Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I'll take the Bush administration seriously when I hear it propose a reduction in gasoline taxes.
Ahhhh...the sweet smell of Socialism
- Thread starter Sindawe
- Start date
- Status
Kodiaz, Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to warn about the dangers of government involvement in commerce, industry and indeed our very lives. When I read it, 15 years ago, I thought it was interesting but a little outlandish, especially when the government made it illegal to quit your job. I no longer believe that. It is a very long book, but a very good read, and something that you should buy. Paperbacks are cheap.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
Read this again, folks. Re-read it until it sinks in. This is probably the only rational take on the "oil problem" anyone will present to you.
The price of gas is high due to speculation in the oil futures markets, NOT because we're running out of it, NOT because of corporate "price-gouging" (sic), NOT because of Bush's "war for oil" (sic), and NOT because of any of the myriad other half-baked explanations floating around in the media.
We have problems with gasoline refining and taxation, but both of these problems are easily solvable, provided we actually want to solve them. So far, America doesn't seem to want to do anything sensible about this mess. All we wanna do is play politics while the country slides further and further away from a proper solution.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Oil companies are averse to risk. This tax reduces the willingness to take risks in return for hoped-for profits. Therefore, there will be less exploratory drilling in the near-term future, so long as this tax is in place.
That means an eventual reduction in supply, regardless of the optimistic notion that there is plenty of oil yet to be found, produced and transported to points of use. If you don't explore, you don't add to the existing supply.
IOW, future shortages and higher prices.
Art
That means an eventual reduction in supply, regardless of the optimistic notion that there is plenty of oil yet to be found, produced and transported to points of use. If you don't explore, you don't add to the existing supply.
IOW, future shortages and higher prices.
Art
mountainclmbr
Member
I am currently reading Atlas Shrugged. A good read so far. Interesting that Colorado features so prominently. The railroad Ayn Rand mentions that goes west from Denver, hugging the side of cliffs and goes through the long tunnel through the continental divide actually passes about 1000 ft below my house on the mountain. The Fair Profit Board does sound like one of the government agencies in Atlas Shrugged. That was the first thing I thought about when I read that!
But...there is a monopoly before the dice are thrown--the bank owns everything at the beginning!
Seriously, though, gas taxes should be eliminated, and replaced with an "illegal alien invader" tax, requiring companies to pay 100% of each alien's gross annual earnings every month/. Talk about fixing things...
Although I think the post is good in the round, there are some holes.
There may not be a supply problem, per se, but there is no reserve pumping capacity (at least none that can be demonstrated). Oil pumped by OPEC hasn't increased for 6 months, and lots of people are wondering if it CANT be increased.
In the absence of excess supply:
- A cartel goes out the window, it has no pricing control. Everybody is pumping like mad, and pocketing dollars commeasurately.
- Speculators WILL bid up the price, since the only events on the horizon are going to be DISRUPTIONS (and even a little one will become more serious, as it will affect forward pricing).
- The falling dollar will continue to put price pressure on all commodities, especially NON-RENEWABLES like oil.
Light/sweet crudes ratio (in the refineries) is declining, as alternative oil deposits are tapped. Tar sands, oil shale, etc. require different equipment to refine. Although sour/heavy sells at around a $20/bbl discount, it produces a gasoline only .02 cheaper.
At some point, we've gotta face that we are seeing the results of global competition for resources that aren't expanding. And we're competing with an increasingly inferior currency (blame the Fed).
Like it or not, that's the bottom line on oil.
The government red-tape to bringing new supply and refining online, and it's taxation, is where effort should be focused to remove same.
dmallind
Member
As the poster above said, perhaps more technically than I can, not all oil is equal. There can be trillions of barrels in shale flats but how much does it cost to extract and refine? For how much can it be sold? To say oil is available is like saying hydrogen is available for fuel use. It's not the gross supply that's the issue - it's the cost of making it saleable and the price once that is done.
So in other words the supply of easily extractable, easily refinable, high quality oil is definitely NOT greater than it was, and so supply IS causing, in some part, along with refining, taxation, gouging, speculation etc etc, high gasoline prices.
So in other words the supply of easily extractable, easily refinable, high quality oil is definitely NOT greater than it was, and so supply IS causing, in some part, along with refining, taxation, gouging, speculation etc etc, high gasoline prices.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
If you don't believe there is a looming supply problem, I'd like to introduce you to the tooth fairy. Now, that doesn't mean that supply is not also responding to market conditions, as well as the effects of regulation. But oil supplies are finite, whereas demand is infinite, at least in terms of what the economy needs to keep growing at the pace we demand.
The reason oil companies haven't been interested in investing in refinery capacity is they know the stock isn't going to be there for them to make back their investment. Of course, they would rather you blame the regulations.
The windfall tax proposal is a stupid, meaningless measure that will never result in a single fine, and the Congressmembers writing it know that. It is certainly not socialist. A socialist solution to the problem would be to put the whole production and marketing apparatus in the ownership and control of the State. We are a long way from that.
A better step would be to put a $1-2 per gallon tax on gas at the pump and use the money to fund alternative fuel R&D. Then you would see whether taxes affect the market. You don't have to worry about this, though.
The reason oil companies haven't been interested in investing in refinery capacity is they know the stock isn't going to be there for them to make back their investment. Of course, they would rather you blame the regulations.
The windfall tax proposal is a stupid, meaningless measure that will never result in a single fine, and the Congressmembers writing it know that. It is certainly not socialist. A socialist solution to the problem would be to put the whole production and marketing apparatus in the ownership and control of the State. We are a long way from that.
A better step would be to put a $1-2 per gallon tax on gas at the pump and use the money to fund alternative fuel R&D. Then you would see whether taxes affect the market. You don't have to worry about this, though.
Thin Black Line
Member
100% correct and hopefully, maybe, possibly we'll even find a way to
extract the oil from the rock without using a nuclear power plant melting
down on top of it, ie, it's highly energy intensive.
What happens if it takes the equivalent of burning 2 barrels of oil to get
1 barrel out of it?
Yes, we should be drilling off CA and in AK. I find it a little more than
ironic that we're willing to go to war in the Middle East and kill people
to secure our oil supplies, but we're worried about getting seals and seagulls
sticky. People in CA are heavy users of gasoline and therefore need to pony
up on producing that crude that lies off their coast untouched.
I think someone doesn't have to be an 'enviro' to be a NIMBY. Again, it's
just the average human hypocrisy. Everyone agrees that we need more
refining capacity, but just don't put the refinery in MY town
I see a lot of inconsistencies (not that I never commit them either), but lets flesh them out...
Malone, how do you get from (excellent points BTW):
To (not such a good idea):
What makes you think giving the government more money to redistribute (to its cronies) will solve the problem more efficiently than having the govt cut the red tape, sell Western lands that are resource rich to the private sector, and let the market take over?
Now there are many hidden mouthfuls in your 1 sentence:
The currency we use to buy oil is renewable, the resource isn't. If you had a non-renewable resource, how long would you continue to trade it for something created out of thin air, once your supply had peaked? How does this bode for our national security? The Malaysians calls for oil-for-gold only start to send a shiver down my spine.
What the economies (plural) need is more oil out of the ground, YOY at 3-5% or better. Right now, the wells that require pressure injection (steam, water, air) to get the oil out are being super-pressurized to get the crude out faster. That results in geologic collapses in the deposits, which means less crude retrieved (it remains trapped) than anticipated over the long term. It's a vicious cycle, faster you pump, the less you can extract.
If everybody in OPEC is cheating (pumping as fast as they can) to satisfy demand at these prices, then we are seeing the end of pumping capacity, for a declining resource (light sweet).... not a good position for the consumer to be in. Oil is cheap right now, looking forward, unless demand drops substantially.
People see a rise in crude reserves (in the USA) and think "ahh there's plenty of oil!". Thats wishful thinking, the reason reserves are going up is because we lost a bunch of refining capacity (NOLA), but are still buying crude at a breakneck pace. Anytime a refinery is down, you will see crude supplies increase, but not for long.
Malone, how do you get from (excellent points BTW):
To (not such a good idea):
What makes you think giving the government more money to redistribute (to its cronies) will solve the problem more efficiently than having the govt cut the red tape, sell Western lands that are resource rich to the private sector, and let the market take over?
Now there are many hidden mouthfuls in your 1 sentence:
The currency we use to buy oil is renewable, the resource isn't. If you had a non-renewable resource, how long would you continue to trade it for something created out of thin air, once your supply had peaked? How does this bode for our national security? The Malaysians calls for oil-for-gold only start to send a shiver down my spine.
What the economies (plural) need is more oil out of the ground, YOY at 3-5% or better. Right now, the wells that require pressure injection (steam, water, air) to get the oil out are being super-pressurized to get the crude out faster. That results in geologic collapses in the deposits, which means less crude retrieved (it remains trapped) than anticipated over the long term. It's a vicious cycle, faster you pump, the less you can extract.
If everybody in OPEC is cheating (pumping as fast as they can) to satisfy demand at these prices, then we are seeing the end of pumping capacity, for a declining resource (light sweet).... not a good position for the consumer to be in. Oil is cheap right now, looking forward, unless demand drops substantially.
People see a rise in crude reserves (in the USA) and think "ahh there's plenty of oil!". Thats wishful thinking, the reason reserves are going up is because we lost a bunch of refining capacity (NOLA), but are still buying crude at a breakneck pace. Anytime a refinery is down, you will see crude supplies increase, but not for long.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Putting a tax on gas is negative reinforcement. Doesn't work.
There should be an incentive not to use gas, not a penalty.
Say like a massive tax break to anyone to uses a hybrid or w/e.
Show people how they can make money, not lose it. Positive reinforcement works better.
There should be an incentive not to use gas, not a penalty.
Say like a massive tax break to anyone to uses a hybrid or w/e.
Show people how they can make money, not lose it. Positive reinforcement works better.
xd9fan
Member
Agreed, the power to tax is the power to destroy. All it does is create more social control. It does not solve ANY market problem.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
It ain't socialism; it's pandering to the mob. From StratFor:
"In short, we have entered what could aptly be called "the silly season" -- a perennial feature in American politics. An election looms. The president is unpopular, and his party is running from him. The Democrats have a realistic chance to capturing one chamber of Congress, possibly even both, but they remain rudderless -- even on energy policy. Both sides, it seems, are desperate -- and as a result, May and June will be a dangerous period during which, in efforts to "fix" the energy mess, politicians could take decisions that either fail to achieve their stated goals or, worse, carry significant unintended consequences.
Unintended Consequences
Typically, decisions made during the silly season tend to be fairly benign. They are seen most often in pork-barrel spending projects that, though they increase debt over the long term, only barely add to the risks of a serious financial crash.
But the silly season also has a dark side, particularly when government makes decisions quickly or under substantial public pressure. These dangers are well-known in Washington.
(Snip)
The Politics of Action
When it comes to gasoline prices, it is a political imperative that members of Congress act. High prices are hurting consumers, who are looking to the government to solve their problems. This, many would say, is why they pay taxes.
But the solutions to high gasoline prices are strategic, not tactical. They cannot be fixed by congressional fiat before the November election. This puts policymakers in a bind. The only question is whether Congress will do dumb things in response to public pressure, whether it will find some way to get what its members need politically (while doing as little harm as possible to the economy), or whether it will actually do something significant, with positive implications for the long term.
The easiest path forward, of course, is to continue down that already charted: To pander to the public, winning as many political points as possible with symbolic proposals that bolster each congressman's standing in his party and home district. This is "been there, done that" territory. For instance, Republicans frequently have put forward proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, knowing full well that Democrats would put all their efforts into defeating them. Saving the ANWR has been a key plank in the Democratic Party's environmental platform; opening it was central to the GOP's. But for the Democrats, what it cost to save ANWR was frequently the political capital needed to push forward increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. A perfect deadlock was created in which both political parties got what they needed from the debate -- political points -- but the United States got a policy that encouraged neither development nor conservation of energy resources."
And so on and so forth. As StratFor sez, pandering to the mob and playing politics for campaigning rhetoric.
Art
"In short, we have entered what could aptly be called "the silly season" -- a perennial feature in American politics. An election looms. The president is unpopular, and his party is running from him. The Democrats have a realistic chance to capturing one chamber of Congress, possibly even both, but they remain rudderless -- even on energy policy. Both sides, it seems, are desperate -- and as a result, May and June will be a dangerous period during which, in efforts to "fix" the energy mess, politicians could take decisions that either fail to achieve their stated goals or, worse, carry significant unintended consequences.
Unintended Consequences
Typically, decisions made during the silly season tend to be fairly benign. They are seen most often in pork-barrel spending projects that, though they increase debt over the long term, only barely add to the risks of a serious financial crash.
But the silly season also has a dark side, particularly when government makes decisions quickly or under substantial public pressure. These dangers are well-known in Washington.
(Snip)
The Politics of Action
When it comes to gasoline prices, it is a political imperative that members of Congress act. High prices are hurting consumers, who are looking to the government to solve their problems. This, many would say, is why they pay taxes.
But the solutions to high gasoline prices are strategic, not tactical. They cannot be fixed by congressional fiat before the November election. This puts policymakers in a bind. The only question is whether Congress will do dumb things in response to public pressure, whether it will find some way to get what its members need politically (while doing as little harm as possible to the economy), or whether it will actually do something significant, with positive implications for the long term.
The easiest path forward, of course, is to continue down that already charted: To pander to the public, winning as many political points as possible with symbolic proposals that bolster each congressman's standing in his party and home district. This is "been there, done that" territory. For instance, Republicans frequently have put forward proposals to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, knowing full well that Democrats would put all their efforts into defeating them. Saving the ANWR has been a key plank in the Democratic Party's environmental platform; opening it was central to the GOP's. But for the Democrats, what it cost to save ANWR was frequently the political capital needed to push forward increases in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. A perfect deadlock was created in which both political parties got what they needed from the debate -- political points -- but the United States got a policy that encouraged neither development nor conservation of energy resources."
And so on and so forth. As StratFor sez, pandering to the mob and playing politics for campaigning rhetoric.
Art
Thin Black Line
Member
Roger that, nothing like patronage and the Circus to keep Rome afloat.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Funny how everyone says a higher gas tax wouldn't work when that is the one option that has never been tried in this country. In places where it is policy, like, for instance, all of Europe, their GDP per energy unit is a fraction of ours. They are in better shape in many ways to weather the coming disruptions than we are.
Now, Britian should receive everyone's jeering contempt for whizzing away the North Sea reserves in a couple of decades, but that's another story that I don't suppose Lady Thatcher would appreciate our talking about.
antarti:
Alas, read it and weep. Peak or undulating plateau? You decide.
The rest you said I agree with.
Also what Art said.
Now, Britian should receive everyone's jeering contempt for whizzing away the North Sea reserves in a couple of decades, but that's another story that I don't suppose Lady Thatcher would appreciate our talking about.
antarti:
Well, I think it could be used well, but the main reason is really for the price signal effect on consumption. So I would be OK with making it 100% revenue neutral. Cut another tax somewhere you don't like.
Alas, read it and weep. Peak or undulating plateau? You decide.
The rest you said I agree with.
Also what Art said.
JohnBT
Member
I paid $2.73 for regular yesterday. That's a 24-cent price drop.
To my way of thinking the problem isn't supply, it's waaay too much demand.
______________
"Putting a tax on gas is negative reinforcement."
Not to be too picky about operant conditioning terminology, but I think you mean punishment and not negative reinforcement. (I studied physics and operant conditioning in undergrad school. Strange combo, no?)
"Reinforcers may be positive or negative. A positive reinforcer reinforces when it is presented; a negative reinforcer reinforces when it is withdrawn. Negative reinforcement is not punishment. Reinforcers always strengthen behavior; that is what "reinforced" means. Punishment is used to suppress behavior. It consists of removing a positive reinforcer or presenting a negative one. It often seems to operate by conditioning negative reinforcers. The punished person henceforth acts in ways which reduce the threat of punishment and which are incompatible with, and hence take the place of, the behavior punished." - www.bfskinner.org
To my way of thinking the problem isn't supply, it's waaay too much demand.
______________
"Putting a tax on gas is negative reinforcement."
Not to be too picky about operant conditioning terminology, but I think you mean punishment and not negative reinforcement. (I studied physics and operant conditioning in undergrad school. Strange combo, no?)
"Reinforcers may be positive or negative. A positive reinforcer reinforces when it is presented; a negative reinforcer reinforces when it is withdrawn. Negative reinforcement is not punishment. Reinforcers always strengthen behavior; that is what "reinforced" means. Punishment is used to suppress behavior. It consists of removing a positive reinforcer or presenting a negative one. It often seems to operate by conditioning negative reinforcers. The punished person henceforth acts in ways which reduce the threat of punishment and which are incompatible with, and hence take the place of, the behavior punished." - www.bfskinner.org
Wow, what a bunch of great posts all in a row... all addressing different facets.
Absolutely, the tax structure on fuels totally backward, taxing proportionally to the BTU content. Basically, the most space/energy/storage efficient fuels (diesel, bunker fuels) are taxed higher than less BTU efficient (gasoline, CNG, LP, coal) fuels.
It's basically giving incentives to burn wood/coal/gases instead of use nuclear power. Precisely the wrong direction.
Art, that's a great find. I can't believe that "fairly benign" and "barely add to the risks of a serious financial crash" were used here in such close proximity. With the pain the country saw during the last crash (The Great Depression), I guess our politicians are "barely" playing Russian roulette with our heads? LOL! The cumulative effects of 100 "silly seasons" is catching up.
The current state taxes started far lower than they are now. Wouldn't it be akin to higher taxes on food to slim America down? If 20 cents is good, would $6.00/gal tax be better? This is an age old economics problem. Marx has one view of Praxeology and taxation, Von Mises another.
Wouldn't raising fuel costs for commercial and long/short-haul carriers cause price inflation for every item in the stores (all delivered by locomotive/plane/ship, then ultimately truck)? Between increased fuel and sales tax revenues, only the governments are enriched, while our standard of living suffers.
I think Americans are getting the signal loud and clear right now. Given a future Iranian and Norwegian oil bourse and resulting petroEuros that may become fashionable, we will be looking back on the "good old days" of $3 gallon fuel, while we wheelbarrel our greenbacks to the grocery to buy bread.
Oddly, I started investing in oil because Bush took office. I'd given up cherrypicking investments long ago, I just dump money in whatever industries bought and paid for the current President and hold while they're in office... seems to work like gangbusters. So my money was "in" energy before all this Peak Oil stuff. It's not Peak TOTAL Oil (yet), just Peak INEXPENSIVE Oil.
BUT, that said...
John wins the eloquence (and understatement) award.
Absolutely, the tax structure on fuels totally backward, taxing proportionally to the BTU content. Basically, the most space/energy/storage efficient fuels (diesel, bunker fuels) are taxed higher than less BTU efficient (gasoline, CNG, LP, coal) fuels.
It's basically giving incentives to burn wood/coal/gases instead of use nuclear power. Precisely the wrong direction.
Art, that's a great find. I can't believe that "fairly benign" and "barely add to the risks of a serious financial crash" were used here in such close proximity. With the pain the country saw during the last crash (The Great Depression), I guess our politicians are "barely" playing Russian roulette with our heads? LOL! The cumulative effects of 100 "silly seasons" is catching up.
The current state taxes started far lower than they are now. Wouldn't it be akin to higher taxes on food to slim America down? If 20 cents is good, would $6.00/gal tax be better? This is an age old economics problem. Marx has one view of Praxeology and taxation, Von Mises another.
Wouldn't raising fuel costs for commercial and long/short-haul carriers cause price inflation for every item in the stores (all delivered by locomotive/plane/ship, then ultimately truck)? Between increased fuel and sales tax revenues, only the governments are enriched, while our standard of living suffers.
I think Americans are getting the signal loud and clear right now. Given a future Iranian and Norwegian oil bourse and resulting petroEuros that may become fashionable, we will be looking back on the "good old days" of $3 gallon fuel, while we wheelbarrel our greenbacks to the grocery to buy bread.
Oddly, I started investing in oil because Bush took office. I'd given up cherrypicking investments long ago, I just dump money in whatever industries bought and paid for the current President and hold while they're in office... seems to work like gangbusters. So my money was "in" energy before all this Peak Oil stuff. It's not Peak TOTAL Oil (yet), just Peak INEXPENSIVE Oil.
BUT, that said...
John wins the eloquence (and understatement) award.
DRZinn
Member
I'll support gas taxes as high as they need to be to:
1. Pay for road construction and maintenance undertaken by the government.
2. Pay for the costs (which should nonetheless be minimal) of regulating the industry.
3. Ensure that no other taxes go toward these expenses.
And that's about it.
1. Pay for road construction and maintenance undertaken by the government.
2. Pay for the costs (which should nonetheless be minimal) of regulating the industry.
3. Ensure that no other taxes go toward these expenses.
And that's about it.
Sylvan-Forge
Member
sm
member
Absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep.-Eric Hoffer
Don't Tread On Me
Member
FYI, supporting taxes in that manner is socialist and statist. These economic beliefs are NOT compatible with American liberty or liberty in general as they empower governments and collectives. We;ve done far better than Europe whose tried that already, and this is despite massive governent protectionism of the oil industry.
There is nothing more oxymoronic than a tax and spender who believes in an individual RKBA. I get a good laugh out of the "pro-gun" people on a certain highly liberal forum. How you can have Marxist economic beliefs, yet support anarcho-libertarian social beliefs is beyond me.
The heart and soul of America is the middle class. These are the people paying the taxes and using the vehicles. Any professional or semi-professional middle class working man would seriously consider driving a hybrid if they could take 5-10% more of their paycheck home. IT really, really adds up and has a direct and serious impact on standard of living. We're talking the kind of money that can pay a lot of different bills, or allow for a vacation, or pay for private schooling of children or be rolled into savings and investments....
Building wealth is about time and consistency. People don't think about the implications of what just a few percentage points more money made/saved can have. Instead, they go for the negative approach of making something prohibitive.
Taxing people will just create more inflation, which has an ongoing effect on everyone. You won't pay the extra $1 per gallon tax. You'll pay $10. You'll pay that dollar everytime UPS drops something off, you'll pay that extra $1 tax when the milk gets delivered to the grocery store....Yet, your wages and earnings absolutely and positively do NOT go up to correspond with the inflation. And when they do, it is too little and too late.
Standard of living goes down. Isn't that the goal? Isn't the great gist here to increase the standard of living? Isn't that why we have an energy debate in the first place? If so, advocating policies that lower the standard of living are not applicable. Those ideas belong in Europe where all the elitist socio-fascist mini-hitlers can all get off on penalizing people to death for useage. This is the same exact mindset that believes in an gun-free utopia. These ideas come from the very same people who fantasize for a surveillance state.
We call these people "control freaks"
There is nothing more oxymoronic than a tax and spender who believes in an individual RKBA. I get a good laugh out of the "pro-gun" people on a certain highly liberal forum. How you can have Marxist economic beliefs, yet support anarcho-libertarian social beliefs is beyond me.
The heart and soul of America is the middle class. These are the people paying the taxes and using the vehicles. Any professional or semi-professional middle class working man would seriously consider driving a hybrid if they could take 5-10% more of their paycheck home. IT really, really adds up and has a direct and serious impact on standard of living. We're talking the kind of money that can pay a lot of different bills, or allow for a vacation, or pay for private schooling of children or be rolled into savings and investments....
Building wealth is about time and consistency. People don't think about the implications of what just a few percentage points more money made/saved can have. Instead, they go for the negative approach of making something prohibitive.
Taxing people will just create more inflation, which has an ongoing effect on everyone. You won't pay the extra $1 per gallon tax. You'll pay $10. You'll pay that dollar everytime UPS drops something off, you'll pay that extra $1 tax when the milk gets delivered to the grocery store....Yet, your wages and earnings absolutely and positively do NOT go up to correspond with the inflation. And when they do, it is too little and too late.
Standard of living goes down. Isn't that the goal? Isn't the great gist here to increase the standard of living? Isn't that why we have an energy debate in the first place? If so, advocating policies that lower the standard of living are not applicable. Those ideas belong in Europe where all the elitist socio-fascist mini-hitlers can all get off on penalizing people to death for useage. This is the same exact mindset that believes in an gun-free utopia. These ideas come from the very same people who fantasize for a surveillance state.
We call these people "control freaks"
A couple of posters really hit the nail on the head here
Texas1911fan, Antarti and a few others. I don't think oil is infinite (a theory among some Russian oil geologists) and I do think the days of cheap oil have ended. Tar sand, shale oil and heavy crude are now more attractive because of the price of light crude, but at what cost? We need to work on ending our dependance on foreign oil by ending our dependance on oil, period. As long as the world operates on an oil based economy we will have troops and ships in the Mid East to help ensure a stable energy supply. And as long as we have a dependance on oil we will be vulnerable to things like the Russians shutting off the supply of natural gas to the Ukraine and most of Europe for a few days in the middle of winter in order to get the price they want. Oil and gas are now weapons to be used on the parts of the world that don't have it.
Texas1911fan, Antarti and a few others. I don't think oil is infinite (a theory among some Russian oil geologists) and I do think the days of cheap oil have ended. Tar sand, shale oil and heavy crude are now more attractive because of the price of light crude, but at what cost? We need to work on ending our dependance on foreign oil by ending our dependance on oil, period. As long as the world operates on an oil based economy we will have troops and ships in the Mid East to help ensure a stable energy supply. And as long as we have a dependance on oil we will be vulnerable to things like the Russians shutting off the supply of natural gas to the Ukraine and most of Europe for a few days in the middle of winter in order to get the price they want. Oil and gas are now weapons to be used on the parts of the world that don't have it.
Sindawe
Member
Well isn't this special....
Speaking of control freaks, have a gander what what our representatives in congress pass last week....
Speaking of control freaks, have a gander what what our representatives in congress pass last week....
- Status
