Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

"Geo" <taxpayer779@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:6e96a015-e00e-4563-8304-af7f4cdcedc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 30, 8:54 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Geo" <taxpayer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:96ce4123-59d3-4451-b806-7db1226d544f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 30, 4:40 pm, Joe Steel <JoeSt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> >> innews:Nd1Sj.125814$fB7.88202@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> > "Joe Steel" <JoeSt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> >news:Xns9A90635628FA1JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >> >> Killing ourselves by polluting our environment and, at the same 
>> >> >> time,
>> >> >> making ourselves more dependent on a limited resource may be 
>> >> >> "common
>> >> >> sense" to some but it's not very smart.  The better choice is
using
>> >> >> this op****tunity to solve a problem which will never go away; oil

>> >> >> is
>> >> >> a limited, dirty resource and no amount of production
enhancements
>> >> >> can make it clean and unlimited.  We have to find other ways to
do
>> >> >> what we do with oil.
>>
>> >> > Joe, you're not wrong, but there are no serious economists or
>> >> > prognosticators that foresee alternatives being a substantial 
>> >> > ****tion
>> >> > of overall energy production until the next century, assuming we
>> >> > prefer not reverting to a pre-Industral Revolution economy.
>>
>> >> > Part of Samuelson's point (also driven home by prior articles on
the
>> >> > subject) is that we're stuck with the dirty, filthy energy source 
>> >> > for
>> >> > the rest of our lifetimes and at least those of our kids, if not
our
>> >> > grandkids as well. We can't shut off the spigot until we have a
cost
>> >> > effective, viable alternative, and although various alternatives 
>> >> > will
>> >> > be coming on line over the next few decades, critical m*****
leading
>> >> > to economies of scale are even further off.
>>
>> >> > We need to develop fossil resources now whilst investing in a
>> >> > Manhattan Project for fuel alternatives. Would you not agree that 
>> >> > such
>> >> > is prudent?
>>
>> >> > JG
>>
>> >> I'm not sure I do.  While Samuelson may be advocating what seems to
be 
>> >> a
>> >> "common sense" solution to the oil problem, it probably will make
the
>> >> problem worse.  An increased supply of oil removes the pressure to 
>> >> find
>> >> alternatives.  Without that, our progress toward the solution is
less.
>>
>> > Yeah, meanwhile, let's stand by while some experts call for $10/gal,
>> > all the while there are energy sources sitting right under your
>> > friggin' feet!!!  Get oil to the market now, where the infrastructure
>> > already exists.  Work on other solutions in the meantime.  Somehow, I
>> > don't think people that are struggling to fill up their tanks or buy
>> > ever increasing in cost groceries will seem to mind one bit.  Then
>> > again, wouldn't want to offend your local environmental goofnut would
>> > we?
>>
>> You keep asserting this, yet the experts disagree with you.
>>
>
> I would consider the head of BP to be an expert.
>

Of _course_ ou would.

And equally of course, wouldn;t it be likely that he is motivated more by 
increasing cor****ate profits than by lessening consumption and thus 
lessening cor****ate income while incresing consumer wealth?


OTOH. independent  economists say that increasin supply and lowered costs 
will increase demand, and eventually price.

No brainer.

Just look at history.

>> What you advocate will work exactly like the gas tax holiday advocated
by
>> McCain and Clinton will do --- it will encourage increased consumption,
>> which will put upward pressure on prices, which will increase oil
company
>> profits while providing little relief for consumers.
>>
>> And, of course, you keep ignoring he financial side of the problem that

>> is
>> responsible for as much as half the cost of a barrel of oil.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices.

In the very short term/

It's simple
> economics.

Yep.

> You have this tendency to look at consumption of only US
> markets.

Nope.

>  Look around you.  Demand is going up worldwide.

Duh

>The more
> the oil companies profit the better off a lot of people are from
> investors, to employees of those companies, to retirees, to the
> biggest beneficiary of them all - the govt.

First, change of subject.

Second, this is a much smaller number of people than  ther e are oil 
consumers.

Third, the benifits are lumpy --- some get a lot, some get a little, most 
get nothing.

> The last time I looked
> the oil companies paid the US govt more in income taxes than the
> bottom 50% of all US personal tax filers combined.


So what?

Now YOU are advocating increasing tax revenue.

Tax policy should not drive  energy policy.

Yes, you read that
> right...COMBINED.


Uh huh.

So what?

By your logic we should legalize --- and tax --- street drugs for the tax 
revenue.
>
> Would I like to see us move to some other form of energy use?
> Absolutely.

Why not less energy use?


Doing more with less.

Using the wealth that would be squandered on inefficient, wasteful, 
unnecessary energy expeditures on on other things

>Until that happens there is no reason whatsoever that we
> should be in the spot we are.  But for political influence and knee
> jerk responses to alleged crisis after alleged crisis we find
> ourselves facing $10/gal according to some experts while food and
> other prices go up.  This is what your current stream of democrats and
> republicans have brought you.  This is what people like Al Gore and
> the sky is falling crowd have brought you.  For some reason the
> unproven global warming hoax and protection of red beaked tit mice are
> more im****tant than average Joe American putting food on the table,
> buying a house, driving their cars at reasonable prices.  And you sit
> back and take it.

Or, as really happened, 30 years ago the drill drill drill apoplogists for

the energy lobby got Reagan and the repug congress (with some democrats)
to 
eliminate all the efficiency/alternative energy programs because oil becae

cheap and plentiful again. So instead of being prudent we went on a binge
of 
petroleum usage that landed us in our current situation..

I had a friend who was a PHD engineer working in an alternative energy 
research lab for a major cor****ation. The company used tax credits to fund

the lab.

Reagan killed the credits.

 The lab went dark in _days_.

My friend ended up selling health club member****ps to feed his family.

What a waste of time and talent.

Larry