We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, June 9. 2008
"The Gas Prices We Deserve" and the campaign issue that isn't
Lifted from a comment here by Buddy:
Because the bully pulpit wasn't effectively used, that news never really got out. The above numbers do not include the Dems' blocking of nuclear plants, which are going up all over the world including in Africa.
Abundant power is the sine qua non of modern civilization. Combine it with free markets and free people and you have a civilizational rocket. I sort-of understand the Dems blocking every Repub initiative out of pure partisan bile, but I do not know what their energy plan is. All they talk about are "clean alternatives," which is a joke, and they gobble up oil as fast as I do without any apparent regret.
I do know what my energy plan is: Lots of nuke power, plenty of clean coal technology, none of this dopey, subsidized and highly-polluting biofuel, and drilling for oil where we can: oil is great stuff and we are fortunate to have tons of it in the US.
This should be a major campaign issue, if McCain would wake up to it.
Related: Surber notes that gasoline accounts for only 45% of US oil use, in a piece titled What's the MPG of Your Soap?
Thanks, reader. Most of the above quoted is via Paul at Powerline.
Posted by Bird Dog in Politics at 08:44 | Comments (21) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
That would be Paul Mirengoff; that's from Power Line, June 6th.
The main entry is by John Hinderaker.
Thanks. Buddy didn't write it as a post, but just as a comment, but I thought it deserved a full airing.
Thanks for putting it up, BD. The source error was in the email I got -- it had no attribution -- other than the mysterious "Paul" ref. I'll be mo careful in da future. anyhoo, the content is the point -- the hair-raising, mind-bending content.
``Social security reform''
Republicans are wrong on that one, though.
The nation as a whole can't save, whether the government tries it or all individuals try it. If there are too many retirees for the workers, workers won't be willing to support future retirees, no financial deal can save it.
The fix is simple but not what any politician is proposing: raise the retirement age to match the increase in life expectancy until the demographics balance again.
If you want to retire earlier, do it on your own dime to bridge the gap.
Rufus come out, come out wherever you are. BD just fired a shot across the bow of you good ship bio-fuel.
You energy plan is sensible and matches up well with current technologies and reality and is very similar to mine.
I don't get the lack of fighting to get truth out. I know it's hard when the Dems control much of the information gateways, but we've had a pro energy prez for 8 yrs. Add this to things that make you go AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Gee, if only we could have drilled for that oil to sell it off when the price was below 20 bucks...how much happier we'd all be now.
I've heard that line of thinking before and am hearing it more and more from folks wishing to change the subject. What's missing from your point of view is the nature of markets and price. Without the arbitrary and ideologically based regulations, it's very possible that the current price level would not have been reached. By your logic, nothing should be brought to market until, through irrational legislation or even hoarding, prices rise to the level producers want while the consumer get screwed. Irrational economics.
The price of gas is set by the consumers, not the oil companies.
It rises until you cut back enough to match the supply. Your enemy if the other consumer, not the oil company.
You can't burn oil that doesn't exist, unless you're a Democrat.
Prices, in this instance, are subject to artificial, non-market pressures in the form of poorly thought out regulatory restrictions on production. Supply and demand can only reach true equilibrium in a true market which would be characterized by minimal regulation. Nothing wrong with regulation as long as they reflect the general interest rather than special interests. The current regulatory environment answers more to a kind of eco-religious zealotry rather than any general interest or sound economics. One could almost say that prices, in this case, are set by specific interest groups as well as the consumer.
The price nevertheless rises to cut the demand to whatever the supply is.
If you're still driving too much, the price will go higher until you don't.
You're the one setting the price, not the oil company.
The meaning of ``inelastic demand'' is not that demand doesn't fall, but that prices have to rise a whole lot to do it. Which they did.
If supply is regulated by other than price than it's an artificial relationship to an extent. Supply is always regulated by price unless regulated by the state. Price controls failed in the 70's. Supply controls are failing now.
Did I hear my Name?
Folks, I ran into something I think is pretty interesting.
A 3 mi. sq area in every county in the U.S. would support one of these:
And, that would be, . . . oh, I don't know, . . . . 150 Billion Gallons/Yr? (that's One Hundred Percent of our present gasoline demand.)
And, if you'll notice, sweet sorghum is one of the feedstocks; and, it CAN be grown almost everywhere. Of course, in the Northern States you might want to use Tropical Maize. Also, this type of plant can, and is being, modularized. In addition, notice that they burn the bagasse for process energy.
With this type of process we can put about 300 people to work in every county in the U.S, and tell the Saudis to "take a hike." Of course, there are counties in Nevada, and New Mexico where this might be problematic; but there are other options for those counties; and there are counties in the Midwest that probably produce 10 times this much.
The point is: Yes, we're running short on oil, and NO, we're not all going to starve, or go back into the stone ages.
google: John McCain/dutko worldwide
dutko worldwide/saudi arabia
Amen. I've been harping for weeks on McCain's failure to jump all over this issue. Obama can say "Bush" 15 times in a speech, but it doesn't add a single drop of petrol to consumers. Energy exploration is a ball that's been teed up for the GOP, and no one's swinging at it. I don't get it. It's maddening.
What a joke. You want to know the big reason for high oil prices? Boy George and his idiotic middleastern war. I mean, what would YOU do if some country that was dependent on you for something vital simultaneously ATTACKED you?
"The invasion of Iraq by Britain and the US has trebled the price of oil, according to a leading expert, costing the world a staggering $6 trillion in higher energy prices alone. The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war."
"Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and the deepening dispute with the West over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has contributed to oil's rally."
Thanks Bush and Republicans
So all things aside you blame the war for: a steadily increasing demand from China and India and the rest of the world? For USA not drilling 10 years ago when CLinton vetoed ANWAR?
Your quote is from OIL MEN. and Arab ones at that. Yeah, they aint got no axe to grind. You funny.
It's also reassuring to know that (in Byron's view), Obama's hasty withdrawal of US forces in Iraq will result in immediate oil price reductions. Ah, the Power of O and magical thinking.
It's also very difficult to see how Bushco is responsible for the complete dirth of US nuclear power expansion over the last 30 years. But I'm sure it's the neocons' fault somehow.
Byron, byron. First, when you resort to middle-school insults such as "Boy George" you are putting on a T-shirt that says "I have no idea what an intellectual discussion is." That you are joined in this nescience by a number of prominent, even educated, progressives does not change this.
Second, there is the quote: "The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido)..." Gee, I looked that up. Apparently nothing else could possibly have gone wrong if we hadn't liberated Iraq - and I use the "liberated" framing that most Iraqis use, not the "invaded" framing that AQ, Hamas, and those who live under unelected governments use - everything was going to just go along swimmingly, it seems. Dr. Salameh is an expert on the cost of oil extraction and projected energy needs. He fancies himself an expert on international relations as well. Hence his appointment to the UN.
Anybody can invent alternate history -- and finding an expert to quote is no trick either. I say that if we hadn't deposed Saddam, he'd have finished corrupting the UN and oil would now be at $300 -- when and if we could buy any at all -- and backed up by a fully-in-control-of-the-mideast alliance of AQ and the most xenophobic elements of all the Caspian nations (elements that would have come to the fore had ''oil-for-food'' been allowed to continue swallowing governments).
And ten to one Byron has never even heard of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo.