House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said that in opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore, she was “trying to save the planet.” But columnist Charles Krauthammer contends that “the net environmental effect of Pelosi’s no-drilling willfulness is negative.” He wrote: “Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world — thereby increasing net planetary damage.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
75 Comments
Given the fact that Katrina produced oil spills great than the Exxon Valdez oil spill it’s unreasonable to say that offshore drilling is safe. Perhaps a tax could be included in the cost of oil to provide for a cleanup fund. That way oil companies can drill and make a larger profit and the taxpayers can pay for the cost of cleanup before hand (oil companies don’t pay much for cleanup costs).
America needs a major energy conservation program. AND it also needs a tax spending conservation program to reduce the deficit and eight trillion dollar debt, a large part owned by China.
But neither is likely to begin in the foreseeable future. One of the fallacies of our democratic republic system is there is NO incentive for our political leaders to conserve anything, national, state or local.
Actually it’s a 9.5 trillion dollar debt. Bush started out with a five trillion dollar debt and the fiscally conservative Republicans increased it.
And the cry went out from the citizens demanding to keep absolutely pristine our shores and our wilderness. Be selfish, they said. Let the less important peoples produce our oil for us.
Hoard our oil.
Krauthammer does have a point – look at the environmental devastation in Nigeria for example. However, improved efficiency is far superior to ANY drilling scheme.
I am confused as to Barry’s position. Is he for drilling new sites or not? Extra costs for oil companies are passed down to consumers. How would Barry’s $1000 handout from oil companies help? Wouldn’t that raise gas to $6 or $7 a gallon?
I’ve been saying the same thing on these threads for years, about outsourcing America’s ‘Smoke Industries’ (read manufacturing). Guess the Repubs. think it’s only applicable if you’re talking about Oil production!
Had manufacturing stayed here, we would still be continually have been leaving smaller and smaller manuf. carbon footprints. Instead we turned it over to sasekuatch, big foot manufacturing.
Greed and conspicuous consumption as charity outlander?
Truly you are shameless.
There is more oil seeping, naturally, into the ocean every year than what man has ever spilled into the ocean, by accident.
Yes, concentrations of oil, in one place, can be very harmful.
However, I think Katrina actually proved how far we have come, with enviornmental safeguards.
The Alaska pipeline was going to “ruin” the environment, we were told.
Now, we see that the wild animals love the pipeline, due to the warmth it generates.
Likewise, many creatures will live in the areas around offshore rigs, for shelter.
“Hoard our oil.”
Uh no, outie. I think that’s the oil companies who refuse to explore on the leases they have. Or to give those leases up.
If they are not exploring or drilling on their existing leasese because there is no oil there, why not give the leases up?
(crickets chirping)
farm girl
You are wrong.
It is established law that every lease contains a “use it or loose it” implied covenant.
If a lease is not being produced?
It is because there is no marketable mineral deposit on that lease!
econ posted August 4, 2008 at 10:06 am
“The Alaska pipeline was going to “ruin” the environment, we were told.
Now, we see that the wild animals love the pipeline, due to the warmth it generates.”
———-
econ, why don’t you tell the truth?
Calving caribou try to avoid pipelines, roads, etc.
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4
“The 1002 Area is only one-fifth the size of the area used by the Central Arctic caribou herd, but six times as many caribou use the 1002 Area. In the Arctic Refuge, where the mountains are close to the coast, few alternative areas would be available for displaced cows. If the 1002 Area was developed, the associated pipelines, roads, and structures would potentially impact the Porcupine Caribou herd by:
* reducing the amount and quality of preferred forage available during and after calving,
* restricting access to important coastal insect-relief habitats,
* exposing the herd to higher predation, and
* altering an ancient migratory pattern, the effects of which we can not predict.
A reduction in annual calf survival of as little as 5% would be sufficient to cause a decline in the Porcupine caribou population.”
Re the TAPS,
‘Alaska clean-up ‘could take years’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1584553.stm
Franklin, it is my recollection that the “use it or lose it” rules in mineral leases grew out of state court decisions; obviously, such state common law doctrines are not applicable to any lease with the Federal government.
I do tip my hat to you with your observation that if a lease (whether on federal lands or on privately owned lands) isn’t being produced it is because there is no marketable mineral deposit on the lands covered by the certain lease. That is, as I understand it, the reason given for not developing the current federal lands under lease; there is not enough there, given today’s costs and prices, to warrant development. This, of course, makes me wonder how high the price needs to be for further development, and how drilling off shore (if on these lands) will reduce prices….
I see that cosmos is in full environmental wacko mode.
Any more tree hugging and cosmos is going to have permanent scarring.
Another thought on the undeveloped leases on Federal lands (including off-shore leases); if there is in fact “no marketable mineral deposit”, why not abandon the lease?
Hey VT! Good to see you.
“why not abandon the lease?:
That is my point exactly. And as one who actually HAS ground leased for oil, I know the use it or lose it stuff. It isnt what you think.
Our ground has been leased for over forty years. And still no exploration. They just keep renewing the lease, for very little money. WTF?
I’m thinking it’s the same with the fed leases. They dont use them, but they just keep renewing them.
Why? If there is no oil, let them go!
Heheh. With 3-D seismic data processing, etc, they know if there is oil potential or not. They’re just waiting for the price to go up.
And as VT so astutely questioned, HOW is offshore drilling going to lower price? By increasing supply? WORLD supply? So the Chinese can buy more?
heheheheh. Circular logic.
Laffer lives! No matter HOW discredited supply side economics has been, the true believers still believe.
And DAMN YOU if you try to confuse them with facts.
No wonder economics is the “dismal science”.
“Franklin” squirms –
“If a lease is not being produced?
It is because there is no marketable mineral deposit on that lease!”
So why would the most profitable corporations in the history of capitalism hold on to these so-called worthless leases?
They’re paying good money for those “worthless” leases? How patently absurd.
Big Oil has more than 68 million acres of leases approved and authorized for drilling in the Lower 48 plus tens of millions of acres of leases available for drilling in Alaska.
If there were “no marketable mineral deposit on that lease,” the Exxon/Mobil board of directors should be brought up on charges by stock-holders for failing their fiduciary obligations.
Your little Economics 101 homilies don’t apply to a cartel market. I can write again about DeBeers and the diamond cartel if you like. But I doubt you ever got past the “Guns or Butter” concept in your understanding of capitalism.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted August 4, 2008 at 11:04 am
“I see that cosmos is in full environmental wacko mode.”
———-
Actually multi-nic’d, I believe that the guaranteed and cheaper strategy of higher energy efficiency is much wiser than more risky drilling.
THE BIGGEST SINGLE STEP the United States can take to curb global warming and save oil is to raise the fuel economy of our cars and light trucks.
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/biggestsinglestep/
In this section:
* Introduction
* Innovative Technology Can Help Free Us From Our Dangerous Oil Dependence
* We Can Safely Improve Our Fuel Economy
* Creating Clean Cars In America Creates Jobs At Home
* Take Action!
————
The Arctic Refuge geology is unknown — the Badami field is about 1/2 way between Prudhoe and the western edge of the Refuge, and didn’t produce as expected.
‘BP and Savant looking at Badami restart’
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/610780426.shtml
“Major and independent would drill two wells over the next two years to avoid losing lands at the unit, hopefully restart field.”
VT
A lease is a lease, not a deed.
The lease will expire on its own.
Why waste time on legal issues?
Also, there are some marketable deposits that have transportation issues.
Oil or gas is there, but we can not build roads or bridges or ports or pipelines, to get it OUT!
One other thing, counselor: A lease is still a document controlled by STATE law, is it not?
The Federal government, under BLM authority, can still take leaseholders to STATE court, can it not?
Are you telling me that the Federal government has weaker rights, as a landowner, than does the average, private, rancher?
VT
I also believe that “implied covenants” have been upheld in Federal court.
Again, I am on your turf, but this is how I have understood the issues for several years.
farmgirl
Laffer and the Laffer curve had little to do with supply and demand and price issues.
The theory was about tax revenues and finding the efficient level where maximum tax revenue could be produced.
Agree or disagree with Laffer all you want, but you are off the mark.
You are off topic.
The lease does give transportation rights.
Worthless leases, for production, might be next to leases that are worth exploration, but would be “land locked” for transportation purposes, should the surrounding leases be dropped.
Monkey
Cartel?
Exxon Mobile, our largest domestic company, is not even in the top 10, as far as world wide production is concerned.
You are using words that simply do not apply.
A lease is still a lease, truly; but as to things such as the “implied covenants”, unless the lease instrument contained these things explicitly within its terms, then, yes, the Federal government would have a weaker legal position than the average, private landowner. The enforcement of a lease between the Federal government and an oil company, BTW, would properly be the subject of litigation in federal, not state, court. And, as such, the instrument would be subject to federal, not state, law.
If the Congress authorized such actions to be taken in state courts, and by statute declared that state law would apply, then state law would apply; but, where the topic of discussion is federal land, which, in the absence of agreements creating joint jurisdiction (we had similar issues on the AFB where I was stationed) with the state in which the land is located, then federal, not state, law applies, and the jurisdiction over the same remains federal, not state.
A lease is, at its basis, a contract. Thus, the contract should contain all provisions relevant to the relationship between the parties. While state courts have found implied covenants to exist in mineral leases, that is a matter of state, not federal, common law. For a court to hold state law binding upon the contractual relationships of the federal government would, IMHO, violate the Constitution, and also be violative of the entire idea of “federalism”, not to say that that idea hasn’t been violated to some extent in the past in other areas.
Yeah, right, “Franklin” –
I am the first person in the history of the world to introduce the term “cartel” into the energy debate.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Krauthammer: (from link in header)
“It doesn’t occur to him that by eschewing the slightest disturbance of the mating habits of the Arctic caribou, . . .”
——-
The caribou issue in the Arctic Refuge is calving, not “mating”.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/08/is-offshore-drilling-good-for-environment/#comment-395087
Krauthammer:
“This to prevent drilling on an area in the Arctic one-sixth the size of Dulles Airport that leaves untouched a refuge one-third the size of Britain.”
——-
Actually, the “area” is almost the entire 1.5 MILLION acres.
A speculative map of what the 2,000-acre “footprint”(sic) allows,
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.html
Is Krauthammer just clueless about the long-debated Arctic Refuge issue? Or is he deliberately trying to deceive his readers?
Krauthammer is not a credible source.
Implied covenants may well have been upheld in federal courts where, e.g., due to diversity of citizenship, the action is brought in federal court by a landowner or group of landowners against oil companies (using that term very broadly). In such cases, state law would be applied to the dispute. Note, however, that such law may not, IMO, be applied against the federal government, absent its consent by statute to have the state law applied to it.
Franklin: Whereas I agree with you on some of your details regarding Art Laffer. Some of the details are still missing. When Art Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin. The enigmatic “Point” was never defined. It still isn’t defined. The two schools of thought each see the point differently.
Now with regard to “supply and demand” I’m afraid KSFG is closer to the mark than you think. She merely scoffed at supply side economists. That is one of the two schools of thought listed above. Obviously, they define the point differently than the Keynesian or neo-Keynesian economists do.
When one reads on Dr. Laffer, it is interesting to find out that he credits Keynes with the fundamental ideal underlying the “Laffer Curve”, along with some Persian mathematicians in an earlier time. Wish I had saved that bookmark.
Interesting post MR AV. I don’t believe we have met. I am LLTVET. A veteran (not a retiree) of the Army. I am a libertarian, hedonist, agnostic who is half accountant and half computer nerd (scary combination, I know) I also have a tatoo of “seperation of church and state” across my chest.
Ok, the last one was an exageration, but you probably already gathered that.
Pleased to meet you.
Well, perhaps the Laffer idea does apply, as a tangent.
My apologies.
Think of it this way, again: What tax system will produce the maximum about of tax revenues from the oil business?
I think our present system is very, very close, to the maximum efficiency.
In other words, those who want to “soak” the oil companies might well reduce total tax revenues.
LLTVET, glad to make your acquaintance. I’m a lawyer (bet you couldn’t tell) who is also a “computer nerd” from time to time (running Linux on all my office computers, dual booting with Windows for those few things I just have to); a veteran of the USAF; and, just trying to get by in this crazy world.
If the feds pass a ‘use it or lose it’ legislation, I think the interest of the citizenry will be served. Why do the oil companies and Republicans oppose such legislation?
Oil down what about 20$ pb over the last few weeks, clearly, there is much more going on with the price of oil than supply/demand.
Interesting reference to Keynes. It seems to me that the Clinton administration has been the only one in my lifetime that understood Keynesian economics correctly. We all love the ‘pump-priming’ part (deficits) but ignore the flip side – run SURPLUSES during good times. Only Clinton moved in that direction.
Phantom, for me, and for me alone, the opposition to “use or lose” legislation would be based upon wanting to keep the lands leased for the future, when the price is higher. I do not deny the fact that oil and gas exploration is a risky business; but when little to no exploration is happening on a large quantity of land already under lease, one wonders why additional land needs to be leased.
From reading various things, it appears that there is a shortage of off-shore rigs, a labor shortage in the “oil patch”, and other factors that make immediate drilling and production unlikely, whether ANWR and additional OCS sites are opened or not. I am also reminded that the current Administration has waived royalty payments for current production on federal leased lands, which, to my mind if reinstated, would result in a lesser amount of tax revenue paid to various governments, but, with reference to the federal government, increased revenues.
More drilling seems to be code for more leasing; at least, to me.
Clearly you think that way Paul: You are closer to the supply side economist. However, there are other variables than what you speak of.
1. The american consumer is getting tapped out. Even the idiot we have in office now understands that. Hence he took a playbook from John Maynard Keynes and sent a “stimulous” check.
2. If there were an economic shift away from oil companies and to John Q. Taxpayer, we may lose revenue from oil companies, but gain more from 1040 taxes.
3. The so called incentive does not just apply to the upper 5% ers. If middle class taxpayers had more of a chance to keep more of their money, wouldn’t there be incentive to earn more from the middle class and receive more taxes from the middle class and less from the 5%ers?
4 Following number 3, wouldn’t the american consumer be less “tapped out”
These are the concepts of Keynesian Economics.
Ben, it seems to me that perhaps the real issue with Keynsian economics is the “surplus” side; most welcome the “pump priming”, but bristle at the accumulation of surpluses, both of which are a part of the Keynes school. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t enjoy the necessary part of the surplus building, but my wife and I didn’t reject the “economic stimulus” payment. We did our best to help stimulate, using the funds to travel to our daughter’s commencement, but bluntly, we would have provided almost as much stimulus without the payment.
VT
“Section 3135.1–6 Lease Renewal
This rule would add a new section on
lease renewals to the existing NPR–A
regulations that is based on changes the
EPAct of 2005 made to the NPRPA. The
EPAct of 2005 and this section address
lease renewals in two parts: those leases
that have a discovery of hydrocarbons
and those leases that do not have a
discovery.
With a Discovery. Under this section,
at any time after the fifth year of the
primary term of a lease, the BLM could
approve a 10-year lease renewal for a
lease on which there has been a well
drilled and a discovery of hydrocarbons,
even if the BLM had determined that the
well is not capable of producing oil or
gas in paying quantities. Under this
section the BLM must receive the
lessee’s application for lease renewal no
later than 60 days prior to the expiration
of the primary term of the lease.
This section requires that the renewal
application provide evidence, and a
certification by the lessee, that the
lessee has discovered oil or gas on the
leased lands in such quantities that a
prudent operator would hold the lease
for potential future development.
Under this section, the BLM approves
applications if it determines that a
discovery was made and that a prudent
operator would hold the lease for future
development. The BLM may approve
the lease renewal on the condition that
the lessee drills one or more additional
wells or acquires and analyzes more
well data, seismic data, or geochemical
survey data prior to the end of the
primary term of the lease.
Under this section lease renewals are
effective on the day following the end
of the primary term of the lease.
Without a Discovery. Under this
section, at any time after the fifth year
of the primary term of a lease, the BLM
could approve an application for a 10-
year lease renewal for a lease on which
there has not been a discovery of oil or
gas. The BLM must receive the lessee’s
application no later than 60 days prior
to the expiration of the primary term of
the lease.
Under this rule, the renewal
application must:
(A) Provide sufficient evidence that
the lessee has diligently pursued
exploration that warrants continuation
of the lease with the intent of continued
exploration or future potential
development of the leased land. The
application must show the lessee has
drilled one or more wells or acquired
seismic or geochemical data indicating
a probability of future success, and the
application must include a plan for
future exploration; or
(B) Show that all or part of the lease
is part of a unit agreement covering a
lease that qualifies for renewal without
a discovery and that the lease has not
been previously contracted out of the
unit.
Under this section the BLM approves
renewal applications if it determines
that the application satisfied the
requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(A) or
(B) of this section. If the BLM approved
the application for lease renewal, the
applicant would be required to submit
to the BLM a fee of $100 per acre within
5 business days of receiving notification
of the renewal approval.
Lease renewals are effective on the
day following the end of the primary
term of the lease. The BLM may approve
the lease renewal on the condition that
the lessee drills one or more additional
wells or acquires and analyzes more
well data, seismic data, or geochemical
survey data prior to the end of the
primary term of the lease.
The renewed lease is subject to the
terms and conditions applicable to new
oil and gas leases issued under the
Integrated Activity Plan in effect on the
date that the BLM issues the decision to
renew the lease.
One commenter supported the
renewal provisions in section 3135.1–6,
but suggested defining the term
‘‘discovery’’ and offered a definition.
We did not define the term ‘‘discovery’’
in the final rule based on this comment.
We believe section 3135.1–6(a)(2)
adequately describes what is necessary
for the BLM to consider a request for
lease renewal ‘‘with a discovery.’’ We
did revise this section to indicate that
the discovery well(s) could be drilled by
the lessee or the operator. Under this
final rule, discovery wells must be
drilled on the lease after lease issuance.
This makes it clear that the wells can be
drilled by the lessee as operator or
another operator—”
—-
I do not have time to wade through it all — but the lease RENEWAL rules make clear that the orginal lease rules must be followed.
Production requirements are in there, somewhere!
—-
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-1647.pdf
Correct AV. But the spending side of Keynesian Economics is not being avoided anywhere in Washington. This is why The GOP has lost my favor. They somehow want everyone to forget the bridge to nowhere and think that they are being fiscally responsible once again. They have to earn that trust back rather than just pretending to be a better choice.
I spent my rebate on a trip to yellowstone, figured at least except for the fuel, it would benefit the country and not a foreign country.
July 18,2008
New York Times
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic effort to pressure energy companies into drilling for oil on lands they already leased from the federal government…….
earthdoc
The legislation you speak of was just stupid political grandstanding that would have required more paperwork, more expense, and would not produce a single drop of oil.
Paulie, Laffer was a supply side economist long before he came up with his Laffer Curve. It’s supply side economics that I find so laughable. Pun intended. I do understand the difference between supply side economics and the Laffer Curve. As noted, the Laffer Curve is speculation that cannot be quantified with a straight face.
Increasing supplies will not necessarily lower prices. That only occurs when demand concurrently declines or remains the same as supply increases.
And you cons keep forgetting elasticity. If this was a pure supply and demand issue, we’d have shortages a la 1978. But we dont. We dont have a shortage of supply, what we have is inelastic demand. The demand for energy is, for most people, inelastic. That throws the whole “increase supply” whine into the dumpster. Unless you decrease demand by conservation, increasing supply doesnt do a damn thing for prices. It only increases profits for those who supply oil.
But… I suspect you already knew that. And it’s why you endlessly shill for both supply side economics AND the Laffer Curve. When you can quantify the magic “point”, let me know.
Until then, educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
And anyone who says “deficits dont matter” as I’ve heard you and st ronnie ray gun’s boys say, paulie, is not a Keynsian. You are a supply sider through and through.
And as mentioned, that’s been THOROUGHLY discredited.
farmgirl
You are wrong.
However, you are being wrong with a point that can be considered true:
Increased supply does not always lower price, —
BUT, you leave out:
Increased supply DOES keep prices lower than they would be, without increased supply!
So, your point is that you want REALLY high prices, by not producing more oil?
Just a little more oil would only make a little difference, so lets not do anything at all!
Hey, go ahead and try that approach dems!
It will reverse your fortunes, in this election, faster than anything else you could possiby do!
Farmgirl
Supply side has NOT been discredited.
Not at all.
Now, what we have done wrong is that we have not controlled spending.
However, the fact that increased tax rates do not always increase tax revenues has been proven.
The fact that decreased tax rates often increase tax revenues has also been proven.
You are wrong farmgirl.
Please show us the charts and graphs and proof that increased tax rates always increase tax revenues.
Please show us the charts and graphs and proof that decreases in tax rates never increases tax revenues.
Can you do that?
NO, you can not do that.
Where is the point of maximum efficiency? We are probably very close to that number.
However, something does need to be done about corporate tax rates. Our corporate rates are higher than most other developed countries.
—-
Now, I still have to say, this thread was NOT about tax rates.
The Laffer Curve is slightly off topic.
Paulie, you are so full of shit your eyes must be brown.
If supplies DECREASED, prices could still go down if demand declined faster or farther.
And if you really passed Econ 101, you would know that.
And I’m not Tara. I cant draw you a picture here, but you know what I’m saying is true.
Increasing supply, no matter how you do it, will NOT decrease prices unless demand stays the same or declines.
And THAT is the truth. You cant address supply without demand. It only exists in relation to demand.
Come on. You are better than that.
Or are you?
Like I said, dude, educate yourself. Google “demand + elasticity” and read a little.
And for those of you who cant use The Google, here’s a little help. But if you dont use The Google, I’m hard pressed to believe you will understand the SCIENCE of economics.
http://www.businessbookmall.com/Economics_19_How_Elasticity_of_Demand_Affects_Total_Revenue.htm
Take off your ideological blinders and THINK for god’s sake.
Farmgirl
You are making an argument against any new production, and this argument is based on what?
Have I said that conservation was a bad idea? No, I have not.
You are saying, I guess, that conservation, alone, and perhaps “new technology” can meet our needs?
Sorry, your rants are not coherent.
Are you suggesting that demand will increase?
Are you suggesting that demand will stay the same?
Are you suggesting that demand will decline?
Are you suggesting that additional production, in all three areas, would NOT be beneficial?
I guess my response is SO WHAT???
Increased production will provide downward pressure on price, no matter what demand actually does.
Increased production will keep prices lower, than they would have been, without the increased production.
If demand out paces supply, what is your point? Yes, prices will still rise, but prices will not rise as fast as they would have, without the additional supply.
Your pedantic point does NOT merit any discussion, for policy making purposes!
Who the hell cares about your, or anyone elses, prediction of future demand?
We WILL need oil in the future, and it makes great economic sense to produce our own!
Tax revenues will be generated.
You say you care about the deficit? How much worse would the deficit be, without all the tax revenue our various governments receive from the oil industry?
The employees on the drilling rigs also pay taxes.
What economic harm can possibly come from
Drill here, Drill NOW ?????
You ass. You are the one who brought up the Laffer Curve. I brought up laffer in the context of supply side economics.
“Please show us the charts and graphs and proof that increased tax rates always increase tax revenues.
Please show us the charts and graphs and proof that decreases in tax rates never increases tax revenues.”
Please repost where I said EITHER of those things.
I didnt. So why TF would I supply proof for something I never said and dont believe? The fact that you jump to an all or nothing position is telling.
It’s the mark of someone who doesnt understand economics from a math or science viewpoint. It’s someone who is an IDEOLOGY economist. Not a real economist.
But hey, if you cant refute what I’m saying with logic or proof, go for the outrage.
It’s a workin’ so well for you repukes this year…
Paulie, you are so blinded by ideology you dont even trade in logic anymore.
“You are making an argument against any new production, and this argument is based on what?”
PLEASE repost where I said that. I’m all for production. But not for drilling in areas that will irreparably harm the environment.
And I’m pointing out that your overly simplistic thinking that increasing supply is ALL we need to do to decrease price is nuts. Is that plain and simple enough for you?
WTF do YOU think will happen to demand? Yes, it’s gonna increase. WTF? Does any sane person think it will not?
You and yours have NEVER proven that you can, with offshore or anwar drilling, increase supply fast enough or far enough to bring prices down or even hold them steady.
And you continue the fallacy that demand doesnt matter. That is the mark of a HIGHLY uneducated and unthinking person regarding economics. Supply discussions only matter slightly more than MLB batting averages if you dont include demand and elasticity in the equation.
Case in point. The SUPPLY of misinformation and bullshit on this blog is high. But the demand, eh, no so much.
That’s what makes the discussion of the price of posts so stupid.
Just like your supply side economics that ignores demand facts.
jesus WEPT. I’ve had more intelligent discussions on economics with the chickens. Whe are DEMANDING that I SUPPLY their food right now. Otherwise?
The price of eggs around here is gonna go up.
BIG eye roll,….
“We WILL need oil in the future, and it makes great economic sense to produce our own!”
SO.. you are in favor of interfering with the free market, the world market, and will support legislation that any oil produced in America STAY in America? You will forbid the sale of that oil in any nation OTHER than America?
Cool. Count me in. Otherwise, you are pissing up a rope thinking that drilling HERE will decrease prices HERE.
“Tax revenues will be generated.”
I thought TAX issues were off topic?
IOKIYAAR
Nice job conflating tax revenue, oil production, and prices. Too bad it doesnt meet even the most simple smell test for logic or economics.
A discovery are a bit more tricky but also very profitable. This is followed by a discovery of betting.
So, how much will gas prices go down if we don’t drill for more oil?
Farmgirl
The charts that I asked you to produce would be, pretty much, the ONLY THING that could disprove supply side economics or the Laffer curve.
You do not know what the heck you are talking about, if you do not understand that point.
Also, YOU brought up Laffer first, on this thread, not me. Lighten up on the drugs, or get more sleep or something, but you are tripping out on us!
By the way, I read Kudlow and several other economists.
You should, as well:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjc3YzNkMWY2ZmMxY2M2MmQzZWRlNzE4MDA3ZWJkMjc=
Kudlow? The National Review Online?
Heheheheheheheheheheh!
I found some info on the discrediting of supply side economics on Kos. I’m not citing it. The NRO is just the Kos of the wingnuts.
Did you click the link, complete with graphs and equations that I posted earlier? Or did you just not understand all the math and science?
“SO.. you are in favor of interfering with the free market, the world market, and will support legislation that any oil produced in America STAY in America? You will forbid the sale of that oil in any nation OTHER than America?
Cool. Count me in. Otherwise, you are pissing up a rope thinking that drilling HERE will decrease prices HERE.”
Still no answer to that question?
how conveeeeeenient.
Let me help.
Since kfg has handed it to him and he previously could not find it with both hands?
Paulie? Meet your ass. Paulie’s ass? This is what you follow around all day!
Heh. Thanks JR. The repukes here have been stepping on and tripping over their own dicks here all day on the subject of economics.
And it sure shows that these are the “big thinkers” the voters have let run the economy for the last eight years.
BTW, how’s that worked for us?
Like I said, deliberately obtuse. That goes for germie, paulie, anti and the whole hee haw gang.
They dont understand the simplest of economic principles. Just ideology.
just what we need for more years…
Increased supply – no matter where the origin – will almost always reduce prices. In fact, just the suggestion of an increased supply will have a similar effect.
Is it a coincidence that world oil prices have fallen steadily since the President removed his ban on offshore drilling? Possibly. Possibly not.
Jesus wept nut boy. Increased supply, no matter where the origin, will ONLY reduce prices if demand remains the same or declines or accelerates less than supply rises.
You cons always leave out the demand side that goes along with supply side. Supply doesnt exist alone. In economic terms, it ONLY exists in it’s relationship to demand.
Talk supply all you want. But if you dont also talk demand, at the same time, it’s useless.
WTF is so hard to understand about that?
How fast, and how far, will offshore drilling increase supplies in the US?
Then compare that with real and projected demand.
If you dont do BOTH things, then the discussion is just another “he said she said” with no valid conclusion.
But then, that may be what the cons want. When they cant prove their points, they just sow confusion.
And reap the resulting rewards. No action.
‘Cause ya know, they like things just the way they are…
Christ, talking hard economic science with you cons is like someone on Jerry Springer who just says “talk to the hand”.
Except…
“The Hand” actually makes more sense than the cons have on economics today.
Well, EVERY day for that matter….
Back to pick up supplies and heading back to the lake for the big cats! Love ya sugertits KFG, my conservative economist…Ha Ha! :D
farmie, I didn’t realize I had to make the ceteris paribus assumption for you.
Ceteris pribus, definition:
“Experimentally, the ceteris paribus assumption is realized when a scientist controls for all of the independent variables other than the one under study, so that the effect of a single independent variable on the dependent variable can be isolated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus
With complex subjects that happens about how often?
Never, you say? So, as usual, you are blowing crap out of your generous ass?
Oh, that was your point? Yeah, sure. Stupid and ugly – chances of remarriage float around zero, I would guess… But, he is not trailor-parky… at least the offensive narcissistic poster thinks not…
I see you picked up a new phrase today.
Using the scientific method to derive, test, and verify hypotheses, requires the ceteris paribus assumption, that other factors be kept constant.
Although other factors are initially held constant with the ceteris paribus assumption, they are not necessarily held constant forever.
A critical aspect of economic analysis is to systematically relax the ceteris paribus assumption. In so doing, the specific effect of each ceteris paribus factor can be identified and analyzed.
Much like a chemist adds one chemical at a time to a mixture to determine the resulting reaction, an economist relaxes one ceteris paribus assumption at a time to observe the results.
In the real world, you cant hold the constants forever. Real world economics dont work that way.
But thanks for playing. We are impressed with your new dictionary of economic terms.
“Intellectuals like to see themselves as of scientific mind. Egg heads run control groups and look at crunched numbers. But, in truth, the college brains holding everything else constant make the Ceteris Paribus Assumption Fallacy- they assume that everything they deem unrelated is also equally unimportant.”
You can deem demand to be unrelated, but it isnt unimportant. “All things being equal” doesnt happen in the real world.
Seems to be the phrase for today, August 4, 2008
http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=2718
Didnt see your post first Steven, sorry.
It’s the talking point for the day. nut boy just brought it here for us to show us he knows what he knows.
And, all things being equal, to show us that he doesnt know what he doesnt know.
Actually, one of the problems with oil supply and demand is that some countries subsidize their citizens when they consume oil. China is the biggest offender.
If everyone paid world market price and mark up, there wouldn’t be an oil crunch nor a huge price increase.
And it is a global market reg. That’s why all this “our oil” and “drill HERE” crap is just that.
It all goes on the world market, unless we plan to nationalize the oil industry and keep “our” oil off the world market and only on the US market.
…and wont the free market capitalists LOVE that!
Keynes must be rolling in his grave…
Ha! Leave it to a liberal to think we can save our way to success.
Does increased supply reduce prices? Of course.
Will reduced demand have a similar effect? Sure.
Why not both?
Why not pursue alternative fuels?
For some reason, farmie is arguing with herself.
*shock*
Well, additional oil would affect global prices as speculators would have more confidence in knowing that sources are more abundant and free flowing.
Speculators don’t need much to motivate or demotivate.
“Ha! Leave it to a liberal to think we can save our way to success.”
THAT from a conservative?
Or rather from a conservative supported by mommy and daddy.
It’s fun when this Con turned progressive can take the cons to school.