Anyone watch "Oil Storm"?

[richyoung]

Article 1, Section 8:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I would be thrilled to pay taxes ONLY for those purposes - but none of this gives the Fed the power to GUARANTEE me or RATION me an otherwise legal and freely available comodity

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I'm not a foreign nation - nor am I a State. I am part indian, but hardly a whole tribe, (Unless it's a "Tribe of One", and since I'm only part - it would actually be a "Tribe of a Fraction"). Since I'm not one of those things, the Fed has no authority to "regulate my commerce".


NONE of which was understood by THE MEN WHO WROTE IT to do anything other than pre-empt the Sates and Indian tribes from charging taxes to each other, and allow the federal government to raise money by taxing imports and exports, You conventiently forgot to include the following:

Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...both of which HAD TO BE ADDED BEFORE the articles you cited were acceptable to be ratified!

 

[richyoung]

Somehow, it would seem the Great Depression showed the lack of validity of trusting solely to market forces to guide economic outputs.

Somehow, it would seem to me the examples of North Korea and Cuba, both FAR WORSE and for FAR LONGER than the Great Depression, would show the folly of trusting ANYTHING BUT market forces to allocate resources and stimulate development of new sources and substitutes. And for your info, were it not for the communist tamperings of Comrade Roosevelt, not only would the Great Depression have ended sooner, we wouldn't have the Social Security problem and bum currency to deal with today!

 

[Rebar]

The reason we use too much oil, is because of government regulation of nuclear power. Your solution is, to have government regulate oil?

What sense does that make?

 

[Sindawe]

It makes perfect sense Rebar, when you remember that the aim is not conservation, it is CONTROL.

 

[Mr. X]

I'm not a foreign nation - nor am I a State. I am part indian, but hardly a whole tribe, (Unless it's a "Tribe of One", and since I'm only part - it would actually be a "Tribe of a Fraction"). Since I'm not one of those things, the Fed has no authority to "regulate my commerce".

The Fed has power to regulate any commerce crossing state lines; what you do locally is up to the states, hence the 9th and 10th amendments. Oil and, often, water, are issues that involve many states and even foreign entities, meaning they are covered by the definition of interstate commerce.

And for your info, were it not for the communist tamperings of Comrade Roosevelt, not only would the Great Depression have ended sooner, we wouldn't have the Social Security problem and bum currency to deal with today!

How would you know that the Depression would've ended sooner? That's pure speculation. Even what Roosevelt did wasn't enough to end the depression, only mitigate it; the ultimate public sector stimulation of the private sector was WWII.

The Socialist Security issue is red herring and irrelevant to the idea of regulation of commerce and public sector stimulation of the private sector. Everyone knows transfer payments in no way affect GDP, being reallocations of output.

 

[Mr. X]

When the price of X gets too high then odd things call entrepreneurs creep in (kinda like nanobots with mortgages) and create a substitute for X at a better or similar price.

The ONLY time this doesn't happen, or doesn't happen reliably, is when the gvt is involved in supporting X.

That's why I also said, a million posts ago, that we don't need an energy policy except for the gvt to get out of the way.

And that's what the ANWR drilling thing is all about. Trying to get the tree huggers (ice huggers?) in gvt. out of the way.

There's plenty of oil and when it gets too expensive the above referenced market forces kick in.

That's nice, but that's a long-term solution and while you wait for these free-market solutions to be implemented and capital to be obtained, the economy will be collapsing under the weight of massive unemployment and inflation from a dearth of crucial resource, namely oil. There's also no doubt that current regulations regarding where resources can be obtained are hindering efforts to increase energy supplies and utilize these supplies for consumer products.

Like I said a million posts ago, this Depression-era mindset is no longer relevent.
The market doesn't work that way any more and the wealth isn't owned by a few "robber barons" and foreign bankers.

Socialism doesn't get better because some early 20th Century capitalists screwed up.

When does regulation become socialism (government reallocation of outputs and state ownership of property and capital)? Can you tell me that even in Adam Smith's day (predating socialism by over 50 years) that governments didn't regulate commerce? Lack of regulation lead to the kind of overextention of credit and speculation on margin that caused the Great Depression to start with.

I posit that the kind of pure laissez-faire capitalism you dream about was just that - a dream.

 

[Mr. X]

Assuming the citizens of Las Vegas own their municiple water supply, they would have been incredibly stupid to have done so, in which case they deserve to move. Otherwise, I don't see any elected representative signing off on such a deal - and if he did, he would immediately be impeached/recalled, and any such acts rescinded. See, I just saved Las Vegas WITHOUT the need for any statist/socialist intervention!

Doesn't the very idea that the citizens of LV would own their water supply in common reek of "socialism"? Free markets and all that rot.

 

[Control Group]

Assuming the citizens of Las Vegas own their municiple water supply, they would have been incredibly stupid to have done so, in which case they deserve to move. Otherwise, I don't see any elected representative signing off on such a deal - and if he did, he would immediately be impeached/recalled, and any such acts rescinded. See, I just saved Las Vegas WITHOUT the need for any statist/socialist intervention!

You're counting on an elected official - an officer of government - to do the right thing and deny the sale. ISn't this counting on government to prevent the free exchange of money for goods? Alternatively, you count on the citizens who own the water supply to not sell. Fine. But define ownership: the water table being contiguous across many pieces of property, who owns it? The owner owns the wate directly beneath him? What good does that do if the next fellow over draws down the supply? The citizens own the water table in common? First, that's the very collectivism you rail against, secondly it's effectively government (a group of citizens getting together and setting the rules for the use of a common resource). I fail to see how pure capitalism solves this problem. You're dealing with a scarce resource that is not easily quantified.

Another nonsense case - you really think that ALL the oil companies, who have to answer not only to their board of directors, shareholders, their retailers and distributers, ("I'm a GAS STATION - do you expect my customers to push their cars in here so I can check the oil?!?!") and (by the way) their CUSTOMERS to aquiesce to this? Not to mention that if China wanted to do that, they could simply buy up all the oil at the source - EXCEPT that any attempt to do so in a half-way free market would just result in prices rising until biomass, nukes, oil shale, etc replace imported oil anyway, Sorry, no sale - where did you go to school, and who filled your skull with all this Keynsian mush?

Why does the oil company have to answer to its distributors, who purchase oil from them? If the Chinese can pony up more cash, it's not only the company's best financial move, it's their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to accept the deal. Besides which, you implicitly grant that one entity controlling the entire oil supply is a bad thing, you just wish to trust the companies involved to not let that happen. It's interesting you trust the companies who are beholden only to profit and their shareholders (the same thing) to "do the right thing," but do not trust elected officials to "do the right thing."

No it isn't - its easy! I ask what part of the U.S. Constitution delegates the federal government the power to regulate ANYTHING (you know, like the Volmstedt ammmendmant granted the authority to regulate alcohol- since repealed), and then you don't answer.

" To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

Transport of oil and water across state lines in exchange for money is the very definition of "interstate commerce," the only thing the federal government is authorized to regulate. Article I, section 8. If the oil is produced and sold within a state, then the federal government has no authority to regulate it, true. Of course, given the current balance of oil imported versus domestically produced, it also falls under "commerce with foreign nations," another area of clear federal regulatory authority under any legitimate readion of the Constitution.

Second, even introducing the federal government is a bit of a red herring; my point is not that the feds should necessarily regulate anything, simply that some common resources should be regulated. At what level that regulation occurs was not something I was attempting to demonstrate: you yourself have chosen another level at which it could be handled in the case of the municipal water supply. That is, by the governing body of the municipality.

 

[Tag]

The problem, for all those with their heads in the sand, is that unless we do something soon to conserve the oil-energy we have, there will not be enough left to make the switch over to a hydrogen economy, or bio-diesel for that matter. What do you think our fertilizers and pesticides are made out of?
You can't just grow vast fields of convertible plant matter with little or no bio-diversity and expect it to last. Without pesticides and fertilizers, not to mention cheap transportation, you can forget driving; there will not be enough food to go around.
Synthetic petroleum is only a stop-gap, as coal is finite as well.

I don't think there is a solution. There are too many people.

I hope something will happen, maybe cold fusion, but I'm not counting on it.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Tag? It is an absolute fact,,,, Something will happen,,,,, good or bad we will know sometime in the future. A solution? I have none. The feds have none, either.

BUT,,,,, I do have faith in capitalism, if the feds get out of the way our dollars will rule, and we will not go hungry, or lack heat in the winter. Our planet has oil, and coal, and radio active materials, and even heavy water, and when the need surpasses the cost of production, it will be exploited.

The sky is falling, but it does not matter, we will survive.

 

[Tag]

I don't doubt that WE will survive, or that something new will rise out of the ruins, but there are a great many people who will not.

I have this sinking feeling that we are on the cusp of a disaster. North America, and parts of Europe and Asia will likely pull through, but much of the third world will probably not fair so well.

Gas for automobiles is one thing, power for the urban centers is another... If the lights go out metropolitian areas will become very strange places.

 

[Sindawe]

Tag, look at it this way. If things go south and the species experiences a large culling of the herd, future anthropologists will be able to look back on it as another great bottleneck in the genetic diversity. Only this one will have been self-induced, unlike the last one.

 

[jefnvk]

Does anyone have data on things like what parts of America's electricity are produced through Oil, and Nuclear, and Wind, and Hydroelectric, etc.? What are we looking at for power outages if the oil runs out tomorrow?

 

[ksnecktieman]

Tag? Maybe you should reevaluate? The third world, backwards countries will not be hit as hard as the modern energy dependent countries. They may not even know how bad we crashed

 

[richyoung]

Doesn't the very idea that the citizens of LV would own their water supply in common reek of "socialism"? Free markets and all that rot.

Yes it does - quite frankly, I would prefer each dwelling to either have its own well, or "subscribe" to water service, just like you do electric and cable. SINCE that is not the case, (and we BOTH know it), I was merely pointing out the holes in YOUR straw man. However, the "free markets, and all that rot" speaks VOLUMES about YOUR elitist/statist/collectivist mindset - thanks!

 

[richyoung]

You're counting on an elected official - an officer of government - to do the right thing and deny the sale. ISn't this counting on government to prevent the free exchange of money for goods? Alternatively, you count on the citizens who own the water supply to not sell. Fine. But define ownership: the water table being contiguous across many pieces of property, who owns it? The owner owns the wate directly beneath him? What good does that do if the next fellow over draws down the supply? The citizens own the water table in common? First, that's the very collectivism you rail against, secondly it's effectively government (a group of citizens getting together and setting the rules for the use of a common resource). I fail to see how pure capitalism solves this problem. You're dealing with a scarce resource that is not easily quantified.

Water rights are an interesting issue to be sure. I know of no state that DOESN'T already define "ownership" of water - in Texas, the "Law of Capture" currently applies - that may change. Either way, SOMEONE owns the water. At the CITY level, I have no problem with the citizens effectively having a "municiple cooperative" to assure an adequate supply of potable water, BUT there are private enterprise models that will do the same. To a certain extent, thats why we HAVE cities and city government. That's still not a case for state or federal rationing of water. In my town, Lawton, OK, (and in most that I've ever lived in) private property owners are BANNED from having or using wells, to FORCE you to buy water from the city, which is a HUGE source of revenue. Obviously, I would MUCH prefer a free market environment.

Why does the oil company have to answer to its distributors, who purchase oil from them?

They are called CONTRACTS - many of them run for years into the future - otherwise why do business with that supplier, when another one will?

If the Chinese can pony up more cash, it's not only the company's best financial move, it's their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to accept the deal.

You are making the false assumption that China could out-bid EVERYONE ELSE, and VOID exisitng contracts. Not to mention if China could do so, they could accomplish the SAME THING RIGHT NOW by buying it all up (or even better, putting it under long-term contract) RIGHT AT THE EXPORTING SOURCE, and there is NOTHING the U.S. could do. Even for a straw man, this is looking pretty ragged...

Besides which, you implicitly grant that one entity controlling the entire oil supply is a bad thing, you just wish to trust the companies involved to not let that happen.

Do you even have a CLUE how many different oil companies there are, and how HARD it is to get them to agree on anything? You might as well be concerned about all the air molecules rushing to the other side of your room, asphyxiating you...

It's interesting you trust the companies who are beholden only to profit and their shareholders (the same thing) to "do the right thing," but do not trust elected officials to "do the right thing."

If an oil company gets out of line, I can patronize their competitor. If the government gets out of line, there's nothing I can switch to. OF COURSE i don't trust elected officials - I think history will bear me out. Posting such an argument on a pro-gun board, I have to think you have a hidden agenda. Do you own stock in a keyboard manufacturer? Because you just caused a lot of soda and coffee to go into keyboards...


" To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"


That wording was already in the Constitution when Prohibition was passed. Read the ammendmant.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

How come the "commerce clause" wasn't sufficient to regulate alcohol, so they had to have the 18th ammendmant? If they had to pass this to have the power to regulate alcohol, how is oil, (or drugs, for that matter,) ANY DIFFERENT?

Transport of oil and water across state lines in exchange for money is the very definition of "interstate commerce," the only thing the federal government is authorized to regulate. Article I, section 8. If the oil is produced and sold within a state, then the federal government has no authority to regulate it, true. Of course, given the current balance of oil imported versus domestically produced, it also falls under "commerce with foreign nations," another area of clear federal regulatory authority under any legitimate readion of the Constitution.

But me buying it from Exxon after it is ALREADY IN is NOT "commerce with a foriegn nation"! Plus how do you tell at the pump where the 87 octane no-lead came from? Is it 100% domestic, 100% foriegn, or some mix? Do refineries even KEEP that kind of record?

Second, even introducing the federal government is a bit of a red herring; my point is not that the feds should necessarily regulate anything, simply that some common resources should be regulated.

Supply and demand will provide all the regulation needed. Anything less, or else, and the only difference between us and Cuba is degree. As Thomas Jefferson once said, if we let Washington D.C. dictate reaping and sowing, we will soon want for bread.

At what level that regulation occurs was not something I was attempting to demonstrate: you yourself have chosen another level at which it could be handled in the case of the municipal water supply. That is, by the governing body of the municipality.

Even in that case, in many municipalities, there is nothing that prevents you from buying bottled water in the store, using your own well, having water tanked in, (some whole communities have to do that), collecting rain water in a cistern, pumping out of surface ponds and creeks, etc. The muni water supply is just ONE (usually cheapest and most convenient) supply.

 

[richyoung]

The problem, for all those with their heads in the sand, is that unless we do something soon to conserve the oil-energy we have, there will not be enough left to make the switch over to a hydrogen economy, or bio-diesel for that matter.

Once again, WHY did we stop burning whale oil in lamps and putting it in our automatic transmissions? When was the "great whale oil shortage" that demanded a government program of rationing to "ease the transition"? The FREE MARKET will do all the rationing that needs to be done via rising prices and alternate and substitute sources.

Synthetic petroleum is only a stop-gap, as coal is finite as well.

YEp - we only have an 800 year supply, right here in the good oil USA. Almost 3/4 of the WORLD'S anthacite coal supply. After 800 years, I expect we will be using a different technology. The Germans solved converting coal into gasoline back in WWII - it's no mystery, and we are now running plants which convert turkey guts to diesel oil. As oil prices rise, more and more people will be starting up companies to do similar things.

I don't think there is a solution. There are too many people.

Your true colors are revealed - are volunteering to take the first personal step to remedy the situation, or do you REALLY mean "there are too amny OTHER people (driving up the cost of my gasoline)"?

 

[richyoung]

The Fed has power to regulate any commerce crossing state lines; what you do locally is up to the states, hence the 9th and 10th amendments.

Lucky I live in Oklahoma - I guess the rest of you are just out of luck!

Oil and, often, water, are issues that involve many states and even foreign entities, meaning they are covered by the definition of interstate commerce.

SOME oil and water does - some doesn't. And even if the Fed has the POWER and AUTHORITY to regulate it, that doesn't mean that it is WISE or GOOD, or even MORAL to do so.

How would you know that the Depression would've ended sooner?

Read and be enlightened!

That's pure speculation. Even what Roosevelt did wasn't enough to end the depression, only mitigate it; the ultimate public sector stimulation of the private sector was WWII.

Agreed - but that is NOT to say that the Depression couldn't have ended sooner, had FDR not impossed statist controls, programs, and policies that haunt us to this day.

The Socialist Security issue is red herring and irrelevant to the idea of regulation of commerce and public sector stimulation of the private sector.

The GOV was going to "fix" the "problem" of people being to dumb to save for their retirement by themselves, (401k? IRA? Pension? Anybody?) by taking money away from EVERYONE, loaning it to themselves so that legislators could buy votes with pork without having to raise the funds through taxation, resulting in the CRISIS we have now. And YOU want to trust the SAME GENIUSES that brought us this crisis, ABSCAM, the Teapot Dome scandal, the Keating Five, and numerous other acts of kleptomania and abuse of power with something as important as energy?

Everyone knows transfer payments in no way affect GDP, being reallocations of output.

This is too laughable to rebut.

 

[jefnvk]

The problem, for all those with their heads in the sand, is that unless we do something soon to conserve the oil-energy we have, there will not be enough left to make the switch over to a hydrogen economy, or bio-diesel for that matter.

My old boss always liked to say 'a lack of preperation on your part does not constitute an emergency to me'.

 

[Control Group]

They are called CONTRACTS - many of them run for years into the future - otherwise why do business with that supplier, when another one will?

Come now. If the income from the new deal exceeds the penalty for contract violation, it's still a good move. Beyond which, if you choose to argue that we should start your completely unregulated everything market right now, you're accepting all the regulation that got us to this point, including antitrust laws specifically designed, in part, to prevent an oil monopoly.

You are making the false assumption that China could out-bid EVERYONE ELSE, and VOID exisitng contracts. Not to mention if China could do so, they could accomplish the SAME THING RIGHT NOW by buying it all up (or even better, putting it under long-term contract) RIGHT AT THE EXPORTING SOURCE, and there is NOTHING the U.S. could do. Even for a straw man, this is looking pretty ragged...

Again, are we arguing principles or cases, here? You keep appealing to the idea that "yeah, it would be bad, but they wouldn't actually do that," or "look at their budget, they can't afford it," which has little bearing on the principle of the matter. It's a question of where they should be able to buy up all the oil, and if not, what will prevent them from doing so. You haven't mentioned a principle that prevents it, aside from they can't currently afford it. What if they could? Would the government be justified in stepping in at that point?

If we're talking about cases, it's much more effective for China (or our "hypothetical antagonist," if you prefer, since you've got problems accepting whether China would actually do this) to buy only the oil that's being sold to the US. Buying it at the source would mean they'd have to buy up the entire world's oil supply, buying it here would mean they only had to buy up what other countries didn't.

Do you even have a CLUE how many different oil companies there are, and how HARD it is to get them to agree on anything? You might as well be concerned about all the air molecules rushing to the other side of your room, asphyxiating you...

There are so many oil companies, in part, because of federal antitrust law, which you believe ought not exist. Standard Oil made a pretty good run at complete control of the country's oil supply, and certainly controlled more than enough of it to threaten the national supply. Besides which, even given our current scenario, the trend in industry is towards consolidation.

If an oil company gets out of line, I can patronize their competitor. If the government gets out of line, there's nothing I can switch to. OF COURSE i don't trust elected officials - I think history will bear me out. Posting such an argument on a pro-gun board, I have to think you have a hidden agenda. Do you own stock in a keyboard manufacturer? Because you just caused a lot of soda and coffee to go into keyboards...

Not if there are no competitors. That's my whole point. As was demonstrated quite clearly in the 19th century in this country, absent regulation, capitalism tends to monopoly. A business controlling the entire supply of something is no better than the government controlling it.

I'm not saying you should trust government officials more than you trust business, I'm saying you shouldn't trust business any more than you trust the government. What on Earth makes you think that a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running the government are less trustworthy than a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running BigCo? Any group of people past some size limit I've so far been unable to determine becomes a threat to liberty and the free market. The tendency in government is to consolidate power, and so is the tendency in business. I don't trust either of them. The only hope in my mind for your average citizen is to set one against the other, and hope that prevents either from getting too out of hand.

How come the "commerce clause" wasn't sufficient to regulate alcohol, so they had to have the 18th ammendmant? If they had to pass this to have the power to regulate alcohol, how is oil, (or drugs, for that matter,) ANY DIFFERENT?

Because "regulation" and "prohibition" don't mean the same thing, maybe? Or because the fed.gov could only have prevented the sale of alcohol across state lines, and they wanted to prevent its sale throughout the country? If the interstate commerce clause doesn't grant the fed.gov the authority to regulate the sale of goods between states, then what do you imagine it does do? The wording seems pretty clear to me - "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states" - at least as clear as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But me buying it from Exxon after it is ALREADY IN is NOT "commerce with a foriegn nation"! Plus how do you tell at the pump where the 87 octane no-lead came from? Is it 100% domestic, 100% foriegn, or some mix? Do refineries even KEEP that kind of record?

Of course it isn't. What makes you think I'm claiming it is? The feds clearly have no authority to regulate how much gas you buy at the pump. They have the authority to regulate how much oil a given state imports as a whole for the sake of ensuring CA doesn't prevent MT from getting any. The state may or may not have the authority to regulate the sale of oil within its borders, depending on its Constitution. Once again, though, this has nothing to do with the principle argument, which is whether or not any regulation should take place other than the "invisible hand of the marketplace."

Supply and demand will provide all the regulation needed. Anything less, or else, and the only difference between us and Cuba is degree. As Thomas Jefferson once said, if we let Washington D.C. dictate reaping and sowing, we will soon want for bread.

You have failed to demonstrate that supply and demand will provide all the regulation necessary in cases of common resources. You have so far appealed to existing contract law (government regulated), to the goodwill of China and that they'd be smarter to do it at the source, anyway (which still doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't happen), the infeasiblity of actually monopolizing oil in the modern world (which situation exists, in part, because of federal laws regulating monopoly), and to the commerce clause not granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce between the states (because it didn't let them prohibit all alcohol within the states). The only point on principle you've introduced is that you can go to the oil company's competitor, which is all well and good.

Unless there is no competitor, of course. Or unless the nature of the good in question is such that everyone else's purchasing decisions influence yours (the water supply). Speaking of which, I'll hop back up to the top:

Water rights are an interesting issue to be sure. I know of no state that DOESN'T already define "ownership" of water - in Texas, the "Law of Capture" currently applies - that may change. Either way, SOMEONE owns the water. At the CITY level, I have no problem with the citizens effectively having a "municiple cooperative" to assure an adequate supply of potable water, BUT there are private enterprise models that will do the same. To a certain extent, thats why we HAVE cities and city government. That's still not a case for state or federal rationing of water. In my town, Lawton, OK, (and in most that I've ever lived in) private property owners are BANNED from having or using wells, to FORCE you to buy water from the city, which is a HUGE source of revenue. Obviously, I would MUCH prefer a free market environment.

Your very first sentence implies government regulation, insofar as government decides what "ownership" means. Defining "ownership" as "you can take so much water per year from the water table" is clear regulation. Defining "ownership" as you can take as much water as you want from the water table as long as you get it from your land" just means whoever gets there first gets all of it. Not to mention that traditional concepts of ownership imply the right to destroy what you own. If I own a bottle of water, there's no reason I shouldn't mix it with bleach, Drano, or whatever else I have around the house. Does "ownership" as defined by the government imply I can destroy the portion of the water table I own? If it does, how do you protect other people's ownership rights? If it doesn't, how is that not "regulation" of the water supply?

In your town, water is, it seems, over-regulated. I don't disagree. In our country, virtually everything is over-regulated (except flag burning and offensive art). That doesn't mean regulation is bad, it means it's been implemented crappily. Plenty of private businesses have done horrifying things to their employees, to the cities in which they operate, and occasionally to the economy as a whole. That doesn't mean private enterprise is bad, it means that it's failed occasionally.

What private enterprise model will do the same as an organization representative of the population? This is not a claim that there are none, I'm actually curious what sort of model would work.

Ultimately, it comes down to me not accepting absolutes.

 

[Mr. X]

Lucky I live in Oklahoma - I guess the rest of you are just out of luck!

Living in Oklahoma is hardly what I'd call "luck." Or living.

The GOV was going to "fix" the "problem" of people being to dumb to save for their retirement by themselves, (401k? IRA? Pension? Anybody?) by taking money away from EVERYONE, loaning it to themselves so that legislators could buy votes with pork without having to raise the funds through taxation, resulting in the CRISIS we have now. And YOU want to trust the SAME GENIUSES that brought us this crisis, ABSCAM, the Teapot Dome scandal, the Keating Five, and numerous other acts of kleptomania and abuse of power with something as important as energy?

How does A affect B? Sounds like the undistributed middle fallacy.

This is too laughable to rebut.

Then you've proven that your grasp of economics is tenuous, at best.

At least you got to prove my assertion wrong.

 

[Mr. X]

Once again, WHY did we stop burning whale oil in lamps and putting it in our automatic transmissions? When was the "great whale oil shortage" that demanded a government program of rationing to "ease the transition"? The FREE MARKET will do all the rationing that needs to be done via rising prices and alternate and substitute sources.

Because we over-hunted them and drove prices up as supply dwindled, making oil a cheaper alternative?

YEp - we only have an 800 year supply, right here in the good oil USA. Almost 3/4 of the WORLD'S anthacite coal supply. After 800 years, I expect we will be using a different technology. The Germans solved converting coal into gasoline back in WWII - it's no mystery, and we are now running plants which convert turkey guts to diesel oil. As oil prices rise, more and more people will be starting up companies to do similar things.

Do we have the capacity to make an immediate switch, or will we have to wait a decade of shortages, massive inflation, unemployment and all, until we get enough capacity?

How come the "commerce clause" wasn't sufficient to regulate alcohol, so they had to have the 18th ammendmant? If they had to pass this to have the power to regulate alcohol, how is oil, (or drugs, for that matter,) ANY DIFFERENT?

It was sufficient to REGULATE alcohol, something that has been done by the Fed for more than 200 years now, but not PROHIBIT it.

But me buying it from Exxon after it is ALREADY IN is NOT "commerce with a foriegn nation"! Plus how do you tell at the pump where the 87 octane no-lead came from? Is it 100% domestic, 100% foriegn, or some mix? Do refineries even KEEP that kind of record?

If it crosses state lines or is offloaded at a port from overseas, it can be regulated. If it is produced, refined and sold only in TX, then it cannot be regulated.

Supply and demand will provide all the regulation needed. Anything less, or else, and the only difference between us and Cuba is degree. As Thomas Jefferson once said, if we let Washington D.C. dictate reaping and sowing, we will soon want for bread.

Market forces are long-term in nature and cannot deal with shortages unless a readily exploitable alternative exists. Right now, there is no such for water and the technology doesn't exist in sufficient quantity for exploiting coal, natural gas, or turkey guts into petroleum alternatives in the necessary quantities.

Thus, it is up to the Fed to prevent overuse of a resource that we can't do without and haven't the capital infrastructure to replace.

 

[richyoung]

Come now. If the income from the new deal exceeds the penalty for contract violation, it's still a good move.

Blow off al your regular customers for a one time buy? NOT good business. Not a good move. Have you ever owned or run a business?

Beyond which, if you choose to argue that we should start your completely unregulated everything market right now, you're accepting all the regulation that got us to this point, including antitrust laws specifically designed, in part, to prevent an oil monopoly.

The conditions we have now is the conditions we have now. Government regulation is what GOT us in this mess. Energy exploration, production, and distribution is one of the most heavily regulated industries at the state and federal level, leading to the current mess we are in. And your "cure" is more of the disease.

Again, are we arguing principles or cases, here? You keep appealing to the idea that "yeah, it would be bad, but they wouldn't actually do that," or "look at their budget, they can't afford it," which has little bearing on the principle of the matter. It's a question of where they should be able to buy up all the oil, and if not, what will prevent them from doing so. You haven't mentioned a principle that prevents it, aside from they can't currently afford it. What if they could? Would the government be justified in stepping in at that point?

Other than the silliness of your straw man, I'll answer your question when you tell me what could stop the Chinese from DOING THE SAME THING by going directly to the exporters and buying up all the output - an action the Fed could do NOTHING about. Quit trying to come up with fantasy cases that could never happen to try to justify even more regulation now.

If we're talking about cases, it's much more effective for China (or our "hypothetical antagonist," if you prefer, since you've got problems accepting whether China would actually do this) to buy only the oil that's being sold to the US. Buying it at the source would mean they'd have to buy up the entire world's oil supply, buying it here would mean they only had to buy up what other countries didn't.

...AND also prevent anyone here from simply out-bidding another oil importer for part of their market share, a typical free-market response that you have yet to explain how the Chinese could prevent....

There are so many oil companies, in part, because of federal antitrust law, which you believe ought not exist.

The monopolies that led to the anti-trust laws could never have formed without the collusion of corrupt politicians - the same bunch you want to trust now. "Teapot Dome", anyone?

Standard Oil made a pretty good run at complete control of the country's oil supply, and certainly controlled more than enough of it to threaten the national supply.

...and they pushed too far, and now we have anti-trust laws as a response. Government intervention should be a limited, last-resort, temporary response if used at all, NOT the normal way of operating...

Besides which, even given our current scenario, the trend in industry is towards consolidation.

NOTHING stopping you from forming your own oil company and competeing, but I would wager you will have a hard time raising venture capital, given the business ethics (or lack thereof) you have displayed so far...

Not if there are no competitors.

Could we talk about THE REAL WORLD? Plus if there are no competitors, time to form a start-up!

That's my whole point. As was demonstrated quite clearly in the 19th century in this country, absent regulation, capitalism tends to monopoly.

Now isn't the 19th century, and the conditions that resulted in the robber-barons were ANYTHING BUT laissez-faire free market capitalism, (although the excreble education our public schools pump out would teach this, among other lies). And even if it were so, we can alwasy impose regulation THEN, NOT a priori.

A business controlling the entire supply of something is no better than the government controlling it.

I disagree, plus those aren't the only two choices, now are they?

What on Earth makes you think that a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running the government are less trustworthy than a bunch of unaccountable, faceless beaurocrats running BigCo?

Its called EXPERIENCE and HISTORY. The REAL history, not that mush they indoctrinated you with in school.

Any group of people past some size limit I've so far been unable to determine becomes a threat to liberty and the free market. The tendency in government is to consolidate power, and so is the tendency in business. I don't trust either of them. The only hope in my mind for your average citizen is to set one against the other, and hope that prevents either from getting too out of hand.

Nice theory, but much like Marxism, doesn't work in practice. What REALLY happens is government usurps power and authority, and the elected officials thereof extort bribes from business in the form of campaign contributions to either 1. minimize the effect of the ill-gotten power on their business, or 2. actually use the government's power to harm or prevent competition - either foreign or domestic. The only real solution is to reign in the governments ill-gotten power - then they have nothing to sell. More regulation just gives the politicos more to "sell".

Quote:
How come the "commerce clause" wasn't sufficient to regulate alcohol, so they had to have the 18th ammendmant? If they had to pass this to have the power to regulate alcohol, how is oil, (or drugs, for that matter,) ANY DIFFERENT?

Because "regulation" and "prohibition" don't mean the same thing, maybe?

Are you serious? Prohibition IS regulation! You sure you want to stand behind that remark? The REAL reason the ammendmant was needed was because the government of the time still obeyed the 9th and 10th ammendments - look them up.

Or because the fed.gov could only have prevented the sale of alcohol across state lines, and they wanted to prevent its sale throughout the country?

And this would differ from rationing gasoline HOW?

If the interstate commerce clause doesn't grant the fed.gov the authority to regulate the sale of goods between states, then what do you imagine it does do?

The intent was pre-emptive - to keep Virginia from taxing, say cotton, "imported" from Alabama. You also are dodging the fact that the 10th Ammendmant MODIFIES the commerce clause, by denying the government the power to act unless such power has been SPECIFICALLY DELEgATED to the fed - hence the 18th ammendmant to ban alcohol.

The wording seems pretty clear to me - "[t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states" - at least as clear as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

..and yet the fact that the power is modified and limited by the 10th seems to be beyond your grasp...


Quote:
But me buying it from Exxon after it is ALREADY IN is NOT "commerce with a foriegn nation"! Plus how do you tell at the pump where the 87 octane no-lead came from? Is it 100% domestic, 100% foriegn, or some mix? Do refineries even KEEP that kind of record?

Of course it isn't. What makes you think I'm claiming it is? The feds clearly have no authority to regulate how much gas you buy at the pump. They have the authority to regulate how much oil a given state imports as a whole for the sake of ensuring CA doesn't prevent MT from getting any. The state may or may not have the authority to regulate the sale of oil within its borders, depending on its Constitution. Once again, though, this has nothing to do with the principle argument, which is whether or not any regulation should take place other than the "invisible hand of the marketplace."

And in a true democracy, with REAL respect for privacy, how is CA. going to even KNOW who is selling to MT, in order to inderdict it? You keep raising these can't-happen fantasy strawmen from some alternate reality as a justification - got any MODERN, REAL WORLD concerns the free market can't address?

You have failed to demonstrate that supply and demand will provide all the regulation necessary in cases of common resources.

You have failed to do anything other than conjure up fantasies that could never occur to prop up your unsupportale position. Should such an extreme case ever come to pass, government regulation could be tried asa a last resort - but things will never get to that stage, as the free market has a number of mechanisms to correct a misallocation of resources long before it would ever reach such a stage - PROVIDED the gov kept out.

You have so far appealed to existing contract law (government regulated),

access to a fair and impartial court system to settle private disputes is not only NOT "government regulation", but also happens to be a right (one of many) the fedgov was instituted to guarantee.

Your very first sentence implies government regulation, insofar as government decides what "ownership" means.

...that old fair and impartial court thing again...

Not to mention that traditional concepts of ownership imply the right to destroy what you own. If I own a bottle of water, there's no reason I shouldn't mix it with bleach, Drano, or whatever else I have around the house. Does "ownership" as defined by the government imply I can destroy the portion of the water table I own? If it does, how do you protect other people's ownership rights? If it doesn't, how is that not "regulation" of the water supply?

You don't OWN the water table - you own the water that you have "captured" from it by pumping it out. Pollution of ground water, either deliberate or accidental, is already a basis for civil action in the courts.

In your town, water is, it seems, over-regulated. I don't disagree. In our country, virtually everything is over-regulated (except flag burning and offensive art). That doesn't mean regulation is bad, it means it's been implemented crappily.

ALL regulation is implimented "crappily" because ALL regulation can do is make something scarce. Case in point - all the "milk subsidy" laws and money are SUPPOSED to guarantee enough milk at a reasonable price, but what they ACTUALLY do is limit production. They tax ME to pay dairy farmers NOT to make milk so that MY PRICES stay high. All regulation ends this - the government can only make something scarcer, or take it away from someone and give it to someone else - it can't make a gallon of milk or gasoline appear as if by magic no matter HOW manny laws are passes.

Plenty of private businesses have done horrifying things to their employees,

Who are free to seek employment elsewhere, yes?

to the cities in which they operate,

...actionable in court...

and occasionally to the economy as a whole.

???? What company is big enought to hurt "the economy as a whole"? Only Greenspan and the legislature have that kind of power.

Ultimately, it comes down to me not accepting absolutes.

A position you try to defend by conjuring up bogeymen stories chock full of those absolutes you don't accept....

 

[richyoung]

At least you got to prove my assertion wrong.

GDP "neutrality" neither makes a thing GOOD, MORAL, or a DELEgATED POWER.

 

[richyoung]

Because we over-hunted them and drove prices up as supply dwindled, making oil a cheaper alternative?

Yep. Good ol' free market at work. Now the "substitutes" are so good, the demand for the original practically doesn't exist.

Do we have the capacity to make an immediate switch, or will we have to wait a decade of shortages, massive inflation, unemployment and all, until we get enough capacity?

The Nazi's managed it in a short space of time - I think we can do as good, or better, if need be.

It was sufficient to REGULATE alcohol, something that has been done by the Fed for more than 200 years now, but not PROHIBIT it.

One point of view - mine would be that even the regulation (which was really taxation in the begining) was out of bounds.

If it crosses state lines or is offloaded at a port from overseas, it can be regulated. If it is produced, refined and sold only in TX, then it cannot be regulated.

...just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

Market forces are long-term in nature and cannot deal with shortages unless a readily exploitable alternative exists. Right now, there is no such for water and the technology doesn't exist in sufficient quantity for exploiting coal, natural gas, or turkey guts into petroleum alternatives in the necessary quantities.

Thus, it is up to the Fed to prevent overuse of a resource that we can't do without and haven't the capital infrastructure to replace.

You get the fed involved, and it will lead to NOTHING BUT shortages. Remeber, Jimmy Carter already took my money away to build an oil-shale extraction plant, so it's already taken care of...you mean it isn't in production? Can't be so. The government fairy can cure all our ills with a wave of it's magic wand...