Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

"The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:pan.2008.04.30.13.41.06.80535@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:33:13 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>> <vjp2.at@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:fv9eie$rsa$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> It's in our interest to use up everybody else's oil before our own.
>>
>> It's not in our best interest to lower our standard of living in the
>> process, which is what the result will be.
>
> Why do you think it is not in our best interest to lower our "standard
of
> living"?

That's a different discussion, but OK.

I have been on record for some time in saying that MOST (not all, but
most) 
Americans can shed 20% of living standards without really knowing they
did. 
Fewer computers, perhaps one car instead of one sitting in the driveway
90% 
of the time, one or two TVs instead of one in each room, buy high quality 
sneakers without the Nike SWOOSH, and cut out the NFL jerseys and Coach 
handbags. The problem is in the lower class, where a lowering of standards

of living mean that we may have truly poor people in the US again. 
Considering that large welfare programs are simply not in the DNA of 
americans of any class, that's the issue that must be considered: the
return 
of real hunger to the US population, should standards of living actually 
decline in such fasion.


 That phrase seems like parrot talk that is simply repeated ad
> vomit.  A change in our life styles is not necessarily a reduction in
> "standard of living" when those words are correctly parsed and examined.

It's arithmetic, not words, but I suspect you'd broadly agree with my 
paragraph above.

> There are many things that can be done to dramatically decrease our oil
> consumption that would, in the opinion of many, actually improve our
true
> standard of living and most certainly our quality of life.  People move
to
> damned fast anymore.  Too much expected instant gratification that
results
> in very shallow thinking and a lack of any serious contemplation.  Let
us
> actually PLAN our home life for a week in advance or maybe two like we
did
> in the 1950s and 1960s.

Agreed. My grandmother (who raised me) went to market once a week. Period.

Now, she had the advantage of a delivery milkman, but your point is well 
taken.

> We go to the grocery store and we lay in a supply
> of the stuff we need for the next two weeks.  This as opposed to no
> planning at all and jumping into the car every day to go get the stuff
for
> dinner.  And it is the same throughout the system.  I remember when
"Just
> in Time" was all the rage in manufacturing and distribution.  That was
> good in that it forced us to look ahead and project when certain
> commodities would actually be needed and it reduced storage costs.  But
> now we just take all that for granted as being efficient and we dismiss
> the local warehouses as nothing but sorting centers.  Wall-MArt shows
that
> actual storage on at least a regional basis makes good business sense.

Broadly, I don't think we're disagreeing.
>
> The reason this is very im****tant is because of the much more efficient
> use of rail in moving commodities.  Go take a drive on the interstate
and
> count the trucks.  Those trucks are sucking up a gallon of diesel fuel
for
> every 5 or 6 miles.  I am a long hauler that detests loads of less than
> 1500 miles but those days should be over because of the fuel costs.
> Manufactures would do well to consolidate and install rails but even
> absent that, lengthy loads should be trucked to a rail yard, trans****ted
> mostly by rail and delivered to a regional warehouse. The same
> observation holds at regional warehouses in that the delivery could be
> straight from the rail car. And we don't do this because people have
> become so used to instant gratification and NO PLANNING.  We use Amazon
> and UPS as opposed to a book store.  Only half of that is a good idea. 
It
> takes time to move physical stuff efficiently.

Granted again. Is your point that the additional costs could be sucked up
in 
Wal-Mart style efficiency rather than actually decreasing free disposable 
income?
>
> We need to develop our rail infrastructure not so much for passengers
but
> for freight.  We are currently entering a phase of what will be high
> unemployment and a descending standard of living that can be avoided by
> progressive actions.  Why do people drive to work each day? When they
get
> there many of them sit at a desk and mess with a keyboard.  There is
> absolutely no reason why they can't mess with a keyboard in a home
office.

I do. 1/2 of my rather enormous cor****ation works from home.

> Video conferencing has reached the point where very good quality can be
> had for a very low price for the sake of mass meetings and the like.
> There simply is no reason to drive into the city yet we do it.  My
living
> standards will not be adversely effected by a huge increase in
> telecommuting nor will anyone else's.
>
> But this stuff takes leader****p and with Republican conservatives we
don't
> have that.

Oh, ****, none of them do. Come off the partisan position. Has ANY 
politician on either side of the aisle articulated what you just did? The 
answer is NO.

JG



> They are not economists.  Many are not even finance people.
> Most are simply bean counters.  If you assume that the economy will not
> grow (that means an increase in aggregate wages boys and girls) then the
> Social Security system is in trouble.  If you assume a decent share of
> productivity gains being realized as wages then we have no problem with
> Social Security. The Republicans are simply the architects of a self
> fulfilling prophecy.
>
> -- 
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jefferson
> http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
>