Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Gluesniffer View Post
    The biggest problem is that transition countries are raising demand substantially and will continue doing so. This is a structural problem that cannot be fixed by drilling until the last drops have vanished. The consumer should feel it in his wallet, then the companies will feel it in their profits, and then innovation can take place. That's the way the price system works.
    Although it doesn't work perfect either as long as externalities aren't included in the price, so the real conclusion here is that you are still being treated too generously.


    Sorry Glue, but the fact of the matter is that the increase in demand CAN be offset by an increase in supply.
    It is the RELATIVE level of supply vs demand that causes prices to rise and fall.

    The laws of supply and demand do NOT say increased demand automatically increases price. It merely puts upward pressure on prices and given a flat supply THEN you would expect prices to increase. This is exactly what is happening. If however, supply was increasing faster than demand, we would expect prices to fall.

    We are experiencing increased demand but are not being allowed to increase supply, which is why prices are rising today.

    It is almost exclusively the Democrats fault that we are not allowed to increase supply by drilling for the trillions of barrels of oil that we have right here. It is almost entirely due to liberals that we cannot increase our refining capacity.


    We are artificially restricting supply in a marketplace of rapidly increasing demand. The price of oil is simply responding to the interference in the markets that the Democrats have foisted on us.
     

  2. #22  
    I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

    The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.
     

  3. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Gluesniffer View Post
    I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

    The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.
    Even the French government have enough intelligence to build and use all resources like nuke power to decrease their dependence on energy unlike you.

    Around 30 years Prez Carter declared, we would be wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats have blocked nukes, refineries and drilling. Tell me what is so special about the Env. in the offshore area on the east or west coast in comparison to the Gulf of Mexico. I have never had a tree humphing anti-drilling piece of shit liberal give me an answer to that question.

    Come on asshole, you can do it
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Jimmy could have been up against this………..

    On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the "mud" used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.

    For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island's Frenchy's Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.

    Ecological Impact

    http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/sb_69...articles2.html
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
     

  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by lacarnut View Post
    Even the French government have enough intelligence to build and use all resources like nuke power to decrease their dependence on energy unlike you.

    Around 30 years Prez Carter declared, we would be wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats have blocked nukes, refineries and drilling. Tell me what is so special about the Env. in the offshore area on the east or west coast in comparison to the Gulf of Mexico. I have never had a tree humphing anti-drilling piece of shit liberal give me an answer to that question.

    Come on asshole, you can do it
    I'm not talking about the Alaskan environment, I'm talking about carbon dioxide. That's the externalities that should be included in the price of gasoline.
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Gluesniffer View Post
    I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

    The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.
    160 YEARS of temporary. At LEAST. Time enough to develop alternative sources.


    I AM an economist, and the fact of the matter is that if we had supply in excess of demand in a substantial amount, the price of oil would plummet.
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    Well no (Buaaaahhhhhaaaa) :D, but you'll see my baby in the background at about 1.21/1.23 of this clip:

    Donut Derelicts

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDcL5IUrXE

    71' chevelle? It's nice.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
     

  8. #28  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Gluesniffer View Post
    I do get that S&D mechanism. I'm just saying that even if you would drill up the oil there, that would just be a temporary solution. And a bad one. If America would finally learn that externalities have to be taken into the price (as ALL economists agree), then the price would probably be even higher than now even if you did start drilling in Alaska.

    The problem is, I'm talking about the environment, so that makes me a French commie traitor.
    No not a communist but an nearsighted save the world type.It's a good thing our great explorers didn't think like you.'Oh Why Bother Going There They Will Just Pollute It in A Hundred or so Years.

    Going to an logical extreme you should advocate the total abolition of man for the good of nature on earth !You have found your man,sort of "White Folks Greed Runs a World in need-Barak H Obama",Democrat Candidate
    .
     

  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    [SIZE="2"]No not a communist but an nearsighted save the world type.It's a good thing our great explorers didn't think like you.'Oh Why Bother Going There They Will Just Pollute It in A Hundred or so Years.
    Are you saying that every risk should be ignored because of that? The poeple concerned about global warming are the constructive types in this case, at least they give a damn. The rest either doesn't or is brainwashed.
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    71' chevelle? It's nice.
    Not quite. The one just before the Chevy. ;)
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •