and having said that I'm NOT in favor of the feds regulating the price of gasoline, as in price control, as in the seventies under Nixon when demand DID outpace supply and we had lines and limits, I DO understand OPEC having some influence on the price of the commodity of oil in terms of production goals. What's more, unfortunately, is that like any commodity that is traded in futures, there can be just plain irrationality as to why the damned oil is so expensive. If country A is still producing at the same levels, but maybe there's a shooting way several hundred miles away, and maybe there are increased sunspots somewhere, oil trades higher. I don't know, I'm not an economist, but per my conversation with Ryan over the phone and my conversations with Titus, gouging is gouging. That being said, so far, there has been no proof of collusion or any unfair business practices. And believe me, especially in this time of economic uncertainty, with the record profits registered by oil companies post Katrina, the wind is up just about every investigative agency the Federal Government has. If there were illegal business practices going on, a Democratic Party controlled legislature would have found it by now. (Jeez, hate to think Pelosi is all Mary Kay pink and no bite.)
So while I stand by my accusation of gouging, legally there's no merit to the usage of the term.
Here's a very unpleasant fact: Our reliance on petroleum based fuels cannot be changed without painful adjustments. There is no impetus for the development of non-petroleum fuels if gasoline is readily available and cheap. As hard as it is for John Q. Public to swallow $3.57 (today at the BP right by my house, with diesel at $4.15) a gallon for gas, if these prices maintain for the rest of 2008 by this time in 2009 you'll see a flood, and I do mean an absolute flood of new hybrids, ethanol mixes, and fuel cell cars available.
And maybe if this had happened in the 1970s, instead of price controls, we wouldn't even be talking about this anymore because alternative fuel technology would be a solid generation ahead.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Here's the problem...
You don't know what you are talking about.
OPEC doesn't set the PRICE for anything other than matching turbans and robes for their semi-annual luncheons. OPEC mutually agrees to EXPORT (thus, the name Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) a specific amount of crude oil for the world market. If they want to try and raise the price of a barrel of oil (like they did in 1979), the cut production to cause an artificial "drought" of oil. If they want to try and lower the price of a barrel of oil, they increase production and flood the market, thus lowering the ratio of supply to demand.
Even if the ANWAR and Gulf drilling could DOUBLE our existing domestic production capacity (which it cannot), we would only have decreased the amount we would need to import annually (roughly 4.4 BILLION bbl/year) by 11%... a net reduction of crude imports of 382 million bbls/year. That equals just about 1 month of imports saved. It would also be at LEAST 2 years before we saw the increase in crude to our refineries... which means that for the next 24 months (minimum), NOTHING CHANGES ANYWAY. My sources are HERE.
I have re-read Jambo's posts... and NO WHERE do I see him calling for nationalized fuel production... and I KNOW I didn't suggest it. He wrote an entire post explaining that it wasn't his contention at all... what more can be said here? In fact, I couldn't find any SUGGESTIONS for solutions at all... outside of my rather cynical reference to CONSUMER gas rationing. So, please feel free to explain your assumptions, whenever you get around to it.
It is the prerogative of the Federal Government to REGULATE any industry, product, commodity or resource that it deems VITAL to national security and the general welfare of the nation, and this includes the establishment of PRICING NORMS, EXCHANGE QUOTAS, and COMMERCIAL LIMITS at every level of the economy. Doubt me? HERE is the link, and the Office was founded by none other than Ronald W. Reagan in 1982.
Need examples? Prior to FDR, the price of an ounce of gold was SET by the US Federal Government. This was the national standard until Richard Nixon removed the Federal limits and took us off of the "gold standard" price. To this day... the price of an ounce of uranium is determined by the Federal Government. There is NO market-driven price for this item in the US, as it is considered a resource with "national security" importance. No matter who holds the patents on the cutting-edge technology within the radar, laser, explosives, and aerospace/aeronautical industries... NO product, item, component or idea can be SOLD, EXPORTED, LOANED, LEASED or otherwise DISSEMINATED without the express consent of the proper regulating agencies of the US Federal Government.
Why are these aspects of FREE ENTERPRISE regulated by the Feds with no complaints from the right, but the industry that... more than any other... determines the livelihood of each and every American alive today is beyond the touch of regulation? Why? Why does FREE ENTERPRISE only apply to Big Oil and not Big Tobacco or the auto industry? Why isn't the pharmaceutical industry allowed to simply produce and sell drugs as they see fit?
OPEC doesn't set the PRICE for anything other than matching turbans and robes for their semi-annual luncheons. OPEC mutually agrees to EXPORT (thus, the name Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) a specific amount of crude oil for the world market. If they want to try and raise the price of a barrel of oil (like they did in 1979), the cut production to cause an artificial "drought" of oil. If they want to try and lower the price of a barrel of oil, they increase production and flood the market, thus lowering the ratio of supply to demand.
Even if the ANWAR and Gulf drilling could DOUBLE our existing domestic production capacity (which it cannot), we would only have decreased the amount we would need to import annually (roughly 4.4 BILLION bbl/year) by 11%... a net reduction of crude imports of 382 million bbls/year. That equals just about 1 month of imports saved. It would also be at LEAST 2 years before we saw the increase in crude to our refineries... which means that for the next 24 months (minimum), NOTHING CHANGES ANYWAY. My sources are HERE.
I have re-read Jambo's posts... and NO WHERE do I see him calling for nationalized fuel production... and I KNOW I didn't suggest it. He wrote an entire post explaining that it wasn't his contention at all... what more can be said here? In fact, I couldn't find any SUGGESTIONS for solutions at all... outside of my rather cynical reference to CONSUMER gas rationing. So, please feel free to explain your assumptions, whenever you get around to it.
It is the prerogative of the Federal Government to REGULATE any industry, product, commodity or resource that it deems VITAL to national security and the general welfare of the nation, and this includes the establishment of PRICING NORMS, EXCHANGE QUOTAS, and COMMERCIAL LIMITS at every level of the economy. Doubt me? HERE is the link, and the Office was founded by none other than Ronald W. Reagan in 1982.
Need examples? Prior to FDR, the price of an ounce of gold was SET by the US Federal Government. This was the national standard until Richard Nixon removed the Federal limits and took us off of the "gold standard" price. To this day... the price of an ounce of uranium is determined by the Federal Government. There is NO market-driven price for this item in the US, as it is considered a resource with "national security" importance. No matter who holds the patents on the cutting-edge technology within the radar, laser, explosives, and aerospace/aeronautical industries... NO product, item, component or idea can be SOLD, EXPORTED, LOANED, LEASED or otherwise DISSEMINATED without the express consent of the proper regulating agencies of the US Federal Government.
Why are these aspects of FREE ENTERPRISE regulated by the Feds with no complaints from the right, but the industry that... more than any other... determines the livelihood of each and every American alive today is beyond the touch of regulation? Why? Why does FREE ENTERPRISE only apply to Big Oil and not Big Tobacco or the auto industry? Why isn't the pharmaceutical industry allowed to simply produce and sell drugs as they see fit?
The problem IS NOT the oil companies ...
I can barely believe what I am reading.
First, to Titus - you clearly want to nationalize oil. You keep justifying your claims for government intervention in one way or another because oil is "vital." Sorry, that's not the way it works with private industry outside of Venezuela. And the problem as it stands now is the GOVERNMENT. THEIR red tape and restrictions have prevented any new refinery (one huge problem in price) from being built since I was 2 years old. THEY (the Democrat Party & a few republicans) have voted against nuclear energy no less then SEVEN times. THEY have voted against ANWAR and drilling off the coast of Florida no less then 3THREE times. If the oils companies have a defacto "legal monopoly", THEN CONGRESS HANDED IT TO THEM ON A SILVER PLATTER. Not to mention, OPEC sets the price of a barrel of oil - THAT PRICE is the genesis behind our gasoline price per gallon. Exxon, Shell, Standard, they don't set the price for a barrel of oil for goodness sake! The problem is with our government AND OPEC, period! And the only way to deal with the former is vote Democrats out of office (and some Republicans) and to the latter, move on to sugar or some other alternative, in a real way. In the mean time for us to further regulate the US oil companies or take their profits in a "windfall tax", do you think that will raise or lower the price of gas? Are you kidding - it will sky rocket, corporations pass production costs (be they equipment or taxes) on to the consumer. Like I said, thank congress and the last two presidents of you think "big oil" has a "legal monopoly", and thank OPEC for the price of gasoline.
To Jambo ...
This would be a different situation if profit margins were reasonable, like in the millions, six zeroes. How is this NOT gouging? Please explain this to me.
First, to Titus - you clearly want to nationalize oil. You keep justifying your claims for government intervention in one way or another because oil is "vital." Sorry, that's not the way it works with private industry outside of Venezuela. And the problem as it stands now is the GOVERNMENT. THEIR red tape and restrictions have prevented any new refinery (one huge problem in price) from being built since I was 2 years old. THEY (the Democrat Party & a few republicans) have voted against nuclear energy no less then SEVEN times. THEY have voted against ANWAR and drilling off the coast of Florida no less then 3THREE times. If the oils companies have a defacto "legal monopoly", THEN CONGRESS HANDED IT TO THEM ON A SILVER PLATTER. Not to mention, OPEC sets the price of a barrel of oil - THAT PRICE is the genesis behind our gasoline price per gallon. Exxon, Shell, Standard, they don't set the price for a barrel of oil for goodness sake! The problem is with our government AND OPEC, period! And the only way to deal with the former is vote Democrats out of office (and some Republicans) and to the latter, move on to sugar or some other alternative, in a real way. In the mean time for us to further regulate the US oil companies or take their profits in a "windfall tax", do you think that will raise or lower the price of gas? Are you kidding - it will sky rocket, corporations pass production costs (be they equipment or taxes) on to the consumer. Like I said, thank congress and the last two presidents of you think "big oil" has a "legal monopoly", and thank OPEC for the price of gasoline.
To Jambo ...
This would be a different situation if profit margins were reasonable, like in the millions, six zeroes. How is this NOT gouging? Please explain this to me.
I love ya man (but I wouldn't kiss you, unlike some Bund members apparently), but who the hell are you, or me, or anyone to "decide" what is a "reasonable" profit? Are you kidding. This sounds like Marxism 101, and I know you're not a Marxist by any stretch of the imagination. The oil companies profits, AS LONG AS IT IS DONE LEGALLY are their business as long as they are a private company - period! The gas station owner on Pass Rd broke the law. SHOW ME where Exxon has broken the law and I'll be on board with their prosecution. Show me. For you to assume that you or any one individual can discern what is "reasonable", and with a real number like "in the millions" is astonishing to me. And I'm not talking about laissez-faire, or anything approaching it, these profits are being made in an already heavily regulated industry. IT'S THEIR PROFITS! Because it is an essential good doesn't change that fact unless you're arguing for nationalization like Titus.
To recap ....
1.) arbitrarily setting a "reasonable" price for good or service, even an essential one like oil, as long as the industry is private, is asking for chaos. It never works. And setting "profit maximums" for any industry is illegal as far as I can tell, and certainly anti-American in concept. And opposing "profit maximums" in order to make them more "reasonable", does not mean I support a purist version of laissez-faire.
2.) The high price of gas can be laid at the foot of OPEC and our federal government. The latter offers no alternatives, restricts domestic drilling, votes down nuclear, and it would appear to go out of its way in order to ENSURE that our energy dependence remains in the hands of OPEC. And the former (OPEC) won't really take anything we do in the realm of energy seriously until we act to secure independence by embracing all that was voted "nay" just above, and taking a cue from private industry leaders like Branson.
3.) "Gouging" is a legal term, with legally imposed penalties. If you can demonstrate that Exxon et al have colluded, gouged, or been unlawful in any way shape or form, or even violated even the spirit of the law, then we can talk about comparing them to Mr. Lee down the road from you. Until then lets blame who really is at fault - the federal government and OPEC. THEIR COMPLETE INADEQUACIES in terms of being concerned about the American energy consumer has caused the side effect of putting oil companies well into the black with 9 zeros.
You two have misidentified your bad guys here ....
Just for clarification...
My previous post should not be interpreted as a cry for government intervention. I have stated clearly before that government manipulation of gas prices in the long run is not the answer. Look at my post as a defense of the term "gouging," which Ryan took umbrage with in his response. As any reasonable, educated individual will see, any fiscal quarterly profit that runs nine zeroes to the left of the decimal point in the black while the nation's economy hangs by the thread over the abyss called recession would be deemed "excessive," and the prices of the commodity or service exchanged can reasonably be called "gouging."
Just to put out any fires before they erupt.
Just to put out any fires before they erupt.
My two cents...
First...
My use of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle wasn't to show that government doesn't do enough... it was to show that private industry can't be trusted to police itself. Had America allowed the practices detailed in The Jungle to continue while popular opinion caused the free market to grow a conscience, how many more people would have gotten sick and died? Yes, Sinclair blew the whistle, and yes, that prompted the Feds to do something... something the private sector wouldn't have done themselves, because it GOT IN THE WAY OF PROFITS.
This segues nicely into my next point...
If profits are the end-all-be-all of any consumer/production industry in the eyes of the government, and these industries can reach those profits fast and bigger by using unsafe or inferior means and practices... why does the government interfere? Why not take laissez-faire to its logical conclusion and simply allow corporate America to earn its keep however it sees best?
MY response is that the Federal Government's primary responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the general public and society as a whole, and where the general welfare of society conflicts with these corporate profit goals, the general welfare wins. If 5 out of every 100 people consuming canned meat from one particular canned-meat company come down with a case of mercury poisoning because the solder in the can contains toxins but saves the company 20% in production costs, then the 5% loss of revenue due to illness and death is certainly out-weighed by the remaining 15% profit, right? Where is the incentive to remove the toxic solder from the cans, if it means a net loss in the production process?
I have asked this question before, but I don't recall ever getting an answer... When in US history has so much of our society ABSOLUTELY depended on ONE resource the way it does now with crude oil? Why is it SOLELY the responsiblity of the consumer learn to "do without" in times of crisis, but not commercial industry? If it is to protect the investor's money that backs the "Big Oil" machines... then why not institute a national gas rationing program? Allow the companies to continue to produce and distribute fuel at their current costs and prices... but limit the CONSUMER on how much he can purchase over time. This increases the availability of the product, reduces fluctuations in consumer demand, lowers distribution costs, and provides greater supply for the national reserve during a time of war... which, last time I checked, we were in.
The success of rationing in the effort to win WWII wasn't limited to consumers (although they had the greatest share of the burden)... manufacturers and industries were selling to the Feds on adjusted contract bids... meaning the prices varied only semi-annually and were not 100% market-driven. This reduced cost to the government while still keeping costs affordable to the producers.
Should we limit households in America to 40 gallons of gas a week? This will remove the specter of "price caps" by placing the burden of reduced consumption directly on the average working family... rather than the bank accounts of corporations that have watched their profits climb 150% in a matter of months while the national economy tanks around John Q Public's ears.
Didn't anyone read my little scenario about the future of crude prices? It is not a great stretch of the imagination to think that crude could be at $250 a barrel in as few as 24 months... how does the economy function through that? The average American right now is paying 25% of their net income in fuel costs, with oil at $100 a barrel, so $250 a barrel means, what? 50% of our net income will then go to fuel, and the Big Oil companies can still justify QUARTERLY earnings measured in the 10's of billions?
If this were a luxury or non-essential commodity like orange juice or pork belly futures, I'd agree with you 100%... but every single facet of our society does not depend on bacon or frozen orange juice. It DOES depend on crude oil.
My use of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle wasn't to show that government doesn't do enough... it was to show that private industry can't be trusted to police itself. Had America allowed the practices detailed in The Jungle to continue while popular opinion caused the free market to grow a conscience, how many more people would have gotten sick and died? Yes, Sinclair blew the whistle, and yes, that prompted the Feds to do something... something the private sector wouldn't have done themselves, because it GOT IN THE WAY OF PROFITS.
This segues nicely into my next point...
If profits are the end-all-be-all of any consumer/production industry in the eyes of the government, and these industries can reach those profits fast and bigger by using unsafe or inferior means and practices... why does the government interfere? Why not take laissez-faire to its logical conclusion and simply allow corporate America to earn its keep however it sees best?
MY response is that the Federal Government's primary responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the general public and society as a whole, and where the general welfare of society conflicts with these corporate profit goals, the general welfare wins. If 5 out of every 100 people consuming canned meat from one particular canned-meat company come down with a case of mercury poisoning because the solder in the can contains toxins but saves the company 20% in production costs, then the 5% loss of revenue due to illness and death is certainly out-weighed by the remaining 15% profit, right? Where is the incentive to remove the toxic solder from the cans, if it means a net loss in the production process?
I have asked this question before, but I don't recall ever getting an answer... When in US history has so much of our society ABSOLUTELY depended on ONE resource the way it does now with crude oil? Why is it SOLELY the responsiblity of the consumer learn to "do without" in times of crisis, but not commercial industry? If it is to protect the investor's money that backs the "Big Oil" machines... then why not institute a national gas rationing program? Allow the companies to continue to produce and distribute fuel at their current costs and prices... but limit the CONSUMER on how much he can purchase over time. This increases the availability of the product, reduces fluctuations in consumer demand, lowers distribution costs, and provides greater supply for the national reserve during a time of war... which, last time I checked, we were in.
The success of rationing in the effort to win WWII wasn't limited to consumers (although they had the greatest share of the burden)... manufacturers and industries were selling to the Feds on adjusted contract bids... meaning the prices varied only semi-annually and were not 100% market-driven. This reduced cost to the government while still keeping costs affordable to the producers.
Should we limit households in America to 40 gallons of gas a week? This will remove the specter of "price caps" by placing the burden of reduced consumption directly on the average working family... rather than the bank accounts of corporations that have watched their profits climb 150% in a matter of months while the national economy tanks around John Q Public's ears.
Didn't anyone read my little scenario about the future of crude prices? It is not a great stretch of the imagination to think that crude could be at $250 a barrel in as few as 24 months... how does the economy function through that? The average American right now is paying 25% of their net income in fuel costs, with oil at $100 a barrel, so $250 a barrel means, what? 50% of our net income will then go to fuel, and the Big Oil companies can still justify QUARTERLY earnings measured in the 10's of billions?
If this were a luxury or non-essential commodity like orange juice or pork belly futures, I'd agree with you 100%... but every single facet of our society does not depend on bacon or frozen orange juice. It DOES depend on crude oil.
Here's a little story...
On Pass Road here in my town, just about five, maybe six blocks from where I live, there's a convenience store. A very hard working family runs this business. Among other things they sell gasoline. But I digress.
In August of 2005 this family did not evacuate for the storm. At a considerable personal expense to themselves, they invested in hardware that enabled them to pump gas and operate their store without being on the power grid. This hardware was housed in a very durable, storm damage resistant building. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent by this family so they could be up and running when no one else was after Katrina.
Shortly after the storm, as in 24 hours, this convenience store was the only business operating in my town for literally dozens of square miles.
So when this store charged $8.00 per gallon of milk, $5.00 per gallon of gas, $5.00 per bag of ice and other "essentials" in our post storm world, people paid the money but grumbled.
Two weeks into October, the owner of the store was indicted for price gouging. His store is currently closed.
These same oil companies you so vigorously defend hold our nation's economy by the pubic hairs. This family owned business did everything "right," positioned themselves to be ready in a time of crisis, and looked to make an American buck and cash in on their investment. Yet anyone who lived through what we lived through gets pissed just looking at the prices, (although five per gallon of gas doesn't seem such a stretch anymore.) especially ice. The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi not only got pissed but pressed charges, charges that stuck. At what point in time after tens of billions of dollars in profits PER QUARTER does it become too much? It's not one neighborhood, as is the case with this storm. It isn't even a state or a region. It's our NATION.
Without being inflammatory or making a huge stretch with some goofy analogy, I could make an argument that these gas prices are a more direct threat to our nation than Osama right now. What's the difference between our nation this moment and two years ago? Gas prices. Our economy goes from robust to life support in 18-24 months? Gas goes from $2.25 to $3.60? Profits in the same oil companies go from 3 billion a quarter to nine billion a quarter? A QUARTER?
Before you scream Chicken Little from the mountain tops just think about it for a minute. You lived through the storm. We all did. This would be a different situation if profit margins were reasonable, like in the millions, six zeroes. How is this NOT gouging? Please explain this to me.
In August of 2005 this family did not evacuate for the storm. At a considerable personal expense to themselves, they invested in hardware that enabled them to pump gas and operate their store without being on the power grid. This hardware was housed in a very durable, storm damage resistant building. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent by this family so they could be up and running when no one else was after Katrina.
Shortly after the storm, as in 24 hours, this convenience store was the only business operating in my town for literally dozens of square miles.
So when this store charged $8.00 per gallon of milk, $5.00 per gallon of gas, $5.00 per bag of ice and other "essentials" in our post storm world, people paid the money but grumbled.
Two weeks into October, the owner of the store was indicted for price gouging. His store is currently closed.
These same oil companies you so vigorously defend hold our nation's economy by the pubic hairs. This family owned business did everything "right," positioned themselves to be ready in a time of crisis, and looked to make an American buck and cash in on their investment. Yet anyone who lived through what we lived through gets pissed just looking at the prices, (although five per gallon of gas doesn't seem such a stretch anymore.) especially ice. The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi not only got pissed but pressed charges, charges that stuck. At what point in time after tens of billions of dollars in profits PER QUARTER does it become too much? It's not one neighborhood, as is the case with this storm. It isn't even a state or a region. It's our NATION.
Without being inflammatory or making a huge stretch with some goofy analogy, I could make an argument that these gas prices are a more direct threat to our nation than Osama right now. What's the difference between our nation this moment and two years ago? Gas prices. Our economy goes from robust to life support in 18-24 months? Gas goes from $2.25 to $3.60? Profits in the same oil companies go from 3 billion a quarter to nine billion a quarter? A QUARTER?
Before you scream Chicken Little from the mountain tops just think about it for a minute. You lived through the storm. We all did. This would be a different situation if profit margins were reasonable, like in the millions, six zeroes. How is this NOT gouging? Please explain this to me.
Never fear, Ryan is here ...
Well, why you two tools are dipping around asking the government what it will do, or knocking both them and the private sector, I was doing research, thus the headline (read nothing into calling you "tools", I'm just doing some healthy ribbing ....).
First, some corrections to some your previous comments.
1.) I find it rather juvenile, and beneath your intellect Jambo to simply blurt out that the oil companies are "gouging" us. I know there's a tendency to say this off the cuff because the "good" they trade in is essential to modern life itself, but making the biggest legal profit they can is EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, they ARE a private business. The commodity of oil is in the 401k's and mutual funds of countless Americans from municipal workers like firemen, to Wall Street day traders, and oil CEO's owe it to them to turn the healthiest profit possible. And unless you have demonstrable evidence of gouging, which is illegal the last time I checked, please "check" that wild accusation at the door. Oil is the only private industry in which people claim record profits are evidence of mismanagement! Essential or not it is still a PRIVATE industry, and until Senorita Hillary Chavez nationalizes it, it has the right to legally squeeze every dollar out of their product they can, period. And FYI, no one is MAKING people snap up Hummers, F150's and Vans by the but load. That demand drives up the price as much as anything else, and that can be proved unlike the ominous claim of gouging.
2.) Titus used the government's involvement in cleaning up (literally) the US meat industry as an example of proper government intervention to solve an incessant problem. BAD example. And the reason is of your own proclamation - The Jungle. Written by a private citizen, bought in droves by other private citizens, the same private citizens whom then turned around and demanded from their elected representatives that something be done. So unless the author wrote the book on a government grant, the government didn't "act", it reacted. This was the consummate rugged American individual making a difference. A better example is the Manhattan Project, I'll give you that one, but it was a military program in essence. Ran like an army base, under the command of an army general, hell, even Oppenheimer answered to him, and any conservative worth his salt would agree that if there's one government arm we are willing to expand and throw money at, its the military.
3.) All I heard from you guys concerning the Rumsfeld cabal was their lack of planning, foresight, and lateral thinking. That is exactly what I was trying to do with my post on what the Arab "street" would look like without oil as a profitable export. You know, SINCE WE ARE AT WAR THERE and 99% of Islamic terrorists originate from there in one way or another (training etc) with the West as their declared enemy. Never mind that I added in that post that American interests are still better served by a policy that "watches America's interests" concerning our energy independence regardless of its effect on the Arab street, Titus still asks if I think the US should defer her energy security in order to keep Saudi's in Rolls Royces. Again, cliff noting my posts. And Jambo says it sounds as if I am "sympathizing" with the Arab street ... never mind that I was in essence advocating that democratization should coincide with a future drop in oil prices so that the "rag heads" as Jambo referred to them in a text to me, would have something to do in a post oil world besides strap bombs to themselves and walk into Kosher delis. Never said that we shouldn't get independent, but that we should be ready if the rest of the world follows suit and all of Mesopotamia subsequently goes to hell (even more then it is now I should say).
4.) And then the both of you presume to lecture me on how China would still buy enough oil to keep the Mid East flush with cash even if we moved on to an alternative energy source ... again, never mind that I clearly wrote a caveat in that same post which read, "this assumes that all oil consuming nations would move on to our new energy source." What are you guys doing - one reads the post then the other texts a summary to save time? Sheeeesh.
Now, to the subject line .........
Yes, the federal government has done things right in the past, read: had efficient programs. We could probably put together a list in a few days or weeks of all the properly functioning ( read: cost to result/profit ratio) programs, and it would probably be a healthy size book. However, were we to do the same with private sector solutions to everyday problems and inconveniences that face Americans, we would need about 10 lifetimes to document it, and all the paper the rain forest could spare.
In that vein, the entrepreneurial spirit that was unleashed in America as the words "We hold these truth self evident ..." were penned, is once again going to solve this issue.
Airlines. I think its safe to say none of the ones in operation today were set up to be profitable with oil at $120 a barrel. It simply can't be sustained. A few years back the founder and CEO of Jet Blue embarked on a rather ambitious project. He wanted his airline to have their own "strategic reserve" of oil, and the means to refine it. He wanted to do what so many successful companies do, cut out the middle man, namely EXXON, Shell, etc. Didn't happen. The red tape, the sheer cost, "the governments lack of vision" as he put it ... the thing never got off the ground. And this is a very enterprising fellow, it would have taken a lot for him to just "give up" on the idea. He has subsequently, on good terms, resigned as Jet Blue's CEO. Then recently he bought a house in Brazil. More importantly he bought an airline company in Brazil, or rather, founded one. Why? And I must give Jambo kudos for mentioning the reason in a prior post. Brazil's non Rain Forest protected land is divided up into separate regions for separate crops. And the amount of land set aside for Sugar Cane developing is only being used (farmed) for Sugar Cane at a puny 2% of the total land allotted. Short math says 98% of the"Sugar Cane designated" soil isn't yet being farmed. He bought a large chunk of that, why? Enter Sir Richard Branson, founder and CEO of Virgin Airlines (you know, the Aussie with the Rod Stewart hair and more money then Trump). Last year he vowed to fly (he's a pilot too) an airplane fueled 50% on bio fuel - sugar. The founder of Jet Blue, not to be out done, says that he is building a conversion factory that will have him on 100% bio sugar fuel within 2 years. Branson adds that were the US government to subscribe to their business practice of sugar fuel we could have 85% of all US vehicles on the stuff within 5 years and oil would drop to under $40 a barrel in the first 24 months!
The kudos to Jambo was over noting the potential of sugar.... beet sugar, but sugar nonetheless. And further praise is given to the private sector. They aren't doing this for "carbon neutral" footprints (although they'll undoubtedly use that angle as good PR). Its because mother necessity has come knocking and they have the vision to open the door. It is EXACTLY what I and other conservatives predicted would happen - the private sector, when it became necessary over either supply or cost, would answer the energy call. Not the government, not a bureaucracy, not "taking" windfall profits nor touring (impractical) solar plants.
Enterprising young men from the private sector have written the energy version of "The Jungle." Now go ahead government, do what you do best ....... react.
First, some corrections to some your previous comments.
1.) I find it rather juvenile, and beneath your intellect Jambo to simply blurt out that the oil companies are "gouging" us. I know there's a tendency to say this off the cuff because the "good" they trade in is essential to modern life itself, but making the biggest legal profit they can is EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, they ARE a private business. The commodity of oil is in the 401k's and mutual funds of countless Americans from municipal workers like firemen, to Wall Street day traders, and oil CEO's owe it to them to turn the healthiest profit possible. And unless you have demonstrable evidence of gouging, which is illegal the last time I checked, please "check" that wild accusation at the door. Oil is the only private industry in which people claim record profits are evidence of mismanagement! Essential or not it is still a PRIVATE industry, and until Senorita Hillary Chavez nationalizes it, it has the right to legally squeeze every dollar out of their product they can, period. And FYI, no one is MAKING people snap up Hummers, F150's and Vans by the but load. That demand drives up the price as much as anything else, and that can be proved unlike the ominous claim of gouging.
2.) Titus used the government's involvement in cleaning up (literally) the US meat industry as an example of proper government intervention to solve an incessant problem. BAD example. And the reason is of your own proclamation - The Jungle. Written by a private citizen, bought in droves by other private citizens, the same private citizens whom then turned around and demanded from their elected representatives that something be done. So unless the author wrote the book on a government grant, the government didn't "act", it reacted. This was the consummate rugged American individual making a difference. A better example is the Manhattan Project, I'll give you that one, but it was a military program in essence. Ran like an army base, under the command of an army general, hell, even Oppenheimer answered to him, and any conservative worth his salt would agree that if there's one government arm we are willing to expand and throw money at, its the military.
3.) All I heard from you guys concerning the Rumsfeld cabal was their lack of planning, foresight, and lateral thinking. That is exactly what I was trying to do with my post on what the Arab "street" would look like without oil as a profitable export. You know, SINCE WE ARE AT WAR THERE and 99% of Islamic terrorists originate from there in one way or another (training etc) with the West as their declared enemy. Never mind that I added in that post that American interests are still better served by a policy that "watches America's interests" concerning our energy independence regardless of its effect on the Arab street, Titus still asks if I think the US should defer her energy security in order to keep Saudi's in Rolls Royces. Again, cliff noting my posts. And Jambo says it sounds as if I am "sympathizing" with the Arab street ... never mind that I was in essence advocating that democratization should coincide with a future drop in oil prices so that the "rag heads" as Jambo referred to them in a text to me, would have something to do in a post oil world besides strap bombs to themselves and walk into Kosher delis. Never said that we shouldn't get independent, but that we should be ready if the rest of the world follows suit and all of Mesopotamia subsequently goes to hell (even more then it is now I should say).
4.) And then the both of you presume to lecture me on how China would still buy enough oil to keep the Mid East flush with cash even if we moved on to an alternative energy source ... again, never mind that I clearly wrote a caveat in that same post which read, "this assumes that all oil consuming nations would move on to our new energy source." What are you guys doing - one reads the post then the other texts a summary to save time? Sheeeesh.
Now, to the subject line .........
Yes, the federal government has done things right in the past, read: had efficient programs. We could probably put together a list in a few days or weeks of all the properly functioning ( read: cost to result/profit ratio) programs, and it would probably be a healthy size book. However, were we to do the same with private sector solutions to everyday problems and inconveniences that face Americans, we would need about 10 lifetimes to document it, and all the paper the rain forest could spare.
In that vein, the entrepreneurial spirit that was unleashed in America as the words "We hold these truth self evident ..." were penned, is once again going to solve this issue.
Airlines. I think its safe to say none of the ones in operation today were set up to be profitable with oil at $120 a barrel. It simply can't be sustained. A few years back the founder and CEO of Jet Blue embarked on a rather ambitious project. He wanted his airline to have their own "strategic reserve" of oil, and the means to refine it. He wanted to do what so many successful companies do, cut out the middle man, namely EXXON, Shell, etc. Didn't happen. The red tape, the sheer cost, "the governments lack of vision" as he put it ... the thing never got off the ground. And this is a very enterprising fellow, it would have taken a lot for him to just "give up" on the idea. He has subsequently, on good terms, resigned as Jet Blue's CEO. Then recently he bought a house in Brazil. More importantly he bought an airline company in Brazil, or rather, founded one. Why? And I must give Jambo kudos for mentioning the reason in a prior post. Brazil's non Rain Forest protected land is divided up into separate regions for separate crops. And the amount of land set aside for Sugar Cane developing is only being used (farmed) for Sugar Cane at a puny 2% of the total land allotted. Short math says 98% of the"Sugar Cane designated" soil isn't yet being farmed. He bought a large chunk of that, why? Enter Sir Richard Branson, founder and CEO of Virgin Airlines (you know, the Aussie with the Rod Stewart hair and more money then Trump). Last year he vowed to fly (he's a pilot too) an airplane fueled 50% on bio fuel - sugar. The founder of Jet Blue, not to be out done, says that he is building a conversion factory that will have him on 100% bio sugar fuel within 2 years. Branson adds that were the US government to subscribe to their business practice of sugar fuel we could have 85% of all US vehicles on the stuff within 5 years and oil would drop to under $40 a barrel in the first 24 months!
The kudos to Jambo was over noting the potential of sugar.... beet sugar, but sugar nonetheless. And further praise is given to the private sector. They aren't doing this for "carbon neutral" footprints (although they'll undoubtedly use that angle as good PR). Its because mother necessity has come knocking and they have the vision to open the door. It is EXACTLY what I and other conservatives predicted would happen - the private sector, when it became necessary over either supply or cost, would answer the energy call. Not the government, not a bureaucracy, not "taking" windfall profits nor touring (impractical) solar plants.
Enterprising young men from the private sector have written the energy version of "The Jungle." Now go ahead government, do what you do best ....... react.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
