Posted on 08/24/2005 7:04:48 AM PDT by manny613
Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. Economics is a great field for nostalgia buffs because the same old fallacies keep coming back, like golden oldies in music.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
I get it just fine. Guys like you would rather insult guys like me than face unpleasant possibilities which threaten your world view and dogmatic ideology.
If anything, the Democrats today seem to have become what I would call the party of "unrestrained pessimism"
That's not true...but it's true enough. FDR wouldn't recognize them.
you guys
Stop using that ridiculous phrase. It only labels you as an idiot. I'm not a Democrat...and you're speaking to me. Not "you guys".
FDR and Kennedy never campaigned on the basis of how awful things are going to be
FDR didn't have to tell anyone how awful things were going to be. They already were...thanks to guys like you. JFK lived during a great time. My time. If only there'd been no Viet Nam war. But he was killed, and there was, and, once again, noone had to tell people how awful things could be.
Absolutely. There are more bicycles and motorcycles parked around my Fortune 500 company's facilities than I've seen in 20+ years. I've also heard the motorcycle dealers in town are pretty much sold out of inventory. (Whether that makes strict economic sense is better left to another thread.) Ask those dealers to what extent higher gas prices are hurting the economy. ;)
At any rate, there's no question that consumers are adjusting and will continue to do so.
You objected when jpl used the term "you guys".
Your response was:
Stop using that ridiculous phrase. It only labels you as an idiot. I'm not a Democrat...and you're speaking to me. Not "you guys".
A few lines later you write:
They already were...thanks to guys like you.
liberal = hypocrite
Keep on trying to sell that doom and gloom message though, and see how far it gets you.
Thank you for making my point. Computers were expensive, mostly useless piles of junk in 1980. In 2005, they are LESS EXPENSIVE (not cheap, mind you!) and more productive than their 25 year old predecessors. Millions of computers are sold today, but each one of those computers has a few dollars of compensation to the people and firms that have made them better over the years, spending billions of dollars in the process. Meanwhile, try finding a typewriter repairman. Nothing worth doing is EVER "CHEAP". For the company making the transition of those being transitioned
And their numbers are miniscule so why even bring it up? Right?
It does'nt matter what their numbers are. Every person has some form of family, relationships with other people, skills, a mind, and an imagination. And the freedom to make choices. And the freedom to live out the consequences of those choices.
Like depressions, wars, famines, poverty, sickness, bankruptcy. Ever popular solutions that guys like you always manage to forget or overlook.
WTF do you mean "GUYS LIKE YOU", A-HOLE?!? You and the horse you rode in on, pal...
Last time I checked, economists and the marketplace were not causing those things.
In fact, two of liberals favorite things, governments and nature caused those things. And of course, ever popular individual stupidity.
Damn right!
I can't believe it. I knew some fool would jump in with this one - you. I used that phrase to show that I could argue in that style too...and to emphasize its offensive and insulting nature.
liberal = hypocrite
conservative = fool. Get it?
I have a pretty darn good life because I was realistic about my opportunities, my abilities, my desires and courageous and hard-working enough to do something about it.
And I was fortunate.
Sure you did.
I don't think I did. Some technological transitions are relatively easy. Others are much harder. For example, the transition from a traditional, farming, non-technological third-world economy to a modern one was and is painful as hell.
It doesn't matter what their numbers are.
It's the most important number a society has to deal with.
And the freedom to make choices. And the freedom to live out the consequences of those choices.
Oh. Great.
WTF do you mean "GUYS LIKE YOU", A-HOLE?!?
Exactly. See Post #47...and the rest of the prior posts to me.
And of course, ever popular individual stupidity.
You got it.
Hard to believe there are people who are much smarter than you, isn't it?
Not hard to believe at all; I work with a number of them. What's hard to believe is that you think you are.
Now my curiosity is piqued. Could you please define your terms and explain why?
It's the number of unemployed, the number living in poverty. These people destabilize a society if their numbers grow too large. Especially a democratic society where the use of force is severely limited by the rule of law and the rule of law is determined - to a large extent - by counting heads.
"Will high prices bring more oil online? You bet. Will that new oil bring prices down? Only somewhat, and only temporarily, because the costs of extraction will remain high."
Costs of extraction is no higher than in 1998 when oil was $10 a barrel. The real difference has been increased demand.
Sowell is preaching supply and demand 101. For some reason, people think the laws of economics dont or shouldnt apply to oil, so his reminders are needed to avoid policy stupidity like attempts to support uneconomic 'alternatives' that are un-necessary wastes of money unless and until they become economical, at which time they dont NEED Govt support.
Synfuels, which we wasted $20 billion on in 1970s/1980s is a great example. Ethanol is another. We wasted billions on solar too. And we waste Congressional money on 'price gouging' in oil, when gasoline is cheaper and has far thinner margins than the bottled water you buy at stores.
Want to see price gouging? Explain $1.29 for a quart of H20!
"Will high prices bring more oil online? You bet. Will that new oil bring prices down? Only somewhat, and only temporarily, because the costs of extraction will remain high."
Yes, part of the problem is considering oil *as* a monster.
Especially a democratic society where the use of force is severely limited by the rule of law and the rule of law is determined - to a large extent - by counting heads.
OK, you've really lost me here.
Disaffected (or disgruntled) people voting in large numbers is destabilizing?
One possible conclusion that can be inferred from your statement is that FDR's 1932 election and the "New Deal" was somehow destabilizing.
Maybe my wife fed me my dense pills today, larry, but either you need to try again or you, sir, are no liberal.
Actually, I'd like to dispute the claim that
'cheap oil era is over' .... depends on the price level.
If cheap means "under $15" probably true.
If cheap means "under $30" I'd say better-than-even change of being false. Oil probably will be under $30 at some point in the future (in real 2005 terms).
IMHO, short-term forces drove the price up to current levels, and it is unleashing supply and demand adjustments. Those adjustments will force oil prices down again. This has happened many times in oil prices history.
" but forget about some different-colored liquid that's going to make your old clunker get 50 mpg. The alternatives will either be far more costly or will require a vast restructing of our transportation system."
.... actually plug-in hybrids could effecively make cars have over 100mpg relative to oil use (rest being efficiency and use of electricity). So,
500 nukes plants + plug-in hybrids + ANWR + Cali coast + deep water Mexico could end our oil dependence
"Do not look for the transition to be cheap or easy."
I would wager you that the average price of oil over the next 2 decades will be quite below the current $65 a barrel.
"Are you referring to the Great Depression followed by WWII? As I remember that was the culmination of an era of unrestrained optimism."
That's how the liberals wrote the history - wrong.
The right history is that we had good policies under Coolidge and Harding that created a boom, which created optimism.
Then we had bad policies under Hoover (tariffs and tax hikes) combined with globally bad policies that turned a recession into global depression.
Then further bad policies under FDR (see "FDR's Folly") of Government intervention that lengthened the depression so it became the Great Depression.
Both pessimism and optimism were results of economic policies and economic realities, not causes of either.
(And Galbraith and the liberals were always wrong to insinuate that the 1929 market crash 'caused' the great depression; the crash in 1987 and many other times (eg 1906) had no such stark impact, even the bursting of the internet bubble circa 2001, which was followed by a very shallow recession, shows that stock markets are barometers not causes of economic advances and declines. "The Way the World Works" studied the stock market of the era and shows how the market was *reacting* to realities in Washington and in the economy as they unfolded. )
Optimism is the most realistic view to take if you study American history. We continue to advance and get better over time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.