$100 why not $1000 a barrel oil?
Newsweek Magazine for January 7 had an article, titled "Why We Can't Stop $100 Oil". The contents are what one might expect given the lengthy babble about our dependancy on oil and why prices will still climb even higher. Of course I am no economist, but I never did buy into the idea that oil prices will ""even themselves out" and the market will stabilize. The new twist that the article inserted into the text, just after the standard "It about supply and demand..." was the word "Globally". Oh boy, dont even go there.
this whole oil situation reminds me of the WAMU Banking commercial in which a herd of old bankers are penned in and subjected to young, hip, new, WAMUs ideas like free checking and free ATM withdrawls, etc. The old boys being so set in thier ways have gotten fat and lazy and simply have become complicit in letting "the way things are" happen. No new developments, no cutting edge revolutionary ideas, yet they still want the proffit due them.
Getting back to oil and the article, the piece contends that pupblic outcry will become so loud that the government will have no choice but to tap the reserves in Alaska. Of course this brings about a slew of problems of its own. Here's the snag - who exactly do you think will be granted the "ownership" or production rights over the new supply? Of course, big Oil companies. the same fat lazy old boys club big oil that hasnt seen a new refinery in decades, the same big oil companies who pleged to lower oil prices at the pump, and the same big oil execs who see 10 figure salaries plus benefits. Yeah, that'll work well. NOT!
As a conservative, I am honor bound to point out, that the idea of big business, while very republican in nature (though I contend Reagan would be turning over in his grave to see this bull****. I'd better go check on him...), was not designed to functionin this way. Conservatism as it affect business is meant to support industry as a stable backbone of American infasturcture and economics. What has happened in actuality is that since the time of Reagan and government hands free, is that simple human greed has outweighed the public bennefit. Now lest I digress in to socialistic thoughts, I am neither aruging FOR increased government intervention, NOR am I going to kick and scream to have my way at the pump.
As a conservative, I am advocating that truely smart people find ways around the oil game, and go off the grid. Not for paranoia of govenrment, but to no longer be individually dependant on oil. Besides my new year's resolution is to loose weight. time to get walking. See you around the planet!
this whole oil situation reminds me of the WAMU Banking commercial in which a herd of old bankers are penned in and subjected to young, hip, new, WAMUs ideas like free checking and free ATM withdrawls, etc. The old boys being so set in thier ways have gotten fat and lazy and simply have become complicit in letting "the way things are" happen. No new developments, no cutting edge revolutionary ideas, yet they still want the proffit due them.
Getting back to oil and the article, the piece contends that pupblic outcry will become so loud that the government will have no choice but to tap the reserves in Alaska. Of course this brings about a slew of problems of its own. Here's the snag - who exactly do you think will be granted the "ownership" or production rights over the new supply? Of course, big Oil companies. the same fat lazy old boys club big oil that hasnt seen a new refinery in decades, the same big oil companies who pleged to lower oil prices at the pump, and the same big oil execs who see 10 figure salaries plus benefits. Yeah, that'll work well. NOT!
As a conservative, I am honor bound to point out, that the idea of big business, while very republican in nature (though I contend Reagan would be turning over in his grave to see this bull****. I'd better go check on him...), was not designed to functionin this way. Conservatism as it affect business is meant to support industry as a stable backbone of American infasturcture and economics. What has happened in actuality is that since the time of Reagan and government hands free, is that simple human greed has outweighed the public bennefit. Now lest I digress in to socialistic thoughts, I am neither aruging FOR increased government intervention, NOR am I going to kick and scream to have my way at the pump.
As a conservative, I am advocating that truely smart people find ways around the oil game, and go off the grid. Not for paranoia of govenrment, but to no longer be individually dependant on oil. Besides my new year's resolution is to loose weight. time to get walking. See you around the planet!
posted by ProLPconserve at
13:08
2 Comments:
Help! My prized blogging conservative is a liberal! Or a libertarian! Or something!
Hey, I'm kidding :)
I'll comment more when I get home from Kansas.
By
Nate, at Fri Jan 18, 08:55:00 PM GMT
Now for my comment... I'd like to speak for the smart people, you included for a lot of it. We would love to get around oil. All we need is a paycheck to work on replacing oil or infinite influence to change consumption.
We can't get paychecks to work on a replacement when
-- Reagan et al think the government (the main pure-science funding source in the US by far) should spend billions of dollars a year to spread democracy where it isn't wanted
-- then cut things like science funding to pay for it while still trading pork
-- and then give back 5% of the government's intake to boost an economy slowed by people taking out mortgages that they were too dumb to realize that they couldn't afford
-- and on top of all that, we live in a world where human resource models drive hiring even in sciences, the result being that people with PhDs in subjects like particle physics, no matter how smart, can't get jobs doing science research that isn't already part of their "experience" as particle physicists.
As for infinite influence, it'll be a cold day in Hades when my in-laws or my own parents start using compact fluorescent lightbulbs. I met dozens of people in Georgia who thought trains were for poor back people. I know many, many people who refuse to drive less. I don't have that pull to change any of them. Nobody does.
So I agree with your idea. (Didn't I agree to the same idea a couple of years ago at the Westy?) I just don't know how to get it to work, without either big money or major sex appeal. We could maybe influence the hiring methods used in science research today, but even that doesn't do any good without money to pay out.
By
Nate, at Sun Jan 20, 07:09:00 AM GMT
Post a Comment
<< Home