Article

2005-03-01 Home Front: Economy

The American economy is now relying on two markets which don't play by the normal rules.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-03-01 10:41|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 --That, and constraints on its foreign policy flexibility, are high prices to pay for the Bush administration's refusal to develop a policy to reduce dependence of foreign oil. --

Refusal?

They haven't submitted a plan to Congress??

ANWR? Hydrogen?? Nukes????

Posted by anonymous2u 2005-03-01 11:02:04 AM|| 2005-03-01 11:02:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 It seems that the only solution would be to develop a new source of energy and in the meantime, starting a campaign to get people to use less of it.

Posted by TMH 2005-03-01 11:21:30 AM|| 2005-03-01 11:21:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 it's an interesting turn of events. The Dems talk oil independence but they do little nothing except make demands (from their 20,000 sq ft mansions, private jets and Limos) that Red staters don't drive SUV's. Even the hydrogen folks praised Bush as doing far more than Clinton. I know my patience is getting thin with the dependency on Saudi oil. If Dems vote down ANWAR, nukes or pass laws that charge gas tax by mile instead of efficiency - it will come back to rbite them hard in 2008.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-01 11:23:24 AM|| 2005-03-01 11:23:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Letting oil stay at $50 per barrel will both encourage people "to develop a new source of energy and in the meantime, ...get people to use less of it." It's the free market at work. Also note that the economy is absorbing these increases fairly smoothly. We are much less dependent on energy to generate additional GNP. Short of shut off of oil for human induced reasons, war, etc. we may be at or near the hump of this problem.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 11:31:33 AM|| 2005-03-01 11:31:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Do ANWR, Hydrogen, nukes or any combination really have the potential to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil? The numbers I've seen make the impact look positive but marginal. I'd appreciate some links that show otherwise, it would be great news.

Posted by VAMark 2005-03-01 11:57:07 AM|| 2005-03-01 11:57:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 we have the technology to get off of foreign oil today - we just don't have the will. Same reason we can't get rid of our illegal immigration problem - the economy revolves around both problems.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-01 12:03:11 PM|| 2005-03-01 12:03:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I can't credit for this concept (paraphrase) - we'll never run out of oil because other things that cost less will replace it. Oil will just get too expensive. Sorta like whale oil. But for that to happen, it'll hafta be market-driven, not liberal-driven.

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-01 12:47:46 PM|| 2005-03-01 12:47:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 some might say that keeping the Saudi madrassas funded and terrorism alive is "too expensive".

It doesn't have to be "liberal" driven. Liberals have pea-brains with no common sense. Ignore their ballyhoo for the background noise that it is and recognize that we would all benefit from a better energy source.

There is a market place for it already. But what keeps it from flourishing is regulation and lobbyists from the auto industry, tire industry, bus,taxi,gas station,autorepair,oil exploration,oil processing,oil shipping, oil contracting etc. etc. etc. industries.

Too many people have careers invested in keeping the status quo. You can't just put them all out of work overnight.

We all know we'd be each be happy to drive cleaner cars with more efficient fuel soures. The technology exists - but the market barriers are aimed at keeping the new sources OUT of the market place - not driving them in.

Posted by 2b 2005-03-01 1:01:09 PM|| 2005-03-01 1:01:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Two effing words: nuclear power. Faster, please

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-03-01 3:32:12 PM|| 2005-03-01 3:32:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Forget ANWR, hydrogen, more fuel efficient cars, widmills, etc. None of them will reduce oil dependance by more than a few percentage points. Nuclear power can eliminate oil dependence completely and there are no significant technology barriers. France already generates close to 90% of its electricity from nuclear and is a major exporter (of electricity) because costs are so low. You will build new nuclear power stations. Its just a matter of how long it takes.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-01 5:01:58 PM|| 2005-03-01 5:01:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 It's a matter of economics and regulation.

Regulation. All the Public Interest Litigation Groups will tie up any Nuke plant in years of EIR's and other red tape to prevent construction

Economics. No utility is going to build a nuke without a limitation of liability that can only be granted legislatively.

What should happen is that the U. S. government should get into the power generation business. It would build and own the plants under a standard design. Approvals would be by Congressional legislation. Operation of the plants would be bid out to private operating companies with incentives to maximize income to the government. Power would be sold by the operator to utilities.

Electrical power generation and distribution should be regulated nationally not by state. This is an interstate commerce and national defence issue.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 5:09:35 PM|| 2005-03-01 5:09:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Even the greens are behind nukes. Faster, dammit

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-03-01 5:13:53 PM|| 2005-03-01 5:13:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Yes, nuclear is cheaper and cleaner. General population is just scared of it and the oil lobby is overpowering. But that's where the leadership (presisdents, congressmen, etc.) comes in with the need to LEAD to change the public opinion. As far as disposal, it can be stored temporarily and in about 100 year science will be advanced enough to deal with it.
The gains will be huge:
1.It will effectively close the Universities of Terrorism
2. It will improve the U.S. strategic position and manueverability
3. Will reduce the trade deficit
4. Will provide tens of thousands of jobs (design, construction and running the N-plants)in this country rather than in Saudi

Posted by wonderer 2005-03-01 7:14:06 PM|| 2005-03-01 7:14:06 PM|| Front Page Top

23:53 badanov
23:51 CrazyFool
23:47 CrazyFool
23:46 CrazyFool
23:42 Sobiesky
23:41 Cyber Sarge
23:38 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:37 Phil Fraering
23:34 Phil Fraering
23:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:33 Phil Fraering
23:16 anymouse
23:11 crazyhorse
23:07 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 crazyhorse
22:51 Bomb-a-rama
22:46 Formerly Dan
22:45 crazyhorse
22:24 trailing wife
22:16 trailing wife
22:13 Jame Retief
22:13 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:13 Deacon Blues
22:07 trailing wife