Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

John Galt wrote:
> "Joe Steel" <JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A9172767AA5JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>> I like the idea of a Manhattan Project for energy but it should go
beyond
>> merely finding an alternative to oil as a liquid fuel.  We have to find
>> ways to eliminate the use of liquid fuel; for instance, telecommuting
>> rather than driving to work, online retail rather than travel to
stores,
>> electric railroad trans****tation rather than diesel fuel highway
>> trans****tation.

    Online retail already is happening for many people. Of course, you
will have the issues of point to point delivery on large scale and many
people will wail about how small businesses cannot compete. It seems to
me that with online retail, states and localities have little
justification for charging sales tax, not that it stops them. As to
electric railroad trans****t, is the cost of electrical generation vs.
internal combustion compelling? You will see these ideas more
seriously considered when gasoline hits $6 a gallon later this year.
> 
> Without getting into the details of each proposal, I generally agree.
> 
> The big enchilada would be to move to a telecommuting based model where 
> office workers go into the office twice, once, or not at all per week 
> depending on the nature of their jobs. That not only cuts down on actual

> usage, but also traffic congestion, and decreases the need for large
office 
> towers.

    This was predicted years ago by Alvin Toffler in a book called Future
Shock. There are upsides and downsides to telecommuting. A slightly more
realistic idea is to distribute satellite work centers close to where
people live and likewise with services. In older cities in Europe which
developed before the advent of the ICE, neighborhoods have grocery
stores, restaurants, bars, shops etc. within walking distance and a
challenge for parking. This is not true of the burbs in the U.S.A.
The "Smart Growth" folks would have people forced into small, crowded
areas but that sort of blows the hell out of the concept of property
rights...or civil liberties in general.
> 
> Having lived in a 100% telecommuting job for eight years now, I can tell

> you, however, that it's not for everyone. There will always be a need
for 
> some level of cor****ate interaction.

    To 100% telecommute requires self-discipline. There is some value to
being physically around workmates, if for no other reason than to
provide social interaction. That said, the technology is in place to
make telecommuting 100% feasible for many types of jobs, especially
high-tech ones. It will not work so well for service sector jobs.

> 
> JG
> 
>