Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...

js wrote:

Alan Lichtenstein wrote:

js wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:z6idnYDHKIV_JZTeRVn-qQ@xxxxxxxxxx



Jerry Okamura wrote:




"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ydGdnaoDpK8TlpTeRVn-gA@xxxxxxxxxx




Jerry Okamura wrote:


It certainly does matter, Jerry.  You posted what will happen and I asked
you if you thought that it was a good thing if people could not afford
gas.  Kindly answer the question.



And I said, it really does not matter, because if demand for oil
outstirps supply, then by definition the price of the oil will rise and
you either have to figure out a way to not have to buy the stuff, or you
suffer the consequences.


I know what you said, Jerry.  You don't need to repeat it.  But I then
asked you if you thought the consequences of people not being able to
purchase gasoline as a result of YOUR solution was a good thing.  don't
you wish to answer the question?  Your avoidance leads to the conclusion
that you don't want to answer the question out of fear of being taken to
task for it.



If some large object from outer space hit this earth, it is not a good
thing.  If global warming or for that matter if global cooling occurs it is
not a good thing. If a super volcano blows its top it ain't a good thing.
There are a whole lot of things that can happen, that are not "good things".
Obviously, if the world runs out of oil (highly unlikely in the near future)
that is not a good thing.  My argument is not whether it is a good thing or
not, because the simple fact is that sometime in the future, regardless of
what we do now, we will run out of oil, because as I believe you said, it is
a "finite" resource.  You believe we should take drastic action now, and I
don't believe we need to take any drastic action, because we will adjust.
It may not be pretty, but we will manage to survive without oil, or we will
not.



Jerry and I are more closely aligned than you and Paul on this issue.
Perhaps the advantage is that we view the issue in the context and you
prefer to view it in the absolute.


ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!


1. You argue we will run out of oil and this will happen
instantaneously - one day here, next day gone.


2. You argue if we conserve now, oil will last forever. 

3. You argue that consumption will go from current to zero if we allow
price to cross some magical barrier.


Now, if I've got any of these wrong, perhaps you can clarify. 

You're 0 for three.  And the issues were quite clarified if you but
review the thread.  I have no intention of repeating myself for your
convenience.


I read your diatribe and this is what I was able to discern.

Then your reading comprehension is lacking, and your research into what I wrote is lacking.

Shame you
can't remember what you wrote.

I remember quite well. I just won't conscience your laziness and do your work for you. It's all there for you to read. if you're too lazy to review it, that's your problem.

And I prefer you not repeat what you 
wrote - in fact, I'd prefer you would simply think before you wrote or
not write at all.


That's good advice.  You should begin by taking it yourself.

Jerry, you're begging the question.  Please allow me to refresh your
memory.  You have been advocating letting the market rise in prices
determine what we should do and when we should do it.  Given that,
prices will rise to the point when there will still be oil available for
purchase, but the cost will place it out of the reach of most Americans.


See - that's point 3 of your scenarios.

Wrong. It's what you THINK, based on incomplete background.


See? You are confused. 

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

If you need a context for the statement, then 
do so.  You started the statement with "...allow me to refresh your
memory" and then argue that this reminder was incomplete, out of
context, or somehow not applicable?  Why?

That was addressed to Jerry, who participated in the thread. He should be familiar with the thread, but apparently was not. YOU, OTOH, never knew what was written and still do not.

In fact
it's NOT what the point addresses.  But of course, you've reviewed the
thread so you know, right?


Then what point is it? 

Review the thread.  Too lazy?

I read your posts and Pauls and Jerry's and I 
keep coming back to the same conclusion - you want to ration gas
because it would somehow avoid running out and that in the absence of
rationing we would run out overnight.

Then your reading comprehension is lacking. I did NOT make that assertion. Perhaps you can cite where I did, along with the message ID?

Then you go on to say that 
rationing using normal economic approaches (;price) would cause most
Americans no longer to afford gas.

That you got right, except your mischaracterization of rationing as using market forces.

OK - explain how these statements are inconsistent with your positions
such as:

"Unless you are prepared to see the downfall of our technology, and
consequently, our society, then we must take steps NOW, while there is
still sufficient amounts of the resource to extend its use until we can

come up with that alternative." 

Review the context of what was said to Jerry and you'll see what it means.

I found this curious to say the least, considering your position on
social security, but never mind.

See what happens when you take things out of context? You get them wrong. But that's nothing new for you. You always get things wrong.

" Jerry, as yet we have NO, repeat, NO alternative to the use of fossil

fuels as a fuel for personal transportation vehicles, and for the
generation of electricity to the degree that we require that."

In my city, there are a large number of natural gas powered vehicles
and quite a number of hybrids, and so on and so on...

Hybrids are not alternatives. natural gas is not a viable alternative to replace the internal combustion engine for all personal transportation vehicles. It is only viable for larger vehicles, such as buses, where it is used.

There still does not exist a viable fuel alternative to fossil fuels.

"Ignoring the
impending doom and your lack of knowledge as to the potential time
requirement to develop this technology lead you to a complacency that
is
unwarranted."

Impending doom? See?

You refute the fact that the resource is finite? You refute the fact that our technology is dependent on that resource?


" will likely take scores of DECADES to develop one for personal
transportation vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine.  And

decades, we don't have.  Unless you are advocating allowing the price
to
rise so far that average people cannot afford it."

Let me see if I have this right.  Rationing using government fiat to
reduce consumption extends resources indefinitely but rationing using
price does not?

silly goose. Rationing does not extend the time of availability of resources indefinitely, as the resource is finite, but it DOES extend the time during which the resource is available. Surely one as supposedly educated as you understands what the word FINITE means? Rationing reduces consumption because it reduces the amount available to individuals to consume. they can't consume, and waste what they don't have.

And rationing also insures that each person gets his/her fair share to use as they CHOOSE., without any people not being able to obtain the resource.

Jerry wrote this:

" If the predictions are correct, the price of the stuff will rise, so
at some
point in the future, the average person will not be able to afford the
gasoline they use...it is just a matter of time, unless we come up with
an
alternative to oil."

And as such, will use less.  But this change in behavior is exactly
what YOU want to accomplish.

Silly goose, according to your plan and Jerry's, the brunt of the conservation will fall on those people who can not afford it, forcing an unfair distribution of the burden.

Are you advocating such an unfair distribution of the burden? do you think that that is good thing? Some should suffer more than others?
Apparently you do.

And the upside to using price is that it 
is a direct stimulus to industry to expedite the search for
alternatives since they will be likely to have the flexibility to price
it at a profit if they are successful.  Two birds, no stones.


LOL!!

"If people stop buying automobiles that use so much gasoline,
then industry will respond.  First people will stop buying those
gasoline
powered cars.  Then the auto manufacturers will retool, and start
selling
alternatives, or they will go broke."

Gee - that's the first cogent point.

That's what Jerry said, and it isn't quite cogent, because they can't retool for something that doesn't exist. You, like Jerry think that you just wake up one day and say, "Oh we need a different fuel source to power our personal transportation vehicles, and poof, by dinner time, we have it." How naive, how stupid and how selfish.


"Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the alternative is NOT anything that uses
gasoline,
but something that uses a completely new power source, which has not
been invented yet.  Current solutions use current technology which
NOTHING new.  Why do you not understand that?"

Excuse me - but how does rationing using coupons change this?

No, but it buy us us time while insuring that ALL have a reasonable amount of fuel to maintain their lifestyles with minimal changes.

Not the operative word ALL.

The solution is to motivate change in behavior - and allowing price to
reflect supply/demand dynamics in the absence of any government
interference does exactly that.  You have not made an effective
argument to the contrary.

Indeed I have. Government interference. We had rationing in WWII, we had in in the gas crisis of the mid-70's.

It is YOU and Jerry who have not made a cogent argument as to why it is preferable to place the burden of suffering on a few rather than all.

LOL.


Yes, ideed. 

Indeed, to your comments.

That said, and UNDERSTOOD, Jerry, UNDERSTOOD, for that is a DEFINITE
consequence of unrestricted market  forces, WHICH YOU ARE ADVOCATING. I
asked you if you felt that such a set of circumstances was a good thing.
Kindly answer 'yes' or 'no,' with any embellishing statements you
choose to make.


I note you passed over that. Perhaps YOU would care to answer that question? Of do you just ignore what apparently causes a dilemma for you?

But scenario 3 cannot happen and regardless of what we do, in the
absence of completly eliminating oil consumption, we will at some
future point in time run out of gas.

I agree with you. However, what YOU think is NOT what I said.


I think you need to reread your posts, Alan. 

I think that you need to read them in the first place.

You believe that by rationing we can forestal the inevitable.

Wrong.


Oh? Then why do it?

To reduce consumption and to see that every individual gets his/her fair share, to permit maintenance of current lifestyles.

  I (and I

think Jerry) argue that no matter what, the inevitable will happen and
the solution is to make seeking alternatives attractive.

Alternatives are attractive because the resource is finite. Period.


Alanomics? 

Common sense, which after reading your posts appears to be not so common.

  By letting

oil increase in price as supplies or demand shift, investment in
alternatives is influenced.  Assuming your scenario, an ever increasing
price, the influence is positive.



There are other ways to generate R & D without the brunt of the market
forces falling on the citizenry.



Oh?  what might that be and exactly how does your coupon rationing
impact on that at all?

Silly goose. Each gets the same amount. Even so shallow a thinker as you ought to see that.

Or are you now advocating taxing the citizenry
to fund research? 

Why not?

I think having users pay for their use makes sense, you?

I think that resources which are finite should be available for all on an equal basis. You don't.

Can you argue that a rationing approach on the consumer will give us
the same stimulus?

Yes.


Go for it.

Rationing reduces consumption which extends the time of availability of the finite resource by reducing waste, while giving us time to develop an alternative technology to replace oil.

  How do you propose to stimulate research and

development of alternatives?  Shall we have the government do it?
Shall we have the government pay for it?  Should everyone pay his
"fair" share?

Yes to all of those. 


Oh please.  More government.  Look at the success of government
research.

Yes, look at it. Look at the grants that Government has let which have led to any number of breakthroughs.

Now, how about you and Jerry answering MY question with regard to YOUR
scenario?


Which is? 

Review the thread.  It's posted above.  is your attention span so short?

You proport a knowledge of economics yet can't figure out 
the impact that increased cost has on two things:  demand and
substitutes.  Scary, very scary, Alan.  You trust the government to
take care of you?


I trust government far more than I trust the benevolent capitalist.
Trusting the benevolent god, Capitalism, now THAT is really scary.

But answer the question.  You still haven't answered it.  You've avoided
a direct answer.  Don't you wish to provide one?


Perhaps you will lace to answer the question?

You advocate a voucher system.  Here's Martin Feldstein's proposal.

What's your reaction?

When I get around to reading it, I'll let you know.


Lazy. 

No more, but likely much less than you.

			Alan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Were at War - Ration Gasoline!
    ... OPEC openly works to control the price of cruide oil. ... There are plenty of oil wells producing here in the States for $5 a barrel. ... The reason gasoline is 15 cents a gallon in venezuala, then, is because ... but you hear no talk of rationing anytime soon. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
  • Oil prices: My $10,000 question
    ... York Times Magazine, that oil prices will soar into the triple digits, I ... advice of a mentor and friend, the economist Julian Simon: ... Ultimate Resource," which showed how human ingenuity had kept driving down ... bet anyone on any other resource price or measure of human welfare. ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Supply and Demand Does Not Justify Price Gouging
    ... >My point is that price of gas does NOT have to depend on supply. ... the oil in the ground. ... >> to pay more economic rent for access to that resource. ... But we are also paying economic rent to those who control the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Some janet and john figures for biofuel
    ... Indeed, though few motorists will have failed to notice the increase in price, even in the US! ... And that increase in price has nothing to do with oil running out. ... oil was abundant and demand relatively low. ... None the less if it were abundant and continuously forming, it would be hard for a small community to restrict supply to the whole world, and where supplies are finite, the community that control the resource will naturally want to optimise their returns by limiting access to the resource they control. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Some janet and john figures for biofuel
    ... Indeed, though few motorists will have failed to notice the increase in price, even in the US! ... And that increase in price has nothing to do with oil running out. ... oil was abundant and demand relatively low. ... None the less if it were abundant and continuously forming, it would be hard for a small community to restrict supply to the whole world, and where supplies are finite, the community that control the resource will naturally want to optimise their returns by limiting access to the resource they control. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)