scoutingagain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 OK Gern, Let's say the government nationalizes the oil industry and artificially keeps prices low. That does not change how much oil & gas is available, nor does it change where it is. Low gas prices would continue to encourage consumption or the government would also need to regulate the way it was used, like limit the size of vehicles, who can travel on what days, who can buy gas when, etc. Low prices also provide no incentive to either the government or the private sector to develop new technologies to replace our dependance on oil, most of which comes from outside the US. We may have to pay a price for energy independance. I prefer $3-$4 per gallon gasoline, or say $3-$4 per gallon ethanol, than 1-2 lives of our armed services personnel per day or more. At those prices I can choose to modify my behaviors to consume less the ways I want to. I may choose to drive a smaller car, drive slower or carpool more. Or invest in a new company that is trying to develop a fuel cell vehicle, but would not hope to be profitable if gas cost less than $2.00 per gallon. The results of the free market are not always what we would like them to be. But they are what they are. I think housing prices in the Northeast are rediculous. Does that mean the government should step in and take peoples homes so everyone can have a place to live? There are plenty of unused bedrooms in those McMansions. Or should folks have the choice of working harder, or say start a business, to improve their income to afford a home in the Northeast or choose to move to another part of the country where homes are more affordable. Those may be touch choices, but they are individual choices and not mandated by the government. Anytime the government inserts itself into the market it effects individual freedom. Sometimes that may be necessary to protect everyone from market excesses, but such instances are not that common or would be better than letting the market determine allocation of resources. I can't think of many instances where governments have sucessfully controlled and planned distribution of resources better or more efficiently than markets. Most governments that have tried that approach have not lasted very long, at least compared to those that rely more on free markets. SA s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 This from an oil analyst on ExxonMobil profits: "With pump prices rising again, the company's embarrassment of riches shows no sign of disappearing. "Unless prices collapse," said analyst Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., "earnings in 2006 will make 2005 look like a cake walk."" SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 Do you think I can at least rely on ExxonMobil to be investing some of their profits in developing alternative energy sources? Exxon can still be in the energy business and not be in oil, right? If we are funding the R&D that will releive us of foreign oil dependence, then it's all worth it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Nice thought, OGE, but don't count on it. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "Do you think I can at least rely on ExxonMobil to be investing some of their profits in developing alternative energy sources? " They could, but certainly aren't obligated to. ExxonMobil's primary obligation is to provide a return to it's shareholders. If they believe they can provide a greater return by investing in alternative energy, and believe they have the expertise to develop and successfully bring those technologies to the markety, I see no reason why they wouldn't. But they are not likely to do so until they are convinced they can't make as much money pumping and refining oil. Alternatively they could choose to distribute the profits to their shareholders as dividends and let the individual shareholders decide how to invest the money. Some may choose to invest in GE, reinvest in ExxonMobil, take a vacation, or donate to FOS:). If there is a compelling national interest to develop technologies to free our dependence on foriegn oil, to me that is a legitimate role of government. From what I've read today, that's what GW is going to tell us he's doing. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 What Bush needs to do is champion a Manhattan Project or Apollo style effort for energy independence. Really push the envelope. Make it a national priority. Spend trillions in the next 10 years with the goal being relegating oil to a raw material for plastic production only. Turn petroleum into a marginal product like petroleum did to whale oil at the turn of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Gern, Didn't you listen to the Prez? That's exactly what he's talking about doing. (Al Gore talked about it six years ago.) But then again the President told us there were WMD in Iraq, the new prescription drug benefit would cost about a third of what it's really going to cost us, the Feds were doing a great job responding to Katrina, and he doesn't known anyone named Abramoff. Me, I'm looking to replace my Durango with an XB. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Bush talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. I think its great that he mentioned it in the state of the onion. But I don't have any faith that he will actually do anything about it. He is far too close to big oil for anything meaningful to come out of this administration in regards to energy independance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 First its an xB, and its the greatest little car going, I got one of the first in the area. I didnt hear him say he didnt know Abramoff, but it may have been while I was revulsed by the Democrats cheering the fact they defeated the presidents plan to "fix" social security. Now, was the presidents plan the best way to go? I am not sure, but at least he had a plan and opened the door for discussions. What is the democrats plan to fix social security? As far as I can tell the issue is dead in the water. The democrats response was bemoaning the huge deficit, and it is, and how we should not make our chiildren or grandchildren pay for the deficit, I guess thats the plan, our granchildren wont be able to afford paying down a deficit because they will be supporting rotting baby boomers. And least we forget, Bill Clinton called for a regeime change in Iraq, John Kerry and Hilliary are on tape saying Iraq had WMD, so it wasnt just a fabrication of Bush's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Didn't say the WMD were a fabrication by Bush, just that something we were told that didn't turn out to be true. Bill Clinton also told us he didn't have sex with that "woman." I don't believe him about his love life anymore than I believe Bush about national policy. I'm counting the days until I can hopefully vote for a McCain/Romney ticket. I'm serious about the xB. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Love the xB, its great! I would vote for McCain/Romney, I hope I get a chance to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Lots of Dems I know would vote for McCain (though Romney? that's debatable). Sad thing is, McCain probably can't win his own party's backing in the primaries and he sure isn't about to switch parties. Then there's Elliot Spitzer from NY...maybe he's the guy to tackle big oil? Lisa'bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I'm not trying to stick up for Busk, Kerry or "we are the President", but I consider Saddam a weapon of mass destruction & we got him, didn't we? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Yes Ed, we did get Saddam. But that whole Iraq thing just isn't working out like we planned, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Gern, I saw you mention in another friend that you consider yourself a paleoconservative, which I consider myself as well. With all do respect though, I find it odd that you also advocate a Manhattan or Apollo project style energy initiative. This seems like the antithesis of paleoconservatism and something I would see from the mouth of FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now