How to Stop the BP OIl Leak
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, and you are deliberately misconstruing what I've continually and consistently said.
Fossil fuels get a leg up, so it's fair IMO that renewables get at least THE SAME assistance.
But what I really want, and you know it, is to remove the artificial assistance that oil and other fossil fuels get.
I posted this a year ago. I guess you forgot...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1500018
Go half way down the page. It completely destroys your argument about oil being "subsidized" more than other sources.
No, and you are deliberately misconstruing what I've continually and consistently said.
Fossil fuels get a leg up, so it's fair IMO that renewables get at least THE SAME assistance.
But what I really want, and you know it, is to remove the artificial assistance that oil and other fossil fuels get.
I posted this a year ago. I guess you forgot...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1500018
Go half way down the page. It completely destroys your argument about oil being "subsidized" more than other sources.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yet you want to put MASSIVE duties on a very important consumer good that makes lives better.
LOL, so by your very words, oil is MASSIVELY subsidised.
Good work Tempest.
Please explain to me where I said oil is "massively subsidized." That's serious head shaker.
Duties = tariffs = taxes. That is NOT a subsidy.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Yet you want to put MASSIVE duties on a very important consumer good that makes lives better.
LOL, so by your very words, oil is MASSIVELY subsidised.
Good work Tempest.
Please explain to me where I said oil is "massively subsidized." That's serious head shaker.
Duties = tariffs = taxes. That is NOT a subsidy.
You stated that my desire for both energy streams to be treated equally was a MASSIVE subsidy to green power.
Therefore, oil IS subsidised, and it is MASSIVE...as per your argument...
To reinforce the point, you also state that to make imported oil pay it's way (java's post), is a MASSIVE duty.
Therefore, oil IS subsidised, and it is MASSIVE...as per your argument...
To reinforce the point, you also state that to make imported oil pay it's way (java's post), is a MASSIVE duty.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So what will happen to the economy with say...$15 a gallon gas. How many resources will be available to develop these alternatives? Not many. Just getting food will be tough.
The better the economy, the more resources are available to develop new things. A bad economy, as you openly want ("short term pain") is the opposite of this.
Quote:
This has been true for any technology that eventually becomes ubiquitous. Look at cars, televisions, computers, even energy became cheaper as it became wide spread.
Do you think they would have so ubiquitous if their prices were artificially kept 5 times higher? These were made available due to a free market. The exact opposite of what you want here.
And as SteveS and I said, we will be paying the bills to be across the globe, oil or not. Your logic assumes that this will not be happening if we didn't need foreign oil. We were across the globe long before we needed large amounts of foreign oil. So simply adding up our activity in certain areas holds NO water.
Quote:
I'm all for free markets.
Yet you want to put MASSIVE duties on a very important consumer good that makes lives better.
Oil is ALREADY subsidized. All the free protection they get to import the oil is not factored into the price.
I want to pass the costs of the subsidies to those who are using the product, at a rate that matches their usage.
Instead of just taxing everyone, regardless how much oil they use, tax the imported oil to reflect the actual costs to import oil, and let those using it pay those costs.
You know, the market at work.
That way, if imported oil is still the cheapest form, the market will keep using the taxed imported oil.
If other, cheaper forms of energy can be found, the market will use those.
But as long as imported oil doesn't reflect the real costs of providing that oil, then the market will not accurately pick the most efficient means.
I'm not against the free market, I simply don't believe the current situation reflects the costs, and imported oil is subsidized by federal dollars.
So what will happen to the economy with say...$15 a gallon gas. How many resources will be available to develop these alternatives? Not many. Just getting food will be tough.
The better the economy, the more resources are available to develop new things. A bad economy, as you openly want ("short term pain") is the opposite of this.
Quote:
This has been true for any technology that eventually becomes ubiquitous. Look at cars, televisions, computers, even energy became cheaper as it became wide spread.
Do you think they would have so ubiquitous if their prices were artificially kept 5 times higher? These were made available due to a free market. The exact opposite of what you want here.
And as SteveS and I said, we will be paying the bills to be across the globe, oil or not. Your logic assumes that this will not be happening if we didn't need foreign oil. We were across the globe long before we needed large amounts of foreign oil. So simply adding up our activity in certain areas holds NO water.
Quote:
I'm all for free markets.
Yet you want to put MASSIVE duties on a very important consumer good that makes lives better.
Oil is ALREADY subsidized. All the free protection they get to import the oil is not factored into the price.
I want to pass the costs of the subsidies to those who are using the product, at a rate that matches their usage.
Instead of just taxing everyone, regardless how much oil they use, tax the imported oil to reflect the actual costs to import oil, and let those using it pay those costs.
You know, the market at work.
That way, if imported oil is still the cheapest form, the market will keep using the taxed imported oil.
If other, cheaper forms of energy can be found, the market will use those.
But as long as imported oil doesn't reflect the real costs of providing that oil, then the market will not accurately pick the most efficient means.
I'm not against the free market, I simply don't believe the current situation reflects the costs, and imported oil is subsidized by federal dollars.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, and you are deliberately misconstruing what I've continually and consistently said.
Fossil fuels get a leg up, so it's fair IMO that renewables get at least THE SAME assistance.
But what I really want, and you know it, is to remove the artificial assistance that oil and other fossil fuels get.
I posted this a year ago. I guess you forgot...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1500018
Go half way down the page. It completely destroys your argument about oil being "subsidized" more than other sources.
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, and you are deliberately misconstruing what I've continually and consistently said.
Fossil fuels get a leg up, so it's fair IMO that renewables get at least THE SAME assistance.
But what I really want, and you know it, is to remove the artificial assistance that oil and other fossil fuels get.
I posted this a year ago. I guess you forgot...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1500018
Go half way down the page. It completely destroys your argument about oil being "subsidized" more than other sources.
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
That is what they are trying to say, and I proved them wrong in my posts but they don't want to deal with that so they ignore it.
We are around the world in areas where there is no oil. We are also NOT in areas where there is oil. Of the top 15 importers of oil to the US, only 3 are in the Middle East.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...ent/import.html
The other areas we have little or no military involvement.
Afghanistan is not anywhere on the list, yet they still want that to add it to the price simply because it's in the neighborhood. In fact, they are an importer of oil, and export NOTHING.
http://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/oil_imports.html
This line of reasoning is completely invalid but it gets them where they want...higher gas prices.
We are ALREADY subsidizing "alternatives" at a MUCH greater rate than we do oil. Europe MORE than leveled the playing field and that resulted in complete disaster. They ignore these facts as though they are not happening.
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
That is what they are trying to say, and I proved them wrong in my posts but they don't want to deal with that so they ignore it.
We are around the world in areas where there is no oil. We are also NOT in areas where there is oil. Of the top 15 importers of oil to the US, only 3 are in the Middle East.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...ent/import.html
The other areas we have little or no military involvement.
Afghanistan is not anywhere on the list, yet they still want that to add it to the price simply because it's in the neighborhood. In fact, they are an importer of oil, and export NOTHING.
http://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/oil_imports.html
This line of reasoning is completely invalid but it gets them where they want...higher gas prices.
We are ALREADY subsidizing "alternatives" at a MUCH greater rate than we do oil. Europe MORE than leveled the playing field and that resulted in complete disaster. They ignore these facts as though they are not happening.
They also like to ignore the fact that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they make in profits. In fact taxes are the second largest cost oil companies have after the oil itself.
Quote:
Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
Quote:
Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
That is what they are trying to say, and I proved them wrong in my posts but they don't want to deal with that so they ignore it.
We are around the world in areas where there is no oil. We are also NOT in areas where there is oil. Of the top 15 importers of oil to the US, only 3 are in the Middle East.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...ent/import.html
The other areas we have little or no military involvement.
Afghanistan is not anywhere on the list, yet they still want that to add it to the price simply because it's in the neighborhood. In fact, they are an importer of oil, and export NOTHING.
http://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/oil_imports.html
This line of reasoning is completely invalid but it gets them where they want...higher gas prices.
We are ALREADY subsidizing "alternatives" at a MUCH greater rate than we do oil. Europe MORE than leveled the playing field and that resulted in complete disaster. They ignore these facts as though they are not happening.
Honest question, are you intentionally being obtuse?
I've clearly said to charge the costs of the foreign policy to maintain oil security. So what is the non-sequitur you bring up about the military being in other places.
Either your thinking is cloudy, or you are trying to cloud the issue and distort what other folks have said.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt one final time. But if you continue to distort what I and other folks have said, then I for one will just treat you as the idiot you present yourself to be. Right now, I don't think you are an idiot. But you can still prove me wrong.
Clear?
If you don't understand, ask, don't assume. Don't be disrespectful and distort what I and others have said. I'm pretty sure distortion goes against the TOS here. So if you continue, the consequences lay solely on your shoulders.
We may only have the military in three or so places. That is true. However, the market for oil is a GLOBAL market. Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe. So the value of the stability in the middle east goes further than just the price of the oil sourced there. It impacts the GLOBAL price of oil.
One may or may not be able to make an argument for Afghanistan, and I can see it both ways. So leave out Afghanistan, or only add a percentage of those costs.
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
Frankly, I've never said I was in favor of other subsidies. I'd like to see ALL subsidies go away. That would include the "free" subsidy to oil to keep it's price low due to our military presence around the world. That would include tax breaks for hybrid cars, solar, etc.
So please, don't try to tell us that moving our troops around doesn't keep the price of oil low relative to what it would be if there was wide spread conflict in the gulf region. It does have an impact and that impacts the price of oil world wide. The impact, positive or negative is not limited to middle eastern sourced oil.
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Don't forget the cost of having a military presence in the Persian Gulf/Middle East. Some would say that is a subsidy.
That is what they are trying to say, and I proved them wrong in my posts but they don't want to deal with that so they ignore it.
We are around the world in areas where there is no oil. We are also NOT in areas where there is oil. Of the top 15 importers of oil to the US, only 3 are in the Middle East.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro...ent/import.html
The other areas we have little or no military involvement.
Afghanistan is not anywhere on the list, yet they still want that to add it to the price simply because it's in the neighborhood. In fact, they are an importer of oil, and export NOTHING.
http://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/oil_imports.html
This line of reasoning is completely invalid but it gets them where they want...higher gas prices.
We are ALREADY subsidizing "alternatives" at a MUCH greater rate than we do oil. Europe MORE than leveled the playing field and that resulted in complete disaster. They ignore these facts as though they are not happening.
Honest question, are you intentionally being obtuse?
I've clearly said to charge the costs of the foreign policy to maintain oil security. So what is the non-sequitur you bring up about the military being in other places.
Either your thinking is cloudy, or you are trying to cloud the issue and distort what other folks have said.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt one final time. But if you continue to distort what I and other folks have said, then I for one will just treat you as the idiot you present yourself to be. Right now, I don't think you are an idiot. But you can still prove me wrong.
Clear?
If you don't understand, ask, don't assume. Don't be disrespectful and distort what I and others have said. I'm pretty sure distortion goes against the TOS here. So if you continue, the consequences lay solely on your shoulders.
We may only have the military in three or so places. That is true. However, the market for oil is a GLOBAL market. Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe. So the value of the stability in the middle east goes further than just the price of the oil sourced there. It impacts the GLOBAL price of oil.
One may or may not be able to make an argument for Afghanistan, and I can see it both ways. So leave out Afghanistan, or only add a percentage of those costs.
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
Frankly, I've never said I was in favor of other subsidies. I'd like to see ALL subsidies go away. That would include the "free" subsidy to oil to keep it's price low due to our military presence around the world. That would include tax breaks for hybrid cars, solar, etc.
So please, don't try to tell us that moving our troops around doesn't keep the price of oil low relative to what it would be if there was wide spread conflict in the gulf region. It does have an impact and that impacts the price of oil world wide. The impact, positive or negative is not limited to middle eastern sourced oil.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
They also like to ignore the fact that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they make in profits. In fact taxes are the second largest cost oil companies have after the oil itself.
Quote:
Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
How much military aid has been spent in the gulf region during the same period? Using the same inflation adjusted dollars?
They also like to ignore the fact that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they make in profits. In fact taxes are the second largest cost oil companies have after the oil itself.
Quote:
Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/10/gas_taxes_excee.html
How much military aid has been spent in the gulf region during the same period? Using the same inflation adjusted dollars?
Quote:
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
But I thought you were for a free market? Or is that a "distortion" of what you have said.
Why is oil any different from any other commodity freely traded? Answer: It's not. Yet you still want it to stop via non-market forces.
Quote:
Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe.
That is very true, which means that EVERY SINGLE dollar spent on the military, anywhere in the world, would have to be included in your equation. Including Afghanistan..but you just said to leave that out...
Including all military costs is not what you have stated, and why I brought up our military in other areas because you do have to include it all for the reasons YOU have stated. I'm not distorting anything.
Please tell me what would happen to our economy if we stop importing foreign oil.
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
But I thought you were for a free market? Or is that a "distortion" of what you have said.
Why is oil any different from any other commodity freely traded? Answer: It's not. Yet you still want it to stop via non-market forces.
Quote:
Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe.
That is very true, which means that EVERY SINGLE dollar spent on the military, anywhere in the world, would have to be included in your equation. Including Afghanistan..but you just said to leave that out...
Including all military costs is not what you have stated, and why I brought up our military in other areas because you do have to include it all for the reasons YOU have stated. I'm not distorting anything.
Please tell me what would happen to our economy if we stop importing foreign oil.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
How much military aid has been spent in the gulf region during the same period? Using the same inflation adjusted dollars?
How much has that foreign oil boosted our GDP?
How much military aid has been spent in the gulf region during the same period? Using the same inflation adjusted dollars?
How much has that foreign oil boosted our GDP?
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
But I thought you were for a free market? Or is that a "distortion" of what you have said.
Why is oil any different from any other commodity freely traded? Answer: It's not. Yet you still want it to stop via non-market forces.
Quote:
Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe.
That is very true, which means that EVERY SINGLE dollar spent on the military, anywhere in the world, would have to be included in your equation. Including Afghanistan..but you just said to leave that out...
Including all military costs is not what you have stated, and why I brought up our military in other areas because you do have to include it all for the reasons YOU have stated. I'm not distorting anything.
Please tell me what would happen to our economy if we stop importing foreign oil.
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
What would happen if we were to go to war, and have a long, protracted war such that we could not rely on oil imports, from anywhere? Not Canada, not Mexico, not South America, let alone Asia or the Middle East.
Yep, the free market says that the market sets the price, that's true. The problem is, the subsidies. The foreign oil (and to an extent, the domestic too) is subsidized by the military presence keeping peace in the middle east, patrolling the Gulf, keeping the canals open, and so forth.
So again, how much has been spent just on operations in the Middle East, more or less than the taxes you've cited?
Are we more or less secure, both economically as well as socially and militarily by depending on imported oil?
Quote:
Or better yet, stop importing oil, period.
But I thought you were for a free market? Or is that a "distortion" of what you have said.
Why is oil any different from any other commodity freely traded? Answer: It's not. Yet you still want it to stop via non-market forces.
Quote:
Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe.
That is very true, which means that EVERY SINGLE dollar spent on the military, anywhere in the world, would have to be included in your equation. Including Afghanistan..but you just said to leave that out...
Including all military costs is not what you have stated, and why I brought up our military in other areas because you do have to include it all for the reasons YOU have stated. I'm not distorting anything.
Please tell me what would happen to our economy if we stop importing foreign oil.
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
What would happen if we were to go to war, and have a long, protracted war such that we could not rely on oil imports, from anywhere? Not Canada, not Mexico, not South America, let alone Asia or the Middle East.
Yep, the free market says that the market sets the price, that's true. The problem is, the subsidies. The foreign oil (and to an extent, the domestic too) is subsidized by the military presence keeping peace in the middle east, patrolling the Gulf, keeping the canals open, and so forth.
So again, how much has been spent just on operations in the Middle East, more or less than the taxes you've cited?
Are we more or less secure, both economically as well as socially and militarily by depending on imported oil?
Quote:
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
Very optimistic...considering it has never been done and Europe's experience shows otherwise. And they didn't even stop oil from being imported. You are advocating complete economic collapse, demonstrated by historical fact. That is not "short term pain".
Quote:
What would happen if we were to go to war, and have a long, protracted war such that we could not rely on oil imports, from anywhere?
Never has happened in history, and there is no reason to believe that it will. You are really reaching here.
Quote:
keeping peace in the middle east, patrolling the Gulf, keeping the canals open, and so forth.
The "Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe" sure did disappear quick when it didn't serve your purpose any longer.
As I cited above, you can't simply separate these out via your own logic...but you are sure trying.
I would love to be completely reliant on domestic sources, but it isn't going to happen. Increasing energy prices has proven to be historically disastrous, something that I want to avoid.
How much has foreign oil boosted our GDP and economy?
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
Very optimistic...considering it has never been done and Europe's experience shows otherwise. And they didn't even stop oil from being imported. You are advocating complete economic collapse, demonstrated by historical fact. That is not "short term pain".
Quote:
What would happen if we were to go to war, and have a long, protracted war such that we could not rely on oil imports, from anywhere?
Never has happened in history, and there is no reason to believe that it will. You are really reaching here.
Quote:
keeping peace in the middle east, patrolling the Gulf, keeping the canals open, and so forth.
The "Disruptions in one area will drive prices all over the globe" sure did disappear quick when it didn't serve your purpose any longer.
I would love to be completely reliant on domestic sources, but it isn't going to happen. Increasing energy prices has proven to be historically disastrous, something that I want to avoid.
How much has foreign oil boosted our GDP and economy?
Odd, I never said anything that countered the idea that disruptions in one area...
If we got cut off, I'm sure that would drive prices high all over the globe.
No one every beat England either, then in the mid 1770's, a British Colony was able to defeat the worlds most powerful military and win their independence from the British crown. So never say never.
I asked my question first? Why would I answer yours while you withhold the answer to mine?
If we got cut off, I'm sure that would drive prices high all over the globe.
No one every beat England either, then in the mid 1770's, a British Colony was able to defeat the worlds most powerful military and win their independence from the British crown. So never say never.
I asked my question first? Why would I answer yours while you withhold the answer to mine?
Originally Posted By: prs
In time, with the weight of the water and sea floor mashing down upon the oil field, all the oil will be out and the leak will slow to an ooze. No body will even know in a few thousand years.
prs
And to think the world was supposed to run out of oil in the 1970s.
In time, with the weight of the water and sea floor mashing down upon the oil field, all the oil will be out and the leak will slow to an ooze. No body will even know in a few thousand years.
prs
And to think the world was supposed to run out of oil in the 1970s.
Quote:
Odd, I never said anything that countered the idea that disruptions in one area...
And yet you only mention certain areas??
So then you agree that every dollar spent on the military, any where in the world, should be included in your equation to increase oil prices? That should make answering how much more expensive you want to make oil imports much easier. Why can't you give at least a ball park figure?
And are we more or less secure with a devastated economy, as you support? I think the answer clear.
Odd, I never said anything that countered the idea that disruptions in one area...
And yet you only mention certain areas??
So then you agree that every dollar spent on the military, any where in the world, should be included in your equation to increase oil prices? That should make answering how much more expensive you want to make oil imports much easier. Why can't you give at least a ball park figure?
And are we more or less secure with a devastated economy, as you support? I think the answer clear.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Originally Posted By: prs
In time, with the weight of the water and sea floor mashing down upon the oil field, all the oil will be out and the leak will slow to an ooze. No body will even know in a few thousand years.
prs
And to think the world was supposed to run out of oil in the 1970s.
Even before that:
Quote:
Almost since the first discoveries of oil in the U.S. in 1859, people have been saying we're running out. In 1874, the state geologist of the nation's leading oil producer, Pennsylvania, warned the U.S. had enough oil to last just four years. In 1914, the federal government said we had a ten-year supply. The government announced in 1940 that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half. The Club of Rome made similar claims in the 1970s. President Carter famously predicted in 1977 that unless we made drastic cuts in our oil consumption, "Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil — from any country, at any acceptable price." And so it goes today, where a slew of books and Web sites make fantastic claims about dwindling supplies of crude.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4085
Originally Posted By: prs
In time, with the weight of the water and sea floor mashing down upon the oil field, all the oil will be out and the leak will slow to an ooze. No body will even know in a few thousand years.
prs
And to think the world was supposed to run out of oil in the 1970s.
Even before that:
Quote:
Almost since the first discoveries of oil in the U.S. in 1859, people have been saying we're running out. In 1874, the state geologist of the nation's leading oil producer, Pennsylvania, warned the U.S. had enough oil to last just four years. In 1914, the federal government said we had a ten-year supply. The government announced in 1940 that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half. The Club of Rome made similar claims in the 1970s. President Carter famously predicted in 1977 that unless we made drastic cuts in our oil consumption, "Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil — from any country, at any acceptable price." And so it goes today, where a slew of books and Web sites make fantastic claims about dwindling supplies of crude.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=4085
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
Very optimistic...considering it has never been done and Europe's experience shows otherwise. And they didn't even stop oil from being imported. You are advocating complete economic collapse, demonstrated by historical fact. That is not "short term pain".
Aren't you the bloke who has repeatedly told me that the (ever expanding) market will be able to respond correctly to oil being a finite resource ?
How would a disruption collapse it, when it is capable of responding to ultimately running out ?
Quote:
We would have short term pain, and then figure out a solution.
Very optimistic...considering it has never been done and Europe's experience shows otherwise. And they didn't even stop oil from being imported. You are advocating complete economic collapse, demonstrated by historical fact. That is not "short term pain".
Aren't you the bloke who has repeatedly told me that the (ever expanding) market will be able to respond correctly to oil being a finite resource ?
How would a disruption collapse it, when it is capable of responding to ultimately running out ?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
You don't understand, Shannow. Tempest is a naturalist at heart.
- Status
Similar threads
