Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 08/24/2005 7:04:49 AM PDT by manny613
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: manny613

I find the lefrt especially humorous in this area. Higher gas prices will make alternative energy sources more viable. Yet, they scream about the high prices.

An absolute lack of economic understanding - the reason they are Marxists.


3 posted on 08/24/2005 7:10:33 AM PDT by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613

The only crisis is what the price gouging is doing to our economy.


4 posted on 08/24/2005 7:17:59 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613

My biggest concern with oil prices is that the Saudis who were rolling in money will now have so much of it, they'll have to burn some to make room for the new arrivals of chests full of money.
And what do the Saudis do with all that money.... well one thing I know for sure is fund terrorists.

And don't for get that lovable little commie Hugo Chavez is filling his coffers with oil money too.

We really need to focus on alternatives as a matter of national security. But we depend on a government headed by a former oil man to wean us off of oil dependence. That's a pretty grim prospect.


5 posted on 08/24/2005 7:19:32 AM PDT by brownsfan (It's not a war on terror... it's a war with islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613
Since GOPUSA isn't on the must-excerpt list, I'll post it from there...

An Oil "Crisis"? - Part II
By Thomas Sowell
August 24, 2005

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.

Back in 1960, a best-selling book titled "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard showed that the known reserves of petroleum in the United States were only enough to last another 13 years at the current rate of usage. Yet, 13 years later, the United States had larger known reserves of petroleum than in 1960.

This has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century -- despite an ever-growing use of oil.

There is of course some finite amount of oil and of other natural resources. The big leap is in going from saying that there is a finite amount to saying that we are running out.

When John Stuart Mill was a young man, he worried that we were running out of music, since there were only 8 notes and therefore there was only a finite amount of music possible. At that point Brahms and Tchaikovsky had not yet been born nor jazz created.

No matter how many centuries' supply of oil there is on the planet, the high cost of oil exploration ensures that only the most minute fraction of that oil will be known at any given time. Thus there have long been recurring false predictions that we were running out of petroleum, as well as other natural resources.

The high cost of extracting and processing oil ensures that not even half of the oil in a known pool of oil will be brought to the surface and sent off to the refineries.

A generation ago, only about a quarter of the oil in a pool was likely to be brought to the surface. That is because the cost of extracting and processing oil from a given pool tends to increase as you drain from deeper into that pool.

Even at $60 a barrel, most of the oil that is known to exist is too costly to extract. How much will be extracted depends on how much higher the price of oil goes -- and how much new technology can recover more oil at lower costs.

What if the government did nothing about oil prices? Rising prices would lead people to reduce their use of oil and lead producers to drain some of the more costly oil out of the ground.

Many people in politics and in the media seem to be alarmed about the rising cost of gasoline and of the petroleum from which it is made. But they only seem to be. What they are really alarmed about are the prices -- and prices and costs are very different things.

Prices are what pay for costs. The government can impose price controls on gasoline or petroleum tomorrow but that will not have the slightest effect on the cost of oil exploration or the cost of extracting and processing the oil that is found.

When the costs are no longer being fully covered by prices, production is likely to be cut back, whether it is the production of oil or anything else. This is not speculation. This is what has been happening for literally thousands of years, going back to price controls in ancient Rome and Babylon.

Yet price controls have always been popular politically, despite being counterproductive economically. After all, how many votes do economists have and how many voters know economics?

Some people love to believe that prices should be kept down to a "reasonable" level, something that everyone can "afford." Yet the notion of "reasonable" prices is itself unreasonable. The costs of producing oil don't depend on what we can afford or consider "reasonable." Nor does the cost of anything else.

Someone can always invoke the image of an elderly person on a fixed pension being unable to buy enough fuel oil to keep warm in the winter. Taking care of such isolated situations would not make a dent in the massive government budget. But the real goal of such anecdotes is to justify imposing government controls on all of us.

Make no mistake about it, there are many people out there just itching to tell us what to do -- and make us do it. That is why the word "crisis" gets used so much, and not just about oil, in order to soften us up for their taking over our lives. That is a bigger problem than the so-called "oil crisis."

---------

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.


6 posted on 08/24/2005 7:22:11 AM PDT by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a REAL capitalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; alisasny; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; Angelwood; aristeides; ...

PING!

A good read. Explains our supposed "oil crisis" quite well. Even at these prices, all that oil is still too expensive to extract. However, if prices continue rising or new technology is invented, that could change. Beware of the politician who promises to control prices!


7 posted on 08/24/2005 7:26:40 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hey, Cindy Sheehan, grow up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613
Notice that Sowell isn't arguing against the idea that the era of cheap oil is over. Notice also that if prices go high enough that old person who couldn't afford to keep warm will no longer be an isolated example. What he does say is that price controls can't solve the problem.

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. What about alternatives to oil? They certainly exist...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.

Do not look for the transition to be cheap or easy.

11 posted on 08/24/2005 7:47:10 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613

The interesting thing about the alternative actions available in the peak oil scenario is the chance for failure and success of each of them.

On the face of it, if oil in the free market becomes much more expensive due to shortages or increased costs of extraction, the world economy will be hurt. OTOH, if the Left gets to implement its solution, more regulation, rationing and price control, the result will also be that the world economy will be hurt. Probably hurt more and damaged longer, due more layers of regulations that will probably inhibit recovery.

I'll take my chances on the free market, if the choice is between the two.


29 posted on 08/24/2005 8:35:35 AM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: manny613

There is a shortage not because we're running out of oil, but because we have not allowed ourselves to find the oil that we have. This country has substantial domestic supplies off California, in the Gulf, in Alaska, Texas, and otehr places. But drilling for that oil has been blocked.

Further, Mexico has a godo bit of oil but has not been able to get at it. Do we go down there and make money together (thus reducing the perceived need for illegal immigration by creating jobs there)?

Instead, the politicians have to make a shortage so they can control the oil industry, and thus extract money from them. Sex, money, and power are the only things most pols care about -- especially the ones who are always screaming about how compasionate they are.


36 posted on 08/24/2005 8:58:07 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson