

Yes, you did say it. Stop trying to backpedal:

Quote :

"Str8Foolish, I don't think anyone is suggesting more U.S. production will reduce oil prices in the U.S. relative to other countries, just that it will reduce the world price for oil, which is true, especially for the reasons I gave above."

Quote :

"So you reject the numerous historical examples of state run enterprises operating poorly in comparison to their private counterparts? East Germany versus West Germany?"

Fuck off, you're trying to distract from a discussion about facts and numbers with more speculative stuff, because you have no knowledge of facts and numbers. Why? Because that would require you actually learning something instead of naval-gazing.

Quote :

"It could happen. As we don't know how much oil is left, it is possible that not much is left, and oil prices will shoot way up in 30 years time when OPEC has no spare capacity. "

You don't make policy suggestions based on "It could happen."

Quote :

"Those externalities can only take place if we actually strike big oil. A hand-full of drilling platforms would go unnoticed to most citizens."

No, it only takes one platform to fuck up a whole coastline, as we saw last year. Or one tanker like Exxon-Valdez.

Quote :

"Now this is insane. Oil is just energy. The world is full of energy sources. We use oil because it is cheap. If it becomes scarce we will use other energy sources. "

Oil's not just for energy you dumb twat. It's instrumental in pretty much all plastics, fertilizers, medicines, and a host of other uses. The fact that we CAN use other sources for energy is all the more reason to conserve oil, since using it for energy burns it up faster than any of the other essential uses we have for it.

And it's not as simple as "just switch to another source" when you have hundreds of millions of motor vehicles to convert because PUBLIC TRANSITS FOR YOORUP. What's your comparison in history for being so cavalier about this process? When have we ever had an energy switch that would be on the scale of the one we're discussing?

Quote :

" There is no way that a mere doubling or even tripling of energy costs (the difference between oil and nuclear or solar) could cost millions of human lives. Given raw energy we can manufacture oil if we decide we need it."

I'm sorry, haven't I seen you in many, many other threads bemoaning the completely tame inflation this country has had for the past few decades? Especially energy prices? Now you're saying a doubling or tripling is no biggie? You will seriously say ANYTHING if it serves your purposes in the present moment of an argument, wont you?

The fact that all of your arguments require either gross speculation or ideological bias should tell anybody watching that you're talking out of your ass. Please, just backpedal into a volcano already.


[Edited on March 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/10/2012 12:16:42 PM

On a discussion about possible futures, how can I have numbers? I am not a time traveler. Like I said, whatever numbers I could find on the internet would be similar to the numbers you found on the internet, so I based my position on your numbers. 500,000 barrels a day is more oil. At some point in the future it may turn out that more oil is significantly better than no more oil.

Quote :

"Oil's not just for energy you dumb twat. It's instrumental in pretty much all plastics, fertilizers, medicines, and a host of other uses. "

All of which can, and in fact already are, synthesized from other sources. There are other sources for the nitrates in fertilizer, they just cost more. A friend of mine once visited a test project making fertilizer out of thin air, all it needed was electricity. And we already make medicines and plastics out of corn.

Quote :

"And it's not as simple as "just switch to another source" when you have hundreds of millions of motor vehicles to convert...When have we ever had an energy switch that would be on the scale of the one we're discussing?"

We can make gasoline, all it takes is energy. In earlier centuries we ran out of wale oil and Europe ran out of wood. It's not like we are going to wake up one morning and need to redesign everything to run without oil. Oil flow doesn't just abruptly stop. The price is set by either the marginal producer (OPEC) or the marginal consumer (the least valued use for oil, such as airlifting electronics from Asia).

Similarly, it takes a decade or more to develop new oil fields. If we are going to have a peak oil style crash in the future as your world-view predicts, we kinda need to get to work now if we want to rely on that oil to lessen the transition.

Quote :

""If we decide we need it" you are dumb beyond all belief here. The fact that all of your arguments require either gross speculation or ideological bias should tell anybody watching that you're talking out of your ass."

Compare that to your position, which is we have no use for more oil but many of us are going to die without it.

My position is at least consistent over time. More oil is always useful, but we will always be able to live without it.

Quote :

"I'm sorry, haven't I seen you in many, many other threads bemoaning the completely tame inflation this country has had for the past few decades?"

No, you saw me miss-predicting non-tame inflation. But I had good reasons for being wrong. How could i have predicted Obama would knowingly wreck the U.S. economy?

Besides, what we are talking about here is not inflation. Wages do not increase as energy prices rise. This is called a sectoral shift, as energy increases its share of GDP, forcing other sectors to shrink. So, energy would increase from the current 6.7% of GDP to something higher, taking into account that energy consumption falls as energy prices rise. As such, if energy prices doubled, energy would increase say 50% of GDP to something like 10% of GDP, the difference made up by demand destruction as we stop wasting fuel airlifting our electronics from Asia.

[Edited on March 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/10/2012 12:41:06 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry, haven't I seen you in many, many other threads bemoaning the completely tame inflation this country has had for the past few decades? Especially energy prices? Now you're saying a doubling or tripling is no biggie? You will seriously say ANYTHING if it serves your purposes in the present moment of an argument, wont you?"

so, because he said we will eventually have inflation problems but we haven't had it yet, that means you can make up an absurd claim like "millions will die if energy costs increase"? really? that's what you want to argue? Or are you just deflecting away from your non-tenable claim?

Quote :

"The fact that all of your arguments require either gross speculation or ideological bias should tell anybody watching that you're talking out of your ass. Please, just backpedal into a volcano already."

and "millions of people will die due to an increase in energy prices" isn't "gross speculation," much less "ideological bias"? come on

[Edited on March 10, 2012 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/10/2012 7:31:54 PM

http://oil-price.net/en/articles/iran-oil-strait-or-hormuz.php

Quote :

"f the conflict goes all out, Iran has cruise missiles with a range of 11,500km, capable of reaching all of Europe as well as Eastern US including New York. Iran could seize tankers and it could also attack foreign US Navy ships protecting tankers. US ships would be vulnerable to Iran's shore to sea Qader cruise missiles which are stationed at multiple distributed locations, much like Iran's key nuclear sites."

Good thing we didn't open up the possibility of getting some oil out of Canada. Good thing all that welfare is opening up... at least we'll all be able to use it equally in this event..

3/11/2012 7:13:54 PM

Quote :

""Str8Foolish, I don't think anyone is suggesting more U.S. production will reduce oil prices in the U.S. relative to other countries, just that it will reduce the world price for oil, which is true, especially for the reasons I gave above.""

3/12/2012 9:15:28 AM

^you need to upgrade your chevy hypocritical asshole. or start walking.

[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM. Reason : -]

3/12/2012 11:43:10 AM

I burn less gas than you do, what the hell are you talking about?

3/12/2012 11:51:31 AM

i burn more gas out my ass than i burn on the road n-word.

i'm waiting for you to post that chart that shows how electric cars are worse for the environment than gas cars.

3/12/2012 12:02:07 PM

Quote :

"i burn more gas out my ass than i burn on the road n-word."

Right, and I burn less than either of those numbers, I'd wager.

Quote :

"i'm waiting for you to post that chart that shows how electric cars are worse for the environment than gas cars."

I never said they are. Whether or not they are is 100% dependent on where that electricity comes from.

3/12/2012 12:34:13 PM

since you refuse to post what your extreme pro green groups are saying....

i'll post it for you




(and make sure to point at something wrong about this SPECIFIC cartoon and fail to realize there are billions others like it coming out constantly)


[Edited on March 12, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ,]

3/12/2012 2:09:57 PM

The cartoon's accurate, simply having an electric car doesn't make you more eco-friendly if that electricity is derived from burning fossil fuels.

3/12/2012 2:44:47 PM

therefore we can conclude that electric cars are evil

therefore we can conclude that all cars are evil



eureka!!!

3/12/2012 2:57:42 PM

There's nothing evil about people doing what they have to do to get to their jobs and back. It's just a shame the country doesn't have more extensive public transit, high speed rail, better city planning, more nuclear/solar/geo power, or any other of the many ways we could reduce fossil fuel use without hurting people's ability to travel as necessary. Good and evil have nothing to do with any of this.

3/12/2012 3:09:05 PM