Amazing - you're stipulating that you want to restrict access to oil just so that we'll be forced to find something other than oil to do the same thing that oil can do. Perfectly logical to someone who believes that a command economy makes sense, I suppose.

I stopped reading this thread when I read this quote, because it seemed to be the only thing that I could actually take a solid stand on. The Wayne's World "Gremlin" was a "Pacer", not a "Gremlin".

Okay, on the subject of oil. We're in this mess because, as a country, we sat on our assets and did not drill or find more oil or what have you. So, it seems the popular thing to say now is that since it won't help us tomorrow or next year or significantly over the next 5 years, we should simply do nothing again? What a line of bull!! Let's actually look to the future a little bit here. If we would become self sufficient, we could actually look positively into the future and work toward better energy solutions instead of doing what we're doing now....which is finger pointing and crying about gas prices.

Either way, Garth drove a Pacer.

i guess the tax and spend clause means nothing. this is a very specific control. you probably think an absolutely unfettered market is ok, too. (the problem is, you probably really do)

Freer is almost always better.

or we could suffer now for 15+ years, dam* the economic consequences of removing ourselves from that market and wait until the next consumption crisis has no alternative. then we'll really have to look.

look, restructure the tax and incentive structure for oilcos and i am also willing to allow drilling. why must it be one or the other?

what do you mean?

I mean, in almost every instance, consumers and producers are better off with less intervention by a government in their voluntary exchange of goods and services.

Emphasis on the bold section, because the statement will be twisted by you know who with contrary examples, to say as if you stated that there is never a reason for regulation.

what does a generalization have to do with the inescapably escalating demand curve for oil? we can add more an more supply many years down the road but we are far from close of even seeing an equilibrium point now.

like i said, i'm really not in the "do no drilling camp", i am just trying to temper what i see as seat-of-the-pants, blind reaction. if we fix the tax and spend portion related to oil companies, their breaks and why they get incentives, i say go ahead and start bringing some supply on line... we can do this in much more eco-friendly ways than in the past. so, in effect, we are attacking the problem from 2 angles: oilcos are properly motivated to explore/utilize alternatives as a source of business, as this transition is happening, the increase in supply is help to mitigate the crunch as well.

Translation: I don't really understand the futures market and the fact that it is the market's measurement of where that demand curve is likely to be. I've realized I don't really have any way to support the argument I've been making, so I'll throw in some further unsupported mumbo-jumbo about tax breaks for oil companies and then bail.

wow, j, i guess you believe in the perfectly efficient market. (the equilibrium point is changing daily and drastically!)

the support for my argument is economic and logical. either way, i guess we are done here.

Why is it the oil companies' responsibility to research new energy alternatives?

it's not their responsibility. but, by way of incentives, they can choose to make it their responsibility and profit off of it in the future.

Still waiting for your supply and demand data and price curve. Since it is so axiomatic, should have been pretty easy for you to produce the curves showing the correlation between the two.

Are you having trouble finding it? At least I was able to present some supporting evidence.

I'll take your ignoring the point as a concession. Thanks Ron.

Next chapter in Ron's continuing education

In its monthly market report, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said oil's recent volatility "reconfirms the view that current price levels do not reflect supply and demand realities." The cartel also lowered its 2008 global demand forecast, saying it now expects demand to increase by 1.28 percent to an average of 86.9 million barrels per day, down from a previous forecast of 1.35 percent.

Analysts call oil's current wavering "range-trading," as traders await direction from a significant move in the dollar or change in supply-and-demand fundamentals.

Investors who bought commodities such as oil to protect against inflation when the dollar was falling tend to sell when the currency gains ground. Also, a stronger dollar makes oil more expensive to investors overseas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080613/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices

Straw, how many times do I have to straighten you out about posting facts and flowing logical conclusions? This is a Ron-discussion for crying out loud

assuming that your argument that about the price escalation being a function or currency rather than demand, why include that to buttress an argument for drilling?

why don't you get back to the "consulting" that you do (which apparently consists of posting ring-wing propaganda on a banker's website)?

and since we all know that your view is the only one that matters, I'll call President Bush today and ask him to change, based on your comprehensive analysis...

ask him to change what exactly?

....see if he has change for a $5....

Why don't you get back to your Marxists professors. You can share some slices of pizza with them from your delivery job.

So first, you argued over whether there was any correlation between oil prices and currency value/inflation. Now, you are arguing that it is not germane to oil drilling. Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong.

Here is some more education for you.

"Many investors buy commodities such as oil as a hedge against inflation when the dollar falls. Also, a weaker dollar makes oil less expensive to investors dealing in other currencies. Many analysts believe the dollar's protracted decline is a major factor behind oil's doubling in price over the past year."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080616/oil_prices.html


assuming that your argument that about the price escalation being a function or currency rather than demand, why include that to buttress an argument for drilling?

By the way, still waiting for your empirical data showing oil price curve in relation to supply and demand. But I guess you can only challenge others for data, but for you, well, your arguments don't require any factual support.

straw, i can certainly admit that i was not considering the currency factor in oil pricing. no problems there. thanks for the education!

at any rate, the debate is still over whether to drill or not to drill. i have given my opinion here that, yes, drilling certainly won;'t hurt as long as there is some tie to tax/spend incentivization for alternatives.

Ron,when you state "tying tax incentives to alternatives" do you mean that the federal government should legislate tax breaks to oil co's and other corporations for that matter, that make auditable investments in non-fossil fuel research?