I know you see the writing on the wall. You're a rational man.

Quote:

I would even go to the point of admitting announcing drilling in the US would do little for gas prices right now, but it would help keep the price at least nearly the same for the next decade. That is what we need to keep focused on - keeping the prices where they are and not allowing them to go drastically higher.

Just the announcement of a goal to be petroleum independent would affect oil market prices. If it was backed up with some actual leadership and something to show the world we are serious, it would have real positive monetary implications.

The short sales would flood the trading market and have some immediate relief.

But we have no leadership on energy. The world knows we have relinquished that bit of control over our own destiny.

It's come out that even taxpayer funded pension plans are betting the oil futures market. California's CaLPERS made a 68% return on their investment in oil trading in the last 12 months. We all paid for it at the pump, but government union employees made money for their retirement off of our pain (something that was illegal at one time). If public unions are now playing the commodities futures market, you now have another reason why Democrats have been slow to do anything about the current system.

To make matters worse, we have a political candidate for president and an entire political party that wishes to further harm this country as far as energy policy is concerned.

Obama and the Democrats have a plan to weaken this country even further in the name of global warming and increase our reliance on foreign forms of crude oil. Our best energy trading partner, Canada, is not happy at all (I've mentioned before about the Democrats plans to ban oil sand sources of petroleum).....

From the National Post....

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=610810

Too many people don't realize that our representative republic form of government, liberty, and the wealth of the nation are in danger because of the advancement of this global warming fraud and all of it's accompanying energy policies.

Although not likely to be a fraud, I think much of this combating global warming thing might ultimately be quite beneficial. The burning of fossil fuels, although much improved over the years, still produces a lot of filth in the air that is harmful to breathe. Hard to track, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to think it costs America significantly in added health costs. And certainly our reliance on OPEC oil has been very bad from a geo-political/macro-economic perspective; even if we opened up every square inch of American soil to drilling we'd still be kissing OPEC's tushy for years to come. Therefore moving to reusable, sustainable energy is very beneficial even for those who don't worship Al Gore. Yes, we're going to pay very dearly for it over the next twenty years. But it is money well spent, IMHO. And actually, I look forward to it. It will be very exciting to see OPEC implode in my lifetime.

Of course much of this is predicated on our government having a sane, progressive energy policy; I don't want to rely solely on the free market to take care of our country's fate. Unfortunately our government has been damn near criminally negligent in this area. And so at best I am *cautiously optimistic* things will work out over time.

_Lazza

Where in that thick skull of yours don't you get the fact that it is not a true market and the market is not working.

I also don't give a damn about individuals buying fuel efficient cars or driving less. The concern is with the rising inflationary pressures on the larger economy due to fuel prices.

Trucking companies can't just go out and buy a Prius or other hybrid to transport goods. Almost our entire economy is moved around by people in trucks or other type of fuel dependent vehicles. Many truckers are going out of business because of these fuel prices and the costs are being felt throughout the entire economy. Airlines can't go out and buy a "hybrid" airplane. Diesel transport trains can't go out and buy a "hybrid" engine.

There is far more to this than the automakers. You're thinking with nothing but superficial emotions.

If fuel prices continue to rise, there comes a point when inflation becomes outright harmful recession and where recession could possibly plunge the country into depression. That is regardless of any so-called preventative measures currently in our financial system.

Our society is based on petroleum. Our society and way of life CANNOT handle the price of petroleum beyond a certain point.

Our economy CANNOT handle a continuing and exponential climb in the cost of energy. If the price even doubles in the next couple of years, we will be plunged into a catastrophic economic depression.

But all idiots like you care about is "the market might make a better Prius"... or "better fluorescent light bulb".

People like you are willing to roll the dice and risk the entire future of this country on the fact that "maybe" the market can invent some form of alternative energy. The science might not be there. People who lead by emotion and the roll of the dice are very poor leaders.

People like you throw the baby out with the bath water.

People like you are part of our problem.

Beneficial how? When we all live in a society where everything is rationed by an authoritarian governmental bureaucratic oligarchy?

Carbon Dioxide is not a problem. It's not a pollutant. Not unless you want to control every aspect of people's lives.

Well I'm signing off from this discussion. Although both you and Ron have interesting and diverging opinions, a debate is not a debate when you personally demean the other side. All your credibility, and even to an extent the validity of your argument, gets shot down by such behavior. This is a shame because this is such a critical issue we are discussing; EVERYONE should be having this discussion. But when I hear such personal snipes I am totally turned off.

Tuning out.

_Lazza

Damn you guys ran off comrade Lazza.

Where in that thick skull of yours don't you get the fact that it is not a true market and the market is not working.

Wait - so you're saying it's not working because of a blip in the overall pricing? Seriously - how quickly do you expect the market to turn around on capital purchases like cars? On research for things like new sources of petroleum or new technologies to create petroleum? Do you honestly think that the prices go up and solutions magically appear? The long term solutions here will take time to implement. Hell - even getting true production from the oil shale would take 5 years from all estimates I've heard.

Given that, how can you say the markets aren't working?

I also don't give a damn about individuals buying fuel efficient cars or driving less. The concern is with the rising inflationary pressures on the larger economy due to fuel prices. Yes - that's a concern. However, the market responds to that as well. As transportation becomes more expensive, local sources of goods that weren't economic before suddenly become economic. Instead of outsourcing the vegetables to Arizona, maybe it becomes cheaper to get them from Georgia. Transportation costs cut in half.

Trucking companies can't just go out and buy a Prius or other hybrid to transport goods. Almost our entire economy is moved around by people in trucks or other type of fuel dependent vehicles. Many truckers are going out of business because of these fuel prices and the costs are being felt throughout the entire economy. Airlines can't go out and buy a "hybrid" airplane. Diesel transport trains can't go out and buy a "hybrid" engine.

No - but here's what they can do:
1 - purchasers can get good from markets more local to them.
2 - freight can switch from LTL/TL to rail in some instances
3 - Consolidation of shipments becomes the norm instead of LTL shipments with half empty trucks.
4 - Airlines change their schedules around so planes are closer to full than before.

Has anyone ever said to you that the markets working to find solutions means everyone keeps their job? If so, you've been lied to horribly. And if you believe this, you simply don't understand market economics or you're living in a world that's simply never existed.

There is far more to this than the automakers. You're thinking with nothing but superficial emotions.

Actually, no I'm not. I'm looking at this in the large picture and bringing up specific examples. You're interpreting those examples to be the entirety of my position. I fail to see how this is my fault.

If fuel prices continue to rise, there comes a point when inflation becomes outright harmful recession and where recession could possibly plunge the country into depression. That is regardless of any so-called preventative measures currently in our financial system.

Talk to economists. Recessions aren't necessarily bad in the long run. They're likely bad to live through, that's for sure. But they can make the economy stronger in the long run.

That aside, it is possible. However, there are balancing forces on the rising costs of fuel, even for the speculators. There will be a decrease in demand - plain and simple. This goes for all petroleum-based products, not just fuel. Plastic disposable goods will have such price increases that it won't be worth it. Food that has a high transportation component to the price will get priced out and people will buy more locally available products. People will drive less (via carpooling or other methods).

Yes, I know it's not a simple supply/demand curve, but a portion of the basics still are in use here. Once that happens, the price/barrel drops and the market looks less attractive - so these investor types move to another market. Same thing happened with the .com craze. And the housing market.

Our society is based on petroleum. Our society and way of life CANNOT handle the price of petroleum beyond a certain point.

Our society is a very adaptable society. It's based on making money and it's full of smart people. These smart people will find ways to keep things going simply because there's profit to be made.

Never underestimate greed's power to find a solution.

Our economy CANNOT handle a continuing and exponential climb in the cost of energy. If the price even doubles in the next couple of years, we will be plunged into a catastrophic economic depression.

I'm not sure that's the case. The same point was made when fuel went from $1 to around $2 in short order. Everyone was talking of huge increases and everything going to hell in a handbasket, then it stabilized. Now we're at $4. Inflation lessens that increase, but we're looking at a 33% increase based on the pricing of a few years ago.

Historically, gas went from the $2 range about 5 years ago to the $3 range about 2 years ago. This is a 50% increase. Aside from some bitching, it really had no major impact on the economy. People continued to buy large gas-guzzling vehicles, Starbucks and other "luxury" sales items had profitable years of increased sales, etc. The economy adjusted.

So now we've seen a 33% increase and the economies adjusting.

I agree that there's a point that would cause catastrophic failure - but I see your predictive ability to be no different than that of the Peak Oil types who make their predictions (not those who realize that there will come some point in the future where we've truly captured 50% of the reserves and demand is still increasing). You simply don't know what the market can bear, but you're demanding that "something" be done. That something you keep suggestion is a temporary fix - open up ANWAR, drill the shale oil. Do it now, damn the potential consequences.

I'm not saying that I disagree with those being potential solutions - but let the markets decide that. If it becomes truly cheaper for the oil companies to get fuel from there than from the ME and other sources, it'll happen. Right now, the combination of the capital costs to get started plus the costs of litigation mean that it's simply not worth it - yet.

Besides, if we can bear to hold out longer - potentially getting ready - all we do is help to put the world back into our pockets as we could become either a huge exporter of oil or tech or move to independence at a time when raw materials are in huge demand and low supply for them.

Either way, we win.

But all idiots like you care about is "the market might make a better Prius"... or "better fluorescent light bulb".

Again - look up a strawman argument and try again. This is not what I'm saying. Not at all. I've attempted to explain in in greater detail and all I get from you is this sort of logical fallacy.

People like you are willing to roll the dice and risk the entire future of this country on the fact that "maybe" the market can invent some form of alternative energy. The science might not be there. People who lead by emotion and the roll of the dice are very poor leaders.

Well, that's nice but at what point did I say I was a leader? When did that become part of the debate? Seriously?

Actually - my "rolling the dice" is significantly different than yours. You're attempting to roll the dice once or twice on a few select things. Oddly enough, things that I think should be explored as well. But I'm also attempting to roll the dice a million more times by letting all the greedy/inventive/entrepenurial folks out there come up with different solutions. Most will fail (like roughly 75% of what the hyper-milers are advocating), but some will likely stick.

People like you throw the baby out with the bath water.

People like you are part of our problem.

So, by pushing for market-driven rather than gov't-driven (noting that it's the gov't that's gotten us into this mess), I'm part of the problem. For saying, "Hey - let's let the economic situation dictate many different solutions for an incredibly complex problem" rather than "let's ram 1-2 solutions (ANWR and shale oil) down everyone's throats" and simply delay the inevitable, I'm part of the problem?

Interesting.

I know you see the writing on the wall. You're a rational man.

Odd - he's rational for suggesting it, but I'm not rational when I include it as a possible solution among many, or when I also advocate holding out for a bit longer until the resource becomes even more valuable, thereby strengthening our economy in the long run?

Just the announcement of a goal to be petroleum independent would affect oil market prices. If it was backed up with some actual leadership and something to show the world we are serious, it would have real positive monetary implications.

So - demand decreasing due to folks conserving more, transportation costs rising to the point where those folks are going out of business and not using the fuel (thusly decreasing demand), and all the other market impactors won't affect the price of oil but the announcement that we're pursuing oil independence will have an effect? Seriously?

I don't see how one can say that decreased usage (or slowing the rate of increased usage) won't affect pricing BUT making an announcement and taking steps that amount to similar things won't.

The short sales would flood the trading market and have some immediate relief.

A temporary bubble at best - in the long term it's the combination of all of these things.

But we have no leadership on energy. The world knows we have relinquished that bit of control over our own destiny.

Wait - so you complain about the gov't interfering in our lives with regards to global warming, but it seems that you want the gov't to interfere here? I'm asking this because I'm not quite clear on your position. If you do want the gov't to interfere, what assurances do you have that they simply won't screw things up worse?

It's come out that even taxpayer funded pension plans are betting the oil futures market. California's CaLPERS made a 68% return on their investment in oil trading in the last 12 months. We all paid for it at the pump, but government union employees made money for their retirement off of our pain (something that was illegal at one time). If public unions are now playing the commodities futures market, you now have another reason why Democrats have been slow to do anything about the current system.

While I agree that this is a poor solution, I think we probably differ on why it's bad. Playing the market with my retirement dollars when I have no say as to what specific system is managing that is a bad thing. It's one thing if I chose to put my retirement money into a marketfund of sorts. It's another if I don't have a choice.

To make matters worse, we have a political candidate for president and an entire political party that wishes to further harm this country as far as energy policy is concerned.

Obama and the Democrats have a plan to weaken this country even further in the name of global warming and increase our reliance on foreign forms of crude oil. Our best energy trading partner, Canada, is not happy at all (I've mentioned before about the Democrats plans to ban oil sand sources of petroleum).....

From the National Post....

]http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=610810

And I absolutely disagree with Obama's position here as it's founded on a faulty premise. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't use the sands, ANWR, or the oil shale. If it makes economic sense - go for it. If we can hold off and bleed the ME dry first, even better.

Too many people don't realize that our representative republic form of government, liberty, and the wealth of the nation are in danger because of the advancement of this global warming fraud and all of it's accompanying energy policies.

You know what's odd - you probably don't realize this but I agree here. The key difference is that I want the market to decide what should work with minimal gov't oversight. I'm not sure, but it seems that you want more gov't oversight but access to the sources of oil, damn any consequences.

Crude +5.00 today for a new all time high