 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2008autos are freedom
The Threat to the Car; http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/06/12/the_threat_to_ the_car  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > The Threat to the Car; > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/06/12/the_threat_to_ > the_car Where to I begin... first it's not a 'liberal' plot. Government in general, as an institution, wants to control the travel of the people. Government has to be restrained and controlled by the people in order for free travel to be allowed. It's not a 'liberal' or 'conservative' thing. 'Conservatives' generally have no problem with police checkpoints, gps monitoring, computer controls & tracking, etc and so forth. While the 'liberals' are all about phoney environmentalism and herding people into public transport where they'll have to pass through checkpoints and be tracked by smart-card fare systems and the like. It's different approaches to the same end. They compliment each other rather nicely. Oil... this idea that we must have all the oil come from within the US... Why is it that the people who think the US should be energy independent have no problem with the manufacturing base being relocated to China and push managed trade policies that hurt US businesses? But I digress... 'foreign oil' stops being a problem when the US government stops a foreign policy of intervention. The US federal government by its interventions overseas, its threats against oil producing nations, etc causes much of the problems with 'foreign oil'. It's also true that regulation blocks off domestic fields. However, that regulation is often put into place to favor certain companies so I find it hard to see the environmentalist role as anything greater than 'useful idiot'. Want cheap oil? Want to get unstable middle east countries out of the picture? As I have proposed before: 1) Non-intervention. Let the middle east nations do as they are going to do. The political cost will end up in their oil. They will quickly realize they have to get their act together or they won't make any money. Oil companies will start using resources in the americas where the technical extraction costs are higher but their investment is better protected by property rights and their net cost is lower. 2) de-rerestriction in the US. Simple 'thou-shall-not-spew' property rights based environmental regulation. 3) restore the free market. Remove burdensome regulations and political processes that prevent new comers from entering the market and small companies from getting bigger. >> The Threat to the Car; >> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/06/12/the_threat_to_ [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >processes that prevent new comers from entering the market and small >companies from getting bigger. You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the internal oil industry that needs to be capitalized and developed. What's that mean?? It means if we want to start developing and using OUR oil sources, such as the HUGE oil reserves up near Canada, we have to guarantee the oil companies that we will protect them from potential price wars from the other oil producing nations. The reason no one is developing our more difficult oil fields is because they can't risk the investment it takes if they need to sell the oil for $60 a barrel to make money and the Arabs and others are able to do like Walmart and undercut that price till they force them out of business. Since it will take at least 5 years, and more likely 10 years, to drill and build the stuff needed to get this oil, the US needs to have a policy ensuring that import tariffs are placed on any oil coming into the US, OR they need to subsidize our internal companies so they can depend on making a profit on the investment that's needed. Without that "price insurance" no one is going to start working on getting oil from our HUGE deposits of oil shale up in the north part of the US. For far too long our politicians have suffered from the same problem as many companies do, they only look at the short term instead of what's best for the long term. Which would you rather have, $70 a barrel oil that you can count on not going up, or letting OPEC decide what you will pay for oil based on their mood and desire to build another zillion dollar hotel. The other way to do it is to simply create a national oil company. It would be subsidized till it was able to build and start operating and producing oil, then we would put appropriate tariffs on imported oil at whatever level is needed to keep the national oil company in the black. I know the free-market mavens would be against that, but if we had a competent gvt it would actually be the best and simplest way to go. If we let the "free market" do it you can be sure they will be cooking the books in some fashion. > You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then > it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to guarantee the oil companies that we will protect them from > potential price wars from the other oil producing nations. No. The government stops it's interference and restores the free market. Otherwise all you proposing is an oil version of the sugar tarrifs. Those foreign oil fields are not very attractive without US military and foreign policy support. > The > reason no one is developing our more difficult oil fields is because > they can't risk the investment it takes if they need to sell the oil > for $60 a barrel to make money and the Arabs and others are able to do > like Walmart and undercut that price till they force them out of > business. Here's what happens... the US foreign policy and military GTFO. Now the arabs and the persians and the rest of them over there have a choice. They can get their sh.t together and sell oil, in which case the big oil companies will keep going over there just as they have.... or they can bicker and fight and be all unstable and not sell oil. Under this later set of conditions oil in the americas where there is political stability will be the better investment. Nobody is going to care about $5 a barrel extraction costs when at anytime the whole investment might be nationalized or otherwise stolen in shifting political conditions. >> You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then >> it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Those foreign oil fields are not very attractive without US military and >foreign policy support. There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they feel like charging. That's the whole point of developing OUR oil. Once we have it developed and online we will no longer care what they charge and THEN you will have a free market. >> The >> reason no one is developing our more difficult oil fields is because [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >extraction costs when at anytime the whole investment might be >nationalized or otherwise stolen in shifting political conditions. You are making teh same point I was. No one will make the investment if they have to worry about cheap imports or political meddling. And as a result it will be a long long time before anyone gets serious about developing our shale oil deposits. This same issue was thoroughly looked at 35 years ago during the first oil crisis. At that time it would have cost about 80 cents a gallon (in yesterdays dollars) to produce from those fields. Gas was normally selling for 35 cents a gallon. Without an assurance of protection, no one was willing to go up there and make the investment because they knew that as soon as they spent all the money it would take and started producing the Arabs would drop prices down and destroy them economically. The only way to prevent that is to accept that there is a cost for guaranteed and stable oil prices and that's tariffs for imports. In the short run you pay a little more for gas, in the long run you guarantee energy self-sufficiency AND a competitive market. >>> You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then >>> it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>No. The government stops it's interference and restores the free market. that would necessitate removing the blocks on US oil drilling,production,and refineries.otherwise,it's NOT a "free market". >>Otherwise all you proposing is an oil version of the sugar tarrifs. >>Those foreign oil fields are not very attractive without US military and >>foreign policy support. Removing US military guarantees of free sea lanes and preventing countries from invading and taking control of other oil producers would mean even higher oil prices as it would create a monopoly. A "LESS-free market". > There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. > Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they > feel like charging. Uh,I believe they put oil contracts up for BIDS. then buyers make bids. The Arabs/OPEC DOES control the AMOUNT of oil they produce,thus limiting the supply. That is how US drilling and production would affect oil prices. speculative holders of oil contracts do not want to get stuck holding them when supply increases and the bids on new contrtacts drop lower than what THEY paid for the contracts. > That's the whole point of developing OUR oil. > Once we have it developed and online we will no longer care what they > charge and THEN you will have a free market. the oil will still be up for bids on the open market. >>> The >>> reason no one is developing our more difficult oil fields is because >>> they can't risk the investment it takes if they need to sell the oil >>> for $60 a barrel to make money and the Arabs and others are able to do >>> like Walmart and undercut that price till they force them out of >>> business. NO,the government has RESTRICTED new drilling,production and refinery construction.THAT is why the oil companies are not developing new fields. US oil production has been DECLINING for 30 years or more,despite our finding new fields. That means MORE foreign imports of oil. >>Here's what happens... the US foreign policy and military GTFO. Now the >>arabs and the persians and the rest of them over there have a choice. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a result it will be a long long time before anyone gets serious > about developing our shale oil deposits. But what about the more easily reached oil fields like the recent Montana find,ANWR and the Gulf? ANWR was blocked from drilling back in 1981,IIRC. We already produce oil in the Gulf,but the environuts and DemocRATs don't want the US to have more oil.Instead of allowing the market to determine what sort of energy US citizens use,they want to FORCE people to change AND to "reduce their excessive lifestyle";IOW,they want to reengineer US society to suit themselves. It's about control. (our society today is built around cheap energy and cheap oil.it takes a massive change to alter that infrastructure.) > This same issue was > thoroughly looked at 35 years ago during the first oil crisis. At [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > imports. In the short run you pay a little more for gas, in the long > run you guarantee energy self-sufficiency AND a competitive market. tariffs never reduce the costs of anything,nor bring about increased supplies. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then >>>> it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >tariffs never reduce the costs of anything,nor bring about increased >supplies. You are saying pretty much the same thing I have been saying. It requires a change in policies in several areas. Until our gvt changes many of current polices we will remain at the mercy of the Arabs, who can charge whatever they want. Right now the supply side sets the price and the demand side pays whatever it is. To have a free market prices for the supply HAVE to be determined by those demanding it. >>>>> You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent >>>>> then it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > price and the demand side pays whatever it is. To have a free market > prices for the supply HAVE to be determined by those demanding it. How do you affect the foreign oil producers/sellers? Sure,the US could take it's oil producers off the futures market,but not foreign sources. Right now,the US production is a drop in the bucket compared to them. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>> You left out one part. If the US wants to be energy independent then >>> it needs to make a POLICY decision at the federal level to PROTECT the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. Thanks for agreeing. > Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they > feel like charging. That's the whole point of developing OUR oil. > Once we have it developed and online we will no longer care what they > charge and THEN you will have a free market. Um the arab cartel is only part of it. There is the effective american cartel too. >There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. >Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they >feel like charging. That's the whole point of developing OUR oil. >Once we have it developed and online we will no longer care what they >charge and THEN you will have a free market. No, what you will have then is domestic oil producers simply charging whatever they feel like charging. Instead of sending the majority of the profits overseas, they will be able to pocket those obscene profits themselves. That's when you'll see the president of Chevron-Texaco driving around in a diamond-encrusted Rolls Royce just like the Sheiks do today. The fundamental problem is not where the oil comes from (although that is a problem in and of itself, since lots of oil dollars ultimately go to fund terrorism). The root problem is WE ARE ADDICTED TO OIL, and cannot stop consuming it. The sellers of oil have us over a barrel (pun intended). If gasoline went to $10/gallon tomorrow, guess what? YOU WOULD STILL BUY IT because you *have* to get to work, to school, to the grocery store, whatever. THAT is the real problem - the sellers of oil are charging what the market will bear, and the market will bear prices that are even higher than what we have today. Today at $4.50/gallon you are still driving your car to the grocery store. Maybe you are considering a more fuel-efficient car, but you're still driving a petroleum-powered vehicle of some kind. Ask yourself at what point you would consider leaving your car at home, buying some panniers or a backpack, and riding your bike to the grocery store. $10/gallon? $15? $25? Whatever that price point is for the aggregate population is where gas prices are headed. Only a significant slacking off of demand will halt the rise of gasoline prices. SignaturePlease remember not to feed ANY of the trolls - we want them ALL to starve. >The fundamental problem is not where the oil comes from (although that >is a problem in and of itself, since lots of oil dollars ultimately go [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >population is where gas prices are headed. Only a significant slacking >off of demand will halt the rise of gasoline prices. Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. Which we'll still have even if the strategic reserve is dumped into the supply pipeline, and even if the ANWR and offshore deposits are made available. Unless some independent third party manages to open up a few new refineries, the American oil-igarchy will still control the entire supply since it all funnels through their refineries. Perhaps the solution is to nationalize the oil industry? :) SignaturePlease remember not to feed ANY of the trolls - we want them ALL to starve. >>Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >>prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Perhaps the solution is to nationalize the oil industry? :) That's what I suggested several messages ago. >>>Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >>>prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's what I suggested several messages ago. A Communist suggestion. Not practical,either. Just a socialist fantasy. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >>prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a few new refineries, the American oil-igarchy will still control the >entire supply since it all funnels through their refineries. Well, no. There are foreign refineries as well. And refinery capacity restriction doesn't increase the price of crude, so that isn't all that is going on. >Perhaps the solution is to nationalize the oil industry? :) ROTFL. Yeah, that'll work. Because a government-owned monopoly is always efficient and really cares about its customers. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >>>prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Well, no. There are foreign refineries as well. Oh really? And just what percentage of our gasaoline comes from foreign refineries? SignaturePlease remember not to feed ANY of the trolls - we want them ALL to starve. >>>>Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >>>>prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Oh really? And just what percentage of our gasaoline comes from >foreign refineries? About 10%, but more could be imported. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The fundamental problem is not where the oil comes from (although that >>is a problem in and of itself, since lots of oil dollars ultimately go [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Inelasticity of demand is not in itself a cause of ever-increasing >prices. Inelasticity of demand plus a monopoly in supply is, however. If I had read your reply before writing mine I could have skipped writing mine. >>There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. >>Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >population is where gas prices are headed. Only a significant slacking >off of demand will halt the rise of gasoline prices. As much as everyone hates gvt "ownership", the fact is that most of the oil fields are on land owned by the gvt. So the production should be owned by the American people. It's not that hard to do. Here in AZ we have privately owned electric companies but the gvt controls to a large extent what they can charge for electric. That was how it was in CA until it was deregulated and turned into an alledgedly free market. And the price when sky high. Exactly because demand has no elasticity so prices could be set at whatever price the producers whated. Its the same with oil, there is no elaticity on the demand side. That is OK for non-essentials like diamonds but it is not ok for non-elastic must have commodities, especially when they are comming from OUR land. A singnificant slackening of demand for oil will merely rusult in the producers producing less because of OPEC. An OPEC type orgainizaton in other products would rarely be allowed for internal US goods. Thats what we had 100 years ago when all the companies in a particular commodity got together and all agreed to set the price and none of the members would undercut it. That's what OPEC is. The control quantiy which means they control price. If they reduce quantiy the price goes up and consumers have no control over it. We cut back and then they cut back and raise the price. It's a win-win for them, they produce less, thereby saving their reserves, and still get just as much money. Until recently, OPEC sought to maintain the supply/price at a level they felt would not cause other gvts to feel the need to put pressure on them. They had all agreed to keep the price between 20 and 30 dollars a barrel. Once we invaded Iraq it allowed them to raise the price because thru no action on their part our invasion cut off some of the supply, letting them raaise prices. >>>There is a HUGE difference. There is no free market in oil. >>>Regardless of demand, the Arabs and others simply charge whatever they [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > a large extent what they can charge for electric. That was how it was > in CA until it was deregulated Hardly; try and build a new nuclear power plant,or even a coal-fired electric plant.Particularly in California. BTW,Recently,they blocked the expansion of an existing oil refinery there. > and turned into an alledgedly free > market. And the price when sky high. Exactly because demand has no [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > their part our invasion cut off some of the supply, letting them > raaise prices. Iraq was ALREADY restricted from selling it's oil BEFORE the Iraq Invasion. they were limited to selling a small amount by the UN "oil for food" program.(a corrupted program.) I believe Iraq is now selling more oil than it did before the invasion. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Iraq was ALREADY restricted from selling it's oil BEFORE the Iraq Invasion. > they were limited to selling a small amount by the UN "oil for food" > program.(a corrupted program.) > > I believe Iraq is now selling more oil than it did before the invasion. I believe that may be the case. The real question is how does current production compare to what it was producing prior to 1990. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.