Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: ilbob on May 05, 2009, 12:17:59 PM
-
http://www.isa.org/Content/ContentGroups/News/2009/May38/Energy_executive_chides_Obama_administration.htm
5 May 2009
Energy executive chides Obama administration
“We drilled this core sample back when we still used carbon paper in the office to make copies of documents,” joked William Whitsitt, a Devon Energy vice president, “and I’m very excited about it today.”
Whitsitt spoke Monday at Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) on the topic of making U.S. energy policy less partisan and more productive.
The reason Whitsitt is excited is that at the time Devon took that sample, some 30 years ago, the product that was downhole didn’t meet the price point that would make it feasible to mine. Oil was too cheap. Lifting it out was too expensive.
“What if we put today’s technology to use?” he queried. “Turn us loose!”
Whitsitt decried the governmental restrictions that preclude going after this oil now. It’s off the coast of Atlantic City and in about 400 feet of water, which was deep back then.
Whitsitt pointed out public opinion polls show two-thirds of the public favor exploration and oil extraction on our outer continental shelf these days.
He also pointed to the sterling safety record of the offshore industry. There hasn’t been a significant spill in over 30 years and the technology is even better.
In meetings with an Obama administration official and upon citing all the numbers and evidence favoring new exploration, the administrator said, “I don’t doubt that your figures on the safety of the oil and gas exploration industry are true. But I’m 45 years old and by the time I’m 70, I want the use of hydrocarbons as energy to be over.”
“How can I talk to someone like that,” Whitsitt said. “My college logic teacher didn’t prepare me for this.”
Whitsitt said energy policy discussion in the U.S. has become highly polarized and partisan. Groups advocating one approach or the other regularly talk past one another.
Politicians make claims without factual basis or knowledge of energy markets.
– Nicholas Sheble
-
You can't talk to them.
There, I said it.
-
In meetings with an Obama administration official and upon citing all the numbers and evidence favoring new exploration, the administrator said, “I don’t doubt that your figures on the safety of the oil and gas exploration industry are true. But I’m 45 years old and by the time I’m 70, I want the use of hydrocarbons as energy to be over.”
The KING has spoken!
So has it been said; so has it been written.
LET it BE SO!
-
Politicians make claims without factual basis or knowledge of energy markets.
[sincerity] Yeah, but they care about the common man. [/sincerity]
-
Yep.
"I don't like the way things are, so I'm going to force EVERYONE in this country to pay for the future I envision!"
Oh yeah, these guys have so much empathy.
-
It doesn't matter what this "administrator" wants. Budget deficits and the rising cost of oil make offshore drilling unavoidable.
In a way, this is a good thing. Delay it long enough, and they'll be selling that oil at $200/bbl instead of $30/bbl.
-
It doesn't matter what this "administrator" wants. Budget deficits and the rising cost of oil make offshore drilling unavoidable.
In a way, this is a good thing. Delay it long enough, and they'll be selling that oil at $200/bbl instead of $30/bbl.
And the government will get to scream about OBSCENE PROFITS (that they caused) AGAIN!
-
Offshore drilling is unavoidable?
Think again. You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.
-
It's a plot. A plot to destroy the thinking man. These pronuncments are made so any thinking person reading them will immediately have their brain explode. :O
-
oh, its like the image picard wanted to infect the borg with =D
-
You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.
Precisely.
-
Offshore drilling is unavoidable?
Think again. You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.
There's an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil off the coast of CA. At $200/bbl, that's 2 trillion dollars. It might take a while, but money is the most powerful ideology in American politics.
-
I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.
-
I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.
I want to drive four-wheel-drive cars. The oil-man wants me to drive 4WD cars. Obama wants to eliminate 4WD cars.
I want to live in a house. The oil-man wants me to live in a house. Obama thinks flats are more 'efficient'.
I want to consume more products. The oil-man wants me to consume products. Obama thinks consumption is bad for Mother Gaia.
-
I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.
I cannot speak to your interests, though I will bet Obama's and yours are more closely alligned than that of the oil man.
The oil man's interests are in providing me a good that I wish to purchase. I'd say his are more in line than Obama's which are PREVENTING me from buying a good that I wish to purchase.
But that's me. You might like living in a mud hut with good intentions for heat.
-
If you are using a computer, then the odds are that you consume electricity. Electricity has to be produced by some means and the options are very limited as to how to do so. You have coal, nuclear, gas, oil, hydro, solar, wind, and tidal action.
Coal is plentiful and our best chance of getting free of foreign energy dependence in the immediate future. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has declared open war on the industry.
Nuclear is our best chance for energy independence for the long-term. Unfortunately, various interest groups in the US are at war with nuclear power and they hold sway with the administration. Which is funny, since as a world citizen, you'd think Obama would accept nuclear power since the rest of the world typically has few issues with the concept and since they didn't try to abort their programs in their infancy, they actually have few operational issues.
Gas? Somewhat plentiful but expensive because Clinton/Gore blocked pipeline production. Since it's a fossil fuel, it is automatically evil and many want it blocked.
Oil? Same as coal if a bit less plentiful.
Hydro? Great, but dams hurt the fishies (not really but who cares about honesty) so they need to go.
Wind? Wonderful. Clean, quiet, . . . and amazingly inefficient on any significant scale. Besides, turbines cause visual pollution and thus must be banned (it's funny when enviro nuts block the same wind power they push for).
Solar? Same as wind, with same results. Enviros love it until they find out that to get the power their own neo-Luddite life style (with computers and lights for all and private jets for the wealthy enviros) demands, you'll have to cover massive areas with panels.
Tidal action? It's got a chance to produce good results (although not massive amounts of power) but anyone think the enviros are going to accept the visual pollution of the required facilities? Besides, where tides produce the most power is also where the surfing is best. When personal interests interfere with societal goods, even the enviros go for their own.
All in all, if you are a consumer of electricity, you are probably going to align more with the energy execs than with the people who want to effectively castrate electricity production. Improving efficiency and promoting conservation is great, but the best models say that even with such measures, the demand for electricity is continuing to grow and will continue to grow. We need to be focused on generating more electricity at the same time we promote environmental/societal measures, not working to undermine electricity production and increase costs. Unfortunately, this administration is dedicated to the latter and not the former.
-
A world without power is best, especially a world also without annoying humans. Isn't that the unspoken creed?
-
So, no hydrocarbons? Back to the unicorns pedaling bicycles to turn turbines for heat and light?
-
If only they could spin a turbine with my telephone. I could power Lafayette all year. =D
-
I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.
Given that the oil-man must convince others to consume his wares as opposed to not spending any money or buying someone else's wares, while BHO is a policritter who has never held a legitimate job and uses the threat of violence to have his way...that assumption is likely to turn out correct.
-
A world without power is best, especially a world also without annoying humans. Isn't that the unspoken creed?
There are some groups advocating just that. They promote mass suicide, with a few left behind to continue spreading the message. Hopefully, many other of the nuttier branches will take up the cry. That will leave the rest of us free to actually solve the problem.
-
Unfortunately, various interest groups in the US are at war with nuclear power and they hold sway with the administration.
What if there was an announcement made that construction was going to begin on a new reactor, people were urged to show up and demonstrate against it, and when they were all there, the area was nuked?
-
I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.
Of course my interests align more with the oil man. The oil man wants to sell me something I want to buy.
The only thing Obama and I have in common is my money. I have it, he wants it.
As for what either say are true, I don't trust either of them. I rely upon what I know. What I know is that there is far more oil in the ground here in the US than there is potential for environmental catastrophe.
-
There's an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil off the coast of CA. At $200/bbl, that's 2 trillion dollars. It might take a while, but money is the most powerful ideology in American politics.
According to this link, we used 7.5 billion barrels in 2007.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.
-
According to this link, we used 7.5 billion barrels in 2007.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.
If it took them 25 years to suck that oil field dry, it would provide ~5+% of the USA's oil consumption per year it was active.
Contrast that to wind & solar, which produce (drumroll, please) less than 2% of the country's electricity usage per year. Which get roughly 75-200 times the subsidy per KW/hr produced than oil & nat gas used for electricity. Without that subsidy, the percentage of electricity produced by wind & solar would be very close to zero.
That oil field is looking pretty good, right about now.
Then, of course, there is the oil shale in the Rockies and the tar sands up in Canada, each of which has more exploitable oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. If oil goes back to the $150/bbl range for a while, expect these to come online and when up & running, to knock that market cost per bbl WAY back down, as the cost to produce a BBL of that oil gets to be in the $35/BBL range to produce ($2/BBL for oil from Saudi).
-
According to this link, we used 7.5 billion barrels in 2007.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp
I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.
I love these people who think they are being so smart and forward looking:
"Hey, they oil may run out someday, we need to come up with something else."
It's another of those: Sounds good at first but cannot work.
What they propose is not to take it on themselves to discover a new energy source. That would be noble, at least.
Instead they propose forcing everyone to pay for SOMEONE ELSE to discover a new energy source.
You know, because they know better than us.
Personally, I'd prefer to let the market come up with a solution ONCE WE HAVE AN ACTUAL PROBLEM WITH OIL. It's amazing how well the market responds to needs.
Until then, we are simply crippling ourselves so that the people in government can fund their pet projects.
Why can't people see beyond the INTENDED result of their action?
-
I love these people who think they are being so smart and forward looking:
"Hey, they oil may run out someday, we need to come up with something else."
It's another of those: Sounds good at first but cannot work.
What they propose is not to take it on themselves to discover a new energy source. That would be noble, at least.
Instead they propose forcing everyone to pay for SOMEONE ELSE to discover a new energy source.
You know, because they know better than us.
Personally, I'd prefer to let the market come up with a solution ONCE WE HAVE AN ACTUAL PROBLEM WITH OIL. It's amazing how well the market responds to needs.
Until then, we are simply crippling ourselves so that the people in government can fund their pet projects.
Why can't people see beyond the INTENDED result of their action?
makattack,
You read an awful lot of meaning into one short sentance. I'm glad you know so much about me. Nothing changes the fact that a 10 billion barrel oil field off of the California coast will only provide about 1.5 years worth of oil for us. Then what?
Personally, I'd prefer to let the market come up with a solution ONCE WE HAVE AN ACTUAL PROBLEM WITH OIL. It's amazing how well the market responds to needs.
We do have a problem with oil. Look at who we buy it from and where it has to be shipped through to get to us. I would much rather depend on some other form of energy produced within our borders and under our control. If you want to trust OPEC, feel free. I don't. If you want to trust a totally open, unguarded supply chain that is open to attack, feel free. I don't.
jfruser,
You make a more logical attack on my statement than makattack does. :laugh: Would you agree with me if I said that the oil fields off our coasts, on the north slope and what is contained in the Rockies oil shale is a finite resource? What do we do when that finite resource runs out? My problems with oil relate solely to the fact that we buy the majority of what we use overseas, it is vulnerable while being shipped, and we don't have enough of it here within our borders to make us self sufficient.
-
makattack,
You read an awful lot of meaning into one short sentance. I'm glad you know so much about me. Nothing changes the fact that a 10 billion barrel oil field off of the California coast will only provide about 1.5 years worth of oil for us. Then what?
We do have a problem with oil. Look at who we buy it from and where it has to be shipped through to get to us. I would much rather depend on some other form of energy produced within our borders and under our control. If you want to trust OPEC, feel free. I don't. If you want to trust a totally open, unguarded supply chain that is open to attack, feel free. I don't.
jfruser,
You make a more logical attack on my statement than makattack does. :laugh: Would you agree with me if I said that the oil fields off our coasts, on the north slope and what is contained in the Rockies oil shale is a finite resource? What do we do when that finite resource runs out? My problems with oil relate solely to the fact that we buy the majority of what we use overseas, it is vulnerable while being shipped, and we don't have enough of it here within our borders to make us self sufficient.
Hmm... you claim I misrepresent what you said and then you repeat nearly verbatim what I characterized your argument as.
So, you DON'T suggest that we force everyone to pay for your new form of energy? Or was I mistaken on that?
-
Also, let me further say:
We will NEVER run out of oil. N-E-V-E-R.
What MAY happen is that if we do start "running out of oil" the price will go up.
When the price goes up, other options become more attractive.
In economics, we call that the "substitution effect". I'd prefer to let people choose their own substitutes once they become attractive in the market and not force people to pay for my own pet energy project.
-
jfruser,
You make a more logical attack on my statement than makattack does. :laugh: Would you agree with me if I said that the oil fields off our coasts, on the north slope and what is contained in the Rockies oil shale is a finite resource? What do we do when that finite resource runs out? My problems with oil relate solely to the fact that we buy the majority of what we use overseas, it is vulnerable while being shipped, and we don't have enough of it here within our borders to make us self sufficient.
1. Yes, they are a finite resource.
2. In general, what will happen is what makattak describes, unless some green freak with political power uses gov't and the threat of death to force a different outcome.
In particular, I do not know (and do not much care*) which energy source replaces petroleum products. That point is a couple of centuries out (8 generations or so, given current usage rates and ability to exploit what is there) unless some other source comes online that is both cheaper per unit energy and superior is some significant way (portability, etc.)
[* I really don't worry much about "oil running out" in the big sense. makatak explained why: when the price approaches a certain point, substitutes will be more attractive and eventually take over from petroleum the same way petroleum took over from whale oil. Also, anyone who took an astronomy course knows that eventually, the Sun will run out of hydrogen. Why no great BFD over that? It has about the same effect on us at this point in history as does running out of oil.]
Your worry about our "oil imports from overseas" is overwrought, IMO. We import more from Canada than we do from the entire Persian Gulf. While Hugo Chavez might rail against the USA, he will no more stop selling us oil than he will cut off his dangly bits. Same thing with Mexico. They need our dollars more than we need their oil.
Matter of fact, every source in the W Hemisphere is about as secure as any resource can be, which amounts to 46% of total petro imports, 27% of total petro used.
If we count all sources I would consider "secure" (excludes any Asian, ME, African source), the number bumps to 49% of all petro imports, 29% of total petro used, or 71% of "secure imported" & domestic petro.
So, discounting the Rocky Mtn oil shale and the Canadian oil sands, new oil fields like those off the Cali coast can cover a significant portion of the 29% of our imported oil that is not as secure as we'd like. The postulated 5% of annual oil use from the Cali field would be a little over 1/6 of the proportion of our "insecure import" gap. Toss in another such find in the parts of the Gulf of Mexico where we are currently barred from exploitation, and you are 1/3 of the way there.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm
Source (thousands of bbl oil & such annually) 2008 2008_pct_imported 2008_pct_total_(58%_imported)
Annual Total U.S. Imports 4711238 100% 58%
Non-OPEC Countries 2530488 54% 31%
OPEC Countries 2180750 46% 27%
Canada 899935 19% 11%
Persian Gulf Countries 868516 18% 11%
Saudi Arabia 560705 12% 7%
Mexico 475545 10% 6%
Venezuela 435769 9% 5%
Nigeria 362263 8% 4%
Iraq 229300 5% 3%
Algeria 200192 4% 2%
Angola 187761 4% 2%
Russia 169415 4% 2%
Virgin Islands 117191 2% 1%
Brazil 94261 2% 1%
United Kingdom 85415 2% 1%
Ecuador 80714 2% 1%
Kuwait 76988 2% 1%
Colombia 73238 2% 1%
Netherlands 61142 1% 1%
Chad 38080 1% 0%
Libya 37467 1% 0%
Norway 37303 1% 0%
France 32468 1% 0%
Belgium 31472 1% 0%
Aruba 31341 1% 0%
Equatorial Guinea 28289 1% 0%
Azerbaijan 27152 1% 0%
Congo (Brazzaville) 24694 1% 0%
Trinidad and Tobago 23268 0% 0%
Gabon 21430 0% 0%
Italy 19423 0% 0%
Germany 19192 0% 0%
Korea 17657 0% 0%
Argentina 17595 0% 0%
Spain 16370 0% 0%
Australia 12880 0% 0%
Peru 12172 0% 0%
Finland 11885 0% 0%
Vietnam 10628 0% 0%
Sweden 10153 0% 0%
Indonesia 8068 0% 0%
Oman 6765 0% 0%
Belarus 6630 0% 0%
China 5628 0% 0%
Egypt 5605 0% 0%
Guatemala 5394 0% 0%
Cameroon 5341 0% 0%
Thailand 5148 0% 0%
Lithuania 4891 0% 0%
Kazakhstan 4466 0% 0%
Netherlands Antilles 3732 0% 0%
Japan 3421 0% 0%
Estonia 3410 0% 0%
Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivore) 3298 0% 0%
Tunisia 3114 0% 0%
Portugal 2989 0% 0%
Turkey 2827 0% 0%
Malaysia 2789 0% 0%
Ukraine 2756 0% 0%
Bahama Islands 2610 0% 0%
Jamaica 2439 0% 0%
Latvia 2347 0% 0%
Israel 2313 0% 0%
Syria 2303 0% 0%
China, Taiwan 2125 0% 0%
India 2040 0% 0%
Denmark 1731 0% 0%
El Salvador 1667 0% 0%
United Arab Emirates 1474 0% 0%
Bolivia 1239 0% 0%
Ireland 1186 0% 0%
Greece 1082 0% 0%
Mauritania 995 0% 0%
Costa Rica 957 0% 0%
Belize 952 0% 0%
Ghana 831 0% 0%
Turkmenistan 809 0% 0%
Singapore 649 0% 0%
Bulgaria 635 0% 0%
Cyprus 604 0% 0%
New Zealand 571 0% 0%
South Africa 511 0% 0%
Brunei 356 0% 0%
Panama 348 0% 0%
Morocco 321 0% 0%
Niue 313 0% 0%
Pakistan 307 0% 0%
Georgia 92 0% 0%
Midway Islands 79 0% 0%
Malta 67 0% 0%
Senegal 65 0% 0%
Romania 49 0% 0%
Qatar 49 0% 0%
Uruguay 37 0% 0%
Poland 32 0% 0%
Hungary 22 0% 0%
Yemen 0% 0%
Tonga 0% 0%
Togo 0% 0%
Switzerland 0% 0%
Swaziland 0% 0%
Spratly Islands 0% 0%
Slovakia 0% 0%
Puerto Rico 0% 0%
Philippines 0% 0%
Papua New Guinea 0% 0%
Namibia 0% 0%
Kyrgyzstan 0% 0%
Hong Kong 0% 0%
Guinea 0% 0%
Croatia 0% 0%
Cook Islands 0% 0%
Congo (Kinshasa) 0% 0%
Chile 0% 0%
Burma 0% 0%
Benin 0% 0%
Barbados 0% 0%
Bahrain 0% 0%
Austria 0% 0%
Albania 0% 0%
-
Yep-long term economic health is every corporate exec goal. That's why we can rely on them to plan energy responsibly for the future, just like they planned all those investment portfolios.
-
We do have a problem with oil. Look at who we buy it from and where it has to be shipped through to get to us. I would much rather depend on some other form of energy produced within our borders and under our control. If you want to trust OPEC, feel free. I don't. If you want to trust a totally open, unguarded supply chain that is open to attack, feel free. I don't.
You make a more logical attack on my statement than makattack does. :laugh: Would you agree with me if I said that the oil fields off our coasts, on the north slope and what is contained in the Rockies oil shale is a finite resource? What do we do when that finite resource runs out? My problems with oil relate solely to the fact that we buy the majority of what we use overseas, it is vulnerable while being shipped, and we don't have enough of it here within our borders to make us self sufficient.
Seems to me that you would benefit from learning just where most of our oil comes from. Do this before preaching to us just how bad out oil situation is.
-
Headless Thompson Gunner,
Since the computer chose to send my first response off into the ether this response is going to be much shorter. I have a pretty good idea of where our oil comes from. I was the guy who provided the link to the EIA that jfruser used in his last post.
Off the top of my head, oil accounts for about 40% of our overall energy use. We import about 70% of the oil that we use. We import the most from Canada (18%), then from Persian Gulf area (16% from something like 5 nations there), about 11% from Venezuela and 10% from Mexico. Feel free to peruse the internet and correct me if I am wrong, like I said I am taking these figures from memory.
Of the oil that we use, 70% goes towards transportation, 28% towards making "things", and 2% towards generating electricity. The vast majority of our electrical power comes from coal, natural gas and nuclear power. We have lots of coal and natural gas. Why we don't have more nuclear power is a subject for a whole different thread. Personally I'm all for it. This is also why I know that the lights aren't going off if our oil supply from the Persian Gulf is interrupted.
jfruser made a few points that I would like to address. One is that we get oil from Mexico and Venezuela and he thinks that they are secure sources of oil. I don't believe that they are as secure as he thinks. If the government didn't think interuppting our oil supply would be a problem why do we have a strategic reserve? He also said "Toss in another such find in the parts of the Gulf of Mexico where we are currently barred from exploitation". I am all for exploration both in the US and off of our coasts. I just don't want to count on undiscovered reserves until they are actually discovered. This is a problem within the oil industry, depending on oil or reporting oil that has not been discovered. I wish I could depend on money I haven't discovered yet in my bank account but that would be a little silly. Here is a link to what I am talking about.
http://www.daviesand.com/Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Reserves/
Is what I have stated above preaching, or something resembling facts? I'd be happy to engage in a discussion with anybody here but it has to be a two way discussion based on what the posters are writing.
So, you DON'T suggest that we force everyone to pay for your new form of energy? Or was I mistaken on that?
Yeah, mak, you are mistaken. I read through my posts again. No where in there did I state we need to start paying for a "new form of energy". The only thing I would change is that I referred to oil as a source of energy. I should have expanded on that. Oil is a source of energy and also an important resource used to manufacture things. Like the computers we are all using right now. I'm pretty sure a computer made our of bamboo wouldn't work nearly as well. The subject of petroleum really is much broader than what the OP had intended here, IMO. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you if you actually just responded to what I had been writing. You also made some remarks to somebody else here about living in a mud hut with good intentions for heat. Is it really necessary to be insulting to people? Do you talk to people like that face to face?
-
Since there's a lot of chatter about where we get our oil from:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthonthemarket.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F02%2Fdilbert2006021523379.jpg&hash=41f994e9f744ece88e9f9a7f807335aa6872e394)
-
Yeah, mak, you are mistaken. I read through my posts again. No where in there did I state we need to start paying for a "new form of energy". The only thing I would change is that I referred to oil as a source of energy. I should have expanded on that. Oil is a source of energy and also an important resource used to manufacture things. Like the computers we are all using right now. I'm pretty sure a computer made our of bamboo wouldn't work nearly as well. The subject of petroleum really is much broader than what the OP had intended here, IMO. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you if you actually just responded to what I had been writing. You also made some remarks to somebody else here about living in a mud hut with good intentions for heat. Is it really necessary to be insulting to people? Do you talk to people like that face to face?
I will quote your statement back to you then:
I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.
Now if you are not suggesting the government take some action in order to bring about that result, I haven't the slightest idea what you are saying.
If you are just wishing that were the case, I have no problem with it. Wish away.
Your statement, in a thread about the administration attacking oil as an energy resource, implies you think the government SHOULD take action to stop people from using oil.
If you don't, I apologize that I characterized you statement that way.
Also, though, if you didn't mean that, what the heck do you mean? Your statements seem to say "We need to do something to get away from oil" and then you say that's not what you mean.
Is there a limited amount of oil in the world. Perhaps. It will never run out though. (Please see my previous post).
What the heck is it you are saying if you aren't saying the government needs to do something about our oil usage and the oil we import from other countries?
You have statistics: that's nice, but what bearing do they have on this discussion?
-
dm133:
Read the source I quoted. We don't import 70% of our oil, but only 58%. And that 58% is an inflated figure when discussing energy since it includes all petroleum products, not just those used for energy of some sort: plastics, lubes, etc. I doubt very highly we are importing oil to burn in power plants from Hungary, for example.
Also, if Chavez & the Mexicans don't want to sell us their oil, the only real option they have is to not sell any oil to anyone. See the Dilbert strip above and meditate on the term, "fungible."
The SPR predates Hugo Chavez's significance on the world stage, therefore HC was not the reason the SPR was created. Heck, the SPR predates the bellicose mullahs in Iran (or, at least their rise to secular power).
The SPR is there to mitigate the effect of ANY disruption. It has been used to effect the market, but hte real reason it exists is so that we can still provide our fighting forces with fuel in case of some disruption during time of war.
The existence of petroleum in the parts of the Gulf of Mexico Congress has declared forbidden to exploitation (by US companies) are interesting enough to foreign countries to have them sniffing around.
But, that is chump change relative to the previously mentioned oil shale & tar sands. We could be independent from foreign oil if we wanted to be.
But here's the kicker: it makes no sense to do so at this time. The tar sands & oil shale aren't going anywhere. When the last drop is pumped from under Saudi sand and the Saudis go back to riding camels instead of Rolls Royces, it will make sense...or when the market for oil makes a persistent rise in price per bbl.
Then the USA & Canada become net EXPORTERS of oil to those markets that consume the bulk of Persian Gulf oil (far east).
-
But, that is chump change relative to the previously mentioned oil shale & tar sands. We could be independent from foreign oil if we wanted to be.
But here's the kicker: it makes no sense to do so at this time. The tar sands & oil shale aren't going anywhere. When the last drop is pumped from under Saudi sand and the Saudis go back to riding camels instead of Rolls Royces, it will make sense...or when the market for oil makes a persistent rise in price per bbl.
Then the USA & Canada become net EXPORTERS of oil to those markets that consume the bulk of Persian Gulf oil (far east).
I ran into an old mining engineer from my school today. He complained about restrictions on the development of oil shale in Colorado, and then after talking some more about the costs in terms of electricity, water, and pollution, he agreed that maybe it wasn't such a bad thing after all.
Nuclear makes a heck of a lot more sense than oil shale.
-
Nuclear makes a heck of a lot more sense than oil shale.
As an ex-USN Nuclear Reactor Operator (ET) I agree completely. But we'll have the same problem with fission reactors we have with oil. Fissile material is finite, eventually it will run out. In addition as far as I know there are only small amounts available in the US so we become as dependent of foreign sources of uranium as we are on oil.
All nuclear does is delay the inevitable.
The real solution is fusion power, though, I am beginning to doubt that that problem will ever be solved. The braniacs have been trying since the early 70's and still no breakthru.
A workable fusion reactor essentially means keeping a little piece of the sun in a bottle (currently a magnetic one). Tough problem.
-
Nuclear makes a heck of a lot more sense than oil shale.
To generate electricity? No doubt.
To move your vehicle? No so much.
-
makattack,
I think part of the problem here is that you are assuming that anybody who says we might have a problem with oil is automatically against the use of it.
Do I think the government should be throwing up roadblocks to us using oil? Yes, and no. I laughed my ass off last year watching the GOP faithful chanting "Drill baby drill" and I still laugh my ass off when I read things about how solar and wind power are the solution to all of our problems. I think I'm more of a T. Boone Pickens kind of guy. Maybe. =D How's that for an answer!
Our way of life, so far, has been built on cheap oil. Cheap oil is starting to run out. I also doubt that there is enough cheap oil off of our coasts to supply us for more than a few years. My interest in the subject started a long time ago in school when I had to choose between geology and geography. I chose the latter because I thought it would serve me better as an intelligence officer in the military. What a silly idea that was! Plans changed, but I am in the military and a large portion of my job revolves around security and infrastructure. Which is why I have doubts about the supply of cheap oil that people seem to believe is just one test well away from discovery, the security of our oil supplies and the security of our transportation infrastructure.
What I don't know enough about is what our world would be like if we had to depend on expensive oil. I'm not sure anybody really knows enough about that but I'd be willing to listen.
I'm also three days away from having the movers show up to pack up all of my petroleum based junk and drive it cross country in a diesel powered rig so I can live amongst all the fluffy bunnies types in California who want solar and wind power. They just don't want it in the Mojave desert or Altamont Pass or in their state at all. So you may not hear a whole lot on the subject from me because I have to get some of my toys like my quad and motorcycle ready to be shipped.
Werewolf,
The Navy is pretty heavily involved in fusion research and I think if anybody can solve that problem it would be the Navy. A lot of my good opinion of nuclear power comes from being a Navy vet myself.
jfruser,
Batteries are only part of the problem with electric cars. I have seen a few articles lately on nano technology and electric motors. We might be inching closer to viable electric cars but I don't see us hauling heavy loads with electric powered rigs yet.
-
I laughed my ass off last year watching the GOP faithful chanting "Drill baby drill"
I'm not terribly faithful, but I guessed I missed something. What's so funny about "Drill baby drill"?
-
They should have been chanting "Explore, baby, explore" or "Develop technology, develop". I think a lot of people got their knowledge of the oil industry and exploration from watching the beginning of Beverly Hillbillies.
-
I'm not terribly faithful, but I guessed I missed something. What's so funny about "Drill baby drill"?
Well, folks who refer to big-R Republicans as "the faithful" are likely channeling Michael Kinsley and his sentiment that they are "poor, uneducated, and easily led."
And when a whole lot of folks you label as dumb chant, well, anything, it makes those who consider themselves well-educated and nuanced to the nth degree laugh at them.
So, it would not have mattered if they had chanted MacBeth's witches incantation from memory after a good give-and-take on relativistic physics. They are dumb & funny because we think they are dumb and funny.
-
Well, folks who refer to big-R Republicans as "the faithful" are likely channeling Michael Kinsley and his sentiment that they are "poor, uneducated, and easily led."
And when a whole lot of folks you label as dumb chant, well, anything, it makes those who consider themselves well-educated and nuanced to the nth degree laugh at them.
So, it would not have mattered if they had chanted MacBeth's witches incantation from memory after a good give-and-take on relativistic physics. They are dumb & funny because we think they are dumb and funny.
:O
-
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/06/oil-shale-development-imminent.html
I have recently noticed an increase in oil shale coverage in the media, so this seems like a good time to take a look at the potential for oil shale to meet a portion of our energy wants (as opposed to “needs”).
First, what is oil shale? Wikipedia has a nice overview on oil shale here. Briefly, oil shale started off just like the plant material that was ultimately converted into oil, but the material was not subjected to high enough temperatures and pressures to convert it completely to oil. But it is feasible to complete the process that nature started and convert oil shale into oil and natural gas by heating it. Given that the U.S. has an estimated oil shale reserve of a trillion barrels or so, it is not surprising that billions of dollars have gone into figuring out how to economically extract the oil from oil shale.
My Resume
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2005/11/my-resume.html
Turns out we are closer to electric powered heavy rigs than I thought. I don't agree with everything you read in blogs but this one has some good links to companies building electric trucks.
Five years ago, when I first got involved with peak oil, electric and hybrid trucks weren't even a concept. A little over a year ago, when I first posted on the subject they still seemed fairly exotic. Now, in 2009, an amazing amount of progress has taken place, and the technology for both EV and HEV (hybrid EV) trucks is rapidly filtering into the mainstream. It's becoming increasingly clear that peak oil will have little impact on tasks such as local trucking, garbage collection, and grid maintenance. Peak oil is simply occurring too slow compared to the rate of truck innovation and dissemination.
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
-
Here's the thing about "oil running out".
It's not going to run out overnight. It's not going to be $50 per barrel one day, and $100 the next. Prices are going to be rising slowly if oil ever starts running out.
Just like the jump in oil prices last year led to more investments in alternative energy and cleaner vehicles so does any rise in the price of oil. The average modern-day American truck is more fuel-efficient (sometimes turning twice the amount of miles per gallon) than an average car in 1975. A Hummer H3 does more miles per gallon than the average 1975 passenger car.
As technology develops, electric cars become more viable. Alternative fuels become more viable. Nuclear power becomes more viable. It's part of the natural course of technological progress.
We're going to be fine.
-
Yep-long term economic health is every corporate exec goal. That's why we can rely on them to plan energy responsibly for the future, just like they planned all those investment portfolios.
Instead, you rely on the government that created the situation where the portfolios could fail (forcing banks to make loans likely to fail, allowing credit default swaps, and not dealing with Freddie and Fannie's gross accounting "irregularities"), and even tried to make them fail more quickly (by attempting to increase Fannie and Freddie's lending authority when both were going under).
I work with quite of few of those energy corporate execs. Reduction of consumption, increased efficiency, cleaner power, and all the other buzz words for environmentalists are what the execs live by. The biggest obstacle to achieving those goals? The environmentalists and the gov't that enables them.
-
The biggest obstacle to achieving those goals? The environmentalists and the gov't that enables them.
Hallelujah. Battery-powered cars are a great idea, but we're going to need to generate gazillions of megawatts of electricity to charge the batteries, and wind turbines won't cut it. Nuclear would, but the environmentalists block new power plants in every state where they're proposed.
-
buzz, you've got a bit of a contradiction there - half the examples you cite are the government failing to regulate, rather than the government forcing businesses to do some bad thing. "Allowing credit default swaps" is not government interference; neither is "allowing a company to make loans." Yet you rightly recognise those practices as contributing to the problem.
Those would seem to be prime examples of where "the free market" actor didn't meet the needs of anyone besides...the free market actor, and even then did so poorly.
Look folks, being committed to the free market should not mean "whatever a corporation says about government policy must be true because the corporation is private". There's rarely a big ticket bargain where everything the salesman says is true and the first price quoted is the best possible deal for you.
Why would you treat energy production any differently than another free market bargain? In other words, why wouldn't you automatically critique and be highly skeptical of the salesman(executive)'s claims, and assume that he's maximizing his personal gain without regard for your own?
-
"Allowing credit default swaps" is not government interference; neither is "allowing a company to make loans." Yet you rightly recognise those practices as contributing to the problem.
You forget FM was a government-sponsored enterprise.
-
You forget FM was a government-sponsored enterprise.
So were huge components of the energy sector as well. The decisions on the writing and later purchases of these loans were made privately, not by the public or the government's bureaucracy.
-
So were huge components of the energy sector as well. The decisions on the writing and later purchases of these loans were made privately, not by the public or the government's bureaucracy.
Huh... so they weren't backed by Fannie or Freddie?
-
Why would you treat energy production any differently than another free market bargain? In other words, why wouldn't you automatically critique and be highly skeptical of the salesman(executive)'s claims, and assume that he's maximizing his personal gain without regard for your own?
Strawman. Just because we believe the energy industry doesn't mean we're trusting them blindly. I won't speak for everyone, but it's been my observation that the energy industrialists usually speak sensibly (compared to say, politicians, enviro weenies, etc).
-
So were huge components of the energy sector as well. The decisions on the writing and later purchases of these loans were made privately, not by the public or the government's bureaucracy.
You fail at finance.
-
You fail at finance.
No - the private sector types who bought billions of dollars in funny paper (freely, and with little government interference) failed at finance. That's why they were reduced to welfare queen status to avoid ending up in rags.
What is it that makes the oil executives sensible and trustworthy on their claims about energy? It'd be odd to have a whole sector of the economy that isn't motivated primarily by profit...not that it's bad, but when you're on the other end of a bargain, the bigger the other guy's profit, the higher your price to pay. That's why people bargain and take a hard, critical look at the other party's claims in a free market system.
It is decidedly un-capitalist behavior to assume that every legislative proposal put forward by a massive corporation is good business for the rest of us.
-
No - the private sector types who bought billions of dollars in funny paper (freely, and with little government interference) failed at finance. That's why they were reduced to welfare queen status to avoid ending up in rags.
What is it that makes the oil executives sensible and trustworthy on their claims about energy? It'd be odd to have a whole sector of the economy that isn't motivated primarily by profit...not that it's bad, but when you're on the other end of a bargain, the bigger the other guy's profit, the higher your price to pay. That's why people bargain and take a hard, critical look at the other party's claims in a free market system.
It is decidedly un-capitalist behavior to assume that every legislative proposal put forward by a massive corporation is good business for the rest of us.
I said it before: the speculators obviously didn't fail at finance. They assumed that since fannie and freddie were backing these securities, they could take the massive risk associated with them knowing the government would bail them out. We call that moral hazard.
And, it looks like they were right.
-
As an ex-USN Nuclear Reactor Operator (ET) I agree completely. But we'll have the same problem with fission reactors we have with oil. Fissile material is finite, eventually it will run out. In addition as far as I know there are only small amounts available in the US so we become as dependent of foreign sources of uranium as we are on oil.
They not teachin you squiddies about "breeder reactors"?
-
They not teachin you squiddies about "breeder reactors"?
Yeah... We learned about breeder reactors. Not a lot but they taught us how they worked and made a point that what they breed is fissile material usable only in fast fission reactors which are wholly unsuitable for electric power production.
Nuclear reactors used for electric power production are slow fission/thermal reactors. Water is used to slow down the neutrons that get the fission reaction going and control it with control rods that absorb excess neutrons (usually made of hafnium IIRC). Thermalized neutrons absorbed by the fissile material cause the fission reaction in various Uranium and Plutonium isotopes that only fission if hit by a thermal neutron. The rate that the fission reaction occurs and thus power output is highly controllable.
Fast fission reactors, on the other hand, use non-thermalized high energy neutrons to cause fission. The isotopes created are not suitable for use in a thermal reactor. Breeder reactors are used to produce fissile material to be used in weapons not as a source of fissile material for use in reactors designed for electricity production (at least not back in the '70s when I learned this stuff).
-
FBRs have been used in many countries to produce electricity, despite not being as suitable as other nuke methods.
If you are, say, Japan, France or another country with zero uranium to be found within your borders, it might behoove you to keep at least one FBR around...which both Japan & France did and plan to do in the future.
Personally, I like the concept and especially the lesser amount of waste.
-
I said it before: the speculators obviously didn't fail at finance. They assumed that since fannie and freddie were backing these securities, they could take the massive risk associated with them knowing the government would bail them out. We call that moral hazard.
And, it looks like they were right.
Yep. Bad loans backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?
-
Yep. Bad loans backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?
We all agree that this was bad policy - but where were all those lenders out there demanding that Government stop assuming their risk? This is the point. Policy that is bad for the economy and bad for the public and bad for the "free market" gets pushed by corporations and executives of corporations all the time because, unsurprisingly, it's good for that corporation or executive's narrow interests at the time.
-
We all agree that this was bad policy - but where were all those lenders out there demanding that Government stop assuming their risk? This is the point. Policy that is bad for the economy and bad for the public and bad for the "free market" gets pushed by corporations and executives of corporations all the time because, unsurprisingly, it's good for that corporation or executive's narrow interests at the time.
THAT MEANS THERE IS A GOVERNMENT FAILURE.
I don't want my companies looking out for the good of the "economy". That's stupid. They are not in business to make "the economy" money. If you want companies to act in the best interest of the economy, STOP USING THE GOVERNMENT TO AFFECT THEIR INCENTIVES.
If the government hadn't backed these bad loans (and "encouraged" the banks to make them), they would not have happened because it would not have been in the best interest of the company.
Yet, you seem to think that people should ignore economic incentives and act against their best interest. There's a political philosophy that completely misunderstands human nature and the market and thinks people should not act in their own best interest: communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism).
But of course, you already knew that, shootin.
-
...I think I have to agree with shootin here. When a company lobbies to receive government subsidies, it's just as much to blame for the present situation as is, for example, the NEA or similar groups.
-
...I think I have to agree with shootin here. When a company lobbies to receive government subsidies, it's just as much to blame for the present situation as is, for example, the NEA or similar groups.
That's true. From the beginning of economics, Adam Smith warned that businesses would collude, use government force, anything they could to work to their own benefit.
However, I classify this as government failure. If the government acted as it should, businesses wouldn't spend so much time and money lobbying for their own benefits.
When the government tells everybody "no", people will stop wasting so much money on wooing politicians.
Once they tell somebody "Yes" the expected return on government "investments" gets higher.
You want to avoid a situation like this? Less government is the answer.
-
You want to avoid a situation like this? Less government is the answer.
You mean, like a constitutionally limited republic, maybe?
-
We all agree that this was bad policy - but where were all those lenders out there demanding that Government stop assuming their risk? This is the point. Policy that is bad for the economy and bad for the public and bad for the "free market" gets pushed by corporations and executives of corporations all the time because, unsurprisingly, it's good for that corporation or executive's narrow interests at the time.
Don't forget that the banks were cajoled by the government into making these bad loans.
Stop and think about it. What would you expect the banks to do in this sort of environment?
On the one hand the government and pseudo-government political entities like Acorn were threatening banks with redlining charges and told to "make the American dream accessible for everyone". On the other hand, the government was buying up or backing any bad loan the banks wanted to issue. It was a classic carrot-and-stick arrangement.
Do you think the banks would refuse to issue the loans, and thereby risk the wrath of regulators and lawsuits and activists?
Or instead do you think they'd simply make the loans, pocket the transaction fees, and pass the risk off onto someone else (such as the government)?
Bad government policy has consequences. Government has been running the home loan business since the Great Depression. The mortgage mess we have now has been inevitable since FDR created Fannie back in the 1930's. This sort of mess is what happens when government manipulates the market.
And if you think this mess is a disaster, just wait until the government runs the manufacturing industry, and health care, and the oil industry, and...
-
That's true. From the beginning of economics, Adam Smith warned that businesses would collude, use government force, anything they could to work to their own benefit.
However, I classify this as government failure. If the government acted as it should, businesses wouldn't spend so much time and money lobbying for their own benefits.
When the government tells everybody "no", people will stop wasting so much money on wooing politicians.
Once they tell somebody "Yes" the expected return on government "investments" gets higher.
You want to avoid a situation like this? Less government is the answer.
Okay, you see the problem. Now to take it back to the origin of this thread: How does reflexively supporting corporations that oppose some particular Government action actually deliver any results?
The best way to get Government out of the market is to treat government like a market - let competing interests worry about their own problems, and lobby for yours. That's how bargaining works, and it is an essential practice in terms of having a functioning free market.
-
I will support any company that opposes almost any action by the federal government. (That deals with regulation).
I will oppose any company that supports almost any action by the federal government. (That deals with regulation).
So, you think instead of trying to get the government's noses out of business, we should encourage more waste and unproductive activities in order to play a ZERO-SUM GAME?
Wonderful.
-
Isn't the whole point of modern free-market economics that voluntary exchange can never be zero-sum, since both parties generally benefit in such exchanges, else they wouldn't make them?
The addition of government coercion wastes resources in (at least) two ways:
1. By forcing people to make decisions they wouldn't otherwise make (i.e. decisions that don't benefit them)
2. By generating a massive bureaucratic apparatus (both in government, and, for compliance, in private business as well) which generates nothing but must contain and support people, who, by definition, consume already scarce resources.
I'm honestly not worried that "the oil man" will force me to buy his oil. I want his oil, as its use (at current prices and my usage levels) makes my life better. I am, however, worried that the government will put a gun to the oil man's head, and make him either:
(a) not sell me the oil I want, or
(b) extract a "We don't want oil to be viable" tax from him, making the price he must charge me to profit too high for me to afford, forcing me to grudgingly curtail my use of oil (and funneling the tax money he does get to create larger bureaucracy, more regulation, and thus further negatively impacting my life).
-
Isn't the whole point of modern free-market economics that voluntary exchange can never be zero-sum, since both parties generally benefit in such exchanges, else they wouldn't make them?
Yes. However, lobbying the government to create regulations, tariffs, or subsidies that benefit you necessarily cost someone else.
In government, someone wins and someone loses.
In the market, everyone can win.
But hey, let's play the government game instead.
-
Yeah, well at least we all know that the oil industry has never pushed programs that use taxpayer dollars to benefit the oil industry. They handle all of their supply and security issues privately, and are unknown to say, gain billions as a result of incredible taxpayer expenditures in "security" aid to oil rich regions.
So when I see an oil industry guy challenging Obama's policy, I know he must be doing the right thing, because big oil wouldn't try to use my tax money for its own purposes. They're too nice to do something like that.
-
You quote mak saying business will do bad things, then claim people are saying business doesn't do bad things.
You're gonna be a great lawyer.
-
Yeah, well at least we all know that the oil industry has never pushed programs that use taxpayer dollars to benefit the oil industry. They handle all of their supply and security issues privately, and are unknown to say, gain billions as a result of incredible taxpayer expenditures in "security" aid to oil rich regions.
So when I see an oil industry guy challenging Obama's policy, I know he must be doing the right thing, because big oil wouldn't try to use my tax money for its own purposes. They're too nice to do something like that.
You've convinced me.
Because any given business has used, will use, or wants to use the government to benefit themselves at a cost to me, I'm going to support the government in every instance because they will punish these companies that will end up as a cost to me.
Wait, I think their's a saying about this... "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."
Honestly, I don't trust businesses to do anything but act in their own best interest. However, in the market, their best interest is to serve me because there cannot be any force in the market. In the government they can FORCE me to pay to subsidize them. But I should instead play the government game, huh?
-
That's not what he said.
All that he said was that we should not automatically believe that a businessperson has the interest of the free market in mind, just because they're a businessperson. Anybody who read Ayn Rand would know that's true.
-
That's not what he said.
All that he said was that we should not automatically believe that a businessperson has the interest of the free market in mind, just because they're a businessperson. Anybody who read Ayn Rand would know that's true.
Really? I italicized the portion most applicable:
Okay, you see the problem. Now to take it back to the origin of this thread: How does reflexively supporting corporations that oppose some particular Government action actually deliver any results?
The best way to get Government out of the market is to treat government like a market - let competing interests worry about their own problems, and lobby for yours. That's how bargaining works, and it is an essential practice in terms of having a functioning free market.
And if you will note he has mischaracterized our position as "reflexively supporting Corporations that oppose some government action."
When we point out that we want to government out of everything and anytime a corporation wants that, we support them, he continues with pointing out companies want subsidies.
I have turned his arguments back on him: "Reflexively supporting the government that proposes some action."
-
I don't trust business to support my interests. But when they do support my interests, why wouldn't I be ok with that?
-
Running with SS's formulation would maximize the need for lawyer-critters to negotiate the gov't corridors. I can see why he favors it to either a free market or working to make the market free-er.
For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.
-
Running with SS's formulation would maximize the need for lawyer-critters to negotiate the gov't corridors. I can see why he favors it to either a free market or working to make the market free-er.
For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.
Well, I was going to avoid pointing out that all lawyer work is wasteful, unproductive, and playing a zero-sum game so it made sense Shootin would think playing the government game is a good idea, but I thought I'd avoid insulting lawyers that don't understand what I mean by "unproductive" work.
Since you went ahead and insulted them, I'll make the comment now.
-
Well, I was going to avoid pointing out that all lawyer work is wasteful, unproductive, and playing a zero-sum game so it made sense Shootin would think playing the government game is a good idea, but I thought I'd avoid insulting lawyers that don't understand what I mean by "unproductive" work.
Since you went ahead and insulted them, I'll make the comment now.
I don't agree that ALL lawyering is wasteful and parasitic, when freely chosen by free actors in the market and not required by necessity to deal with gov't.
In many cases (both personally and otherwise) a lawyer has become a necessity to minimize exposure to the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of law & regulation at all levels of gov't.
I don't have to like it and I feel free to openly call it parasitic, as it adds no value while draining resources from productive endeavors.
-
In many cases (both personally and otherwise) a lawyer has become a necessity to minimize exposure to the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of law & regulation at all levels of gov't.
There are good lawyers. Some lawyers do provide a valuable service.
However, all lawyering is unproductive: fighting regulations does not produce anything, it simply limits artificial harm created by other lawyers/bureaucrats.
Similar illustrations can be given about all lawyering: they are there either to cause harm to an entity or protect an entity from harm from other lawyer types. It's not that what either lawyer is doing is necessarily bad (situations will dictate that) but that they are not ADDING to production. They are subtracting.
-
How about contacts between two or more private entities? Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful.
[Must...keep...gorge....down. And then take a shower. For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument. My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]
-
How about contacts between two or more private entities? Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful.
[Must...keep...gorge....down. And then take a shower. For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument. My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]
From my post:
There are good lawyers. Some lawyers do provide a valuable service.
It's not productive, though. Even if they aren't there to clarify legalese (definitely unproductive), simply writing a contract is unproductive because the purpose of the contract is to provide a means of enforcement.
It is NECESSARY to have that means of enforcement, but we would be better off if we didn't NEED to enforce the agreement. That's what is meant by unproductive.
Police are unproductive as well. Their purpose is to STOP people from harming others. We would be better off if we didn't NEED cops, but because we do, we appreciante their useful service.
As such, lawyers are like Police. Of course, some lawyers are like the criminals as well, though.
Similarly, LOCKS are unproductive. Useful, yes, but it adds nothing to society. It simply prevents harm in the society. We'd be better off if we didn't need them.
-
Hoaky, I get your point. Just needed a sledge hammer to drive it through my skull.
-
...For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.
Easy to say...
But not practical...
Lawyers are kind'a like guns. You hope you'll never need one but when you do - need one that is - you really, really need one.
-
How about contacts between two or more private entities? Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful.
[Must...keep...gorge....down. And then take a shower. For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument. My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]
Honest people can, and often do, draw up their own contracts and honor them, all without the need for lawyers and courts and whatnot.
-
Honest people can, and often do, draw up their own contracts and honor them, all without the need for lawyers and courts and whatnot.
True. As long as both parties are honorable and/or honest and are willing to work out disputes or issues between themselves, you don't need lawyers. By the same logic, as long as criminals/tyrants/etc. are non-existent, or can be dealt with easily without lethal force, you don't need firearms.
-
Re: Lawyer/Police/ect. usefulness
It is kind of naive to argue usefulness (or uselessness) based upon preventing bad things happening.
By your logic, having a machine repair man at your factory is not productive, because when a machine breaks -- it wasn't supposed to have broken!
Same goes with people violating contracts, or baddies stealing your wallet, it wasn't supposed to happen -- but it did, does, and will continue to do. Leeches come with having a productive society, there will always be people considered the least productive members by any standard.
Once you accept the reality that your machine will break from time to time, the machine repair man becomes productive. He minimizes the loss of time of the productive people using the machine. Does he add any productivity directly? No, but he reduces the inevitable loss of productivity, causing a net gain in productivity for the entire shop.
To summarize: Repairman does not add instant individual productivity but repairman adds net productivity over time.
-
Re: Lawyer/Police/ect. usefulness
It is kind of naive to argue usefulness (or uselessness) based upon preventing bad things happening.
By your logic, having a machine repair man at your factory is not productive, because when a machine breaks -- it wasn't supposed to have broken!
Same goes with people violating contracts, or baddies stealing your wallet, it wasn't supposed to happen -- but it did, does, and will continue to do. Leeches come with having a productive society, there will always be people considered the least productive members by any standard.
Once you accept the reality that your machine will break from time to time, the machine repair man becomes productive. He minimizes the loss of time of the productive people using the machine. Does he add any productivity directly? No, but he reduces the inevitable loss of productivity, causing a net gain in productivity for the entire shop.
To summarize: Repairman does not add instant individual productivity but repairman adds net productivity over time.
No, repairman adds productivity. He takes a machine that is not producing and makes it produce (or produce better). Positive sum game. (He gets paid, machine works better.)
Lawyer and policeman work to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from damaging or harming individuals. ZERO-sum game. They get paid to prevent damage from other people. The more money you spend on police, the better you prevent crime, but you don't produce anything more.
The more money you spend on a repairman, the better the machine gets and you produce more things.
It's not that lawyers and police and not GOOD AND USEFUL. They are unproductive because they are there to prevent/decrease losses in a zero-sum game.
Anything that is done in a zero-sum game is unproductive.
-
True. As long as both parties are honorable and/or honest and are willing to work out disputes or issues between themselves, you don't need lawyers. By the same logic, as long as criminals/tyrants/etc. are non-existent, or can be dealt with easily without lethal force, you don't need firearms.
I've observed that being careful to avoid doing deals with dishonest people is far more effective than hiring a lawyer to protect you against dishonest people.
I've also observed that once a lawyer becomes necessary, it is probably best just to cut your losses and run, right then and there. Fighting contract disputes with lawyers never seems to benefit anyone except the lawyers. Better to employ your resources doing something productive than to waste them fighting over the carcass of failed transaction.
I'll grant that there may possibly be a good reason to use a lawyer to resolve a contract dispute, although I've not seen one. There may also be an Easter Bunny, but I haven't seen him yet either.
-
No, repairman adds productivity. He takes a machine that is not producing and makes it produce (or produce better). Positive sum game. (He gets paid, machine works better.)
Lawyer and policeman work to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from damaging or harming individuals. ZERO-sum game. They get paid to prevent damage from other people. The more money you spend on police, the better you prevent crime, but you don't produce anything more.
The more money you spend on a repairman, the better the machine gets and you produce more things.
It's not that lawyers and police and not GOOD AND USEFUL. They are unproductive because they are there to prevent/decrease losses in a zero-sum game.
Anything that is done in a zero-sum game is unproductive.
You are insufferable about this.
Ok better scenario for repairman. Lets replace him with tinman.
Tinman walks around with an oil can and oils the machines. He prevents bad things from happening, if he were not there, the machine would stop and everyone would be sent home. Now you say, HE ONLY PREVENTS LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY. That is just verbiage. He still had productivity value because productivity with him is higher than productivity without him.
Preventing productivity loss is the same as adding productivity much like -(-1)=+1
-
Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce. What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?
-
Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce. What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?
I don't know where you got your magic truth detector that works in both the present and throughout the entirety of the future, but I'd love a link. I need to get me one of those.
-
I don't know where you got your magic truth detector that works in both the present and throughout the entirety of the future, but I'd love a link. I need to get me one of those.
If you have a point, would you care to make it?
-
If you have a point, would you care to make it?
I don't like lawyers either, but the position "if you don't do business with dishonest people you wouldn't need lawyers durr" is foolish.
-
You are insufferable about this.
Ok better scenario for repairman. Lets replace him with tinman.
Tinman walks around with an oil can and oils the machines. He prevents bad things from happening, if he were not there, the machine would stop and everyone would be sent home. Now you say, HE ONLY PREVENTS LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY. That is just verbiage. He still had productivity value because productivity with him is higher than productivity without him.
Preventing productivity loss is the same as adding productivity much like -(-1)=+1
You'll find me more insufferable.
It's not that he is preventing his productivity loss. It's that his "oil" increases the production of those products by some amount greater than his pay. Without him in the picture, the machines would stop working. Positive sum game.
Lawyers prevent losses caused by other people. They might save you more money than if you had to deal with non-performing contractors, but they don't increase production of ANYTHING. You just lose less. Zero-sum game.
This isn't to say lawyers and police don't earn their pay: the amount the get payed is most definitely less than the amount you would have to pay without them. The key factor, though, is the other people. We are better off without people who are playing a zero-sum game and taking from others.
-
Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce. What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?
I am staying away from lawyers dealing with the government, as I have discussed in many other posts, government regulations serve only to inhibit/discourage productivity.
I will work under the premise that you believe that patents (intellectual property rights) are important.
Someone infringes upon your patent. Now what is your day job? You run your company, maybe even make the product you patented by hand, who knows....
You need to clear up the situation with the other person infringing upon your patent. This other person is much better looking, charismatic, and is quite slippery. Now you need to convince a third party (be it a judge or whatever, but in this world we don't need as much legal language or technical knowledge of patent law because there are no lawyers).
Your only choice is to step away from your business, and lose much money, while you learn how to argue against this guy. Figure out the best way to prove to the judge that you indeed have the correct patent background, ect, ect..
In a world with lawyers, this would of cost you $2000 (a measure of productivity), in this silly world, you took 2 weeks off from your company and it cost you $7000 dollars.
Also in a world without lawyers, the slick willy's that would have become lawyers would run around, breaking contracts and infringing on patents because they know they can argue well infront of a judge.
Believe it or not, some lawyers do actually have a tangible skill to convince people of things.
Edit: As you see in this example, the lawyer is acting as oiling the machine of patent law. Preventing people from stealing your patent, there by increasing your productivity (and society's productivity because there would be little incentive to invent if people could just steal it from you).
You live in a naive world where bad things shouldn't happen, I live in a pragmatic world where bad things that do happen and -(-1) =+1
-
I am staying away from lawyers dealing with the government, as I have discussed in many other posts, government regulations serve only to inhibit/discourage productivity.
I will work under the premise that you believe that patents (intellectual property rights) are important.
Someone infringes upon your patent. Now what is your day job? You run your company, maybe even make the product you patented by hand, who knows....
You need to clear up the situation with the other person infringing upon your patent. This other person is much better looking, charismatic, and is quite slippery. Now you need to convience a third party (be it a judge or whatever, but in this world we don't need as much legal language or technical knowledge of patent law because there are no lawyers).
Your only choice is to step away from your business, and lose much money, while you learn how to argue against this guy. Figure out the best way to prove to the judge that you indeed have the correct patent background, ect, ect..
In a world with lawyers, this would of cost you $2000 (a measure of productivity), in this silly world, you took 2 weeks off from your company and it cost you $7000 dollars.
Also in a world without lawyers, the slick willy's that would have become lawyers would run around, breaking contracts and infringing on patents because they know they can argue well infront of a judge.
Believe it or not, some lawyers do actually have a tangible skill to convince people of things.
You just described limiting losses in a zero-sum game. Well done.
-
You just described limiting losses in a zero-sum game. Well done.
Its the exact same example as oiling a machine....yet you claimed that was a positive sum game
-
Its the exact same example as oiling a machine....yet you claimed that was a positive sum game
No, it's not.
The machine is not trying to take value from you. The machine itself has a certain value and "lifespan". All capital wears out because capital becomes depleted by use.
Repairing capital increases its productivity by lengthening its life or making it more efficient. Positive sum game, increase in value to society.
Someone stealing your patent is taking intellectual property from you. What they gain, you lose. Zero sum game.
The lawyer lowers the loss from the taking, but you still lose. You just lose less. Zero sum game. Society gets nothing extra, just different people get the gains.
-
No, it's not.
The machine is not trying to take value from you. The machine itself has a certain value and "lifespan". All capital wears out because capital becomes depleted by use.
Repairing capital increases its productivity by lengthening its life or making it more efficient. Positive sum game, increase in value to society.
Someone stealing your patent is taking intellectual property from you. What they gain, you lose. Zero sum game.
The lawyer lowers the loss from the taking, but you still lose. You just lose less. Zero sum game. Society gets nothing extra, just different people get the gains.
So you agree that locally (at the level of the individual) it is a positive sum game. Whether or not a machine is malicious in its intent, a loss is a loss no matter if it is a person or a machine causing said loss.
Now globally, society gets people with security in inventing and incentive to invent (they get to keep what they invent and someone just can't smooth talk a judge over because you can hire your own smooth talker).
This is exactly the same as the police (as you have mentioned before). People will steal, and those people may be bigger than you. Without police, the big people could just steal from all the little people or the evil people from the good people, ect. However, police minimize losses (as you have mentioned) and thus increase overall productivity.
You just keep arguing the same tired point that somehow "preventing losses" is not "increasing productivity" and I agree in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens (machines don't break or need oiled), that is exactly what occurs.
In the real world, losses do happen and minimizing those losses (either at the individual or societial level) causes a net gain in productivity.
-
Its the exact same example as oiling a machine....yet you claimed that was a positive sum game
It's a different matter entirely. The need for oil is inherent in the machine. The cost of oiling the machine is fundamentally no different from the cost of acquiring the machine in the first place. It's a cost you expect to pay in exchange for using the machine.
A scumbag lawyer stealing your IP, thereby forcing you to hire another lawyer you shouldn't need in the first place, isn't productive at all. Even if we assume a favorable outcome from all of your lawyering and no expenses incurred in the process, all you're left with at the end is what you started with at the beginning, which you should have had all along.
An accurate analogy would be one repairman who degreases your machine, thereby forcing you to hire another repairman to oil it back up again. Neither of these repairmen are productive.
-
A scumbag lawyer stealing your IP, thereby forcing you to hire another lawyer you shouldn't need in the first place, isn't productive at all.
And this is where you live in a perfect world and I in a pragmatic one as I keep saying.
You say that it is not a gain in productivity "because bad things should never happen!" . However, once you accept that bad people exists and will do dirty deeds, you only have one choice, to minimize losses. And everyone seems to be in agreement that minimizing losses causes a net increase in productivity. Now it is not the productivity level that you would have if bad things never happened, but rainbows and ponies are not abound.
You accept that the machine needs to be oiled because you accept that friction exists. You deny that patent/contract law needs to be oiled because bad people shouldn't exist.
You can't wish away bad people anymore than you can wish away friction.
Net Productivity in the real world = What you produce - What you could lose + What you didn't lose
Anyway, this is my last post. I have no desire to argue on the internet -- so I resign from this thread.
-
And this is where you live in a perfect world and I in a pragmatic one as I keep saying.
You say that it is not a gain in productivity "because bad things should never happen!" . However, once you accept that bad people exists and will do dirty deeds, you only have one choice, to minimize losses. And everyone seems to be in agreement that minimizing losses causes a net increase in productivity. Now it is not the productivity level that you would have if bad things never happened, but rainbows and ponies are not abound.
You accept that the machine needs to be oiled because you accept that friction exists. You deny that patent/contract law needs to be oiled because bad people shouldn't exist.
Anyway, this is my last post. I have no desire to argue on the internet -- so I resign from this thread.
Did you not read my post explaining zero-sum games and positive-sum games? Did you not also see how I said police work in the same zero-sum game as do alarm companies, security, locks, locksmiths, etc...?
I never said any of these are unnecessary. I said they are unproductive. They are good and useful things; however, they don't add value.
-
How is minimizing losses a net productivity gain? No matter how successful you are at minimizing losses, even if you achieve zero losses, you'll never have any more than what you started with.
-
How is minimizing losses a net productivity gain? No matter how successful you are at minimizing losses, even if you achieve zero losses, you'll never have any more than what you started with.
It's a productivity gain in the same way that letting a tax cut expire is not raising taxes.
Yeah - that's the ticket. (at least according to the democrats anyway)
-
Lawyers do add productivity, which is why they get paid so much when they work for corporations. I don't have a horse in that race, because I don't work for corporations. I make law reform recommendations, which is one way to add value by creating predictability in the legal system.
The lawyer tells the company what its risks are, and importantly in this context, how to approach and structure a transaction so that the result is predictable and that all parties know what the rules will be given the likely set of results.
This isn't that important if you're just loaning your lawnmower to the neighbor. But pretending that two massive corporations can negotiate, say, a contract to supply materials for manufacturing by just sitting down and "honoring the contract" is absurd. Both will have a litany of expert terms that everyone needs to be sure mean the same thing, both will want any number of assurances and guarantees that address completely different needs, and both will have very different ideas about what is "fair" for one side or the other to pay should things go wrong.
That's where the lawyers come in - they sit the parties down and make sure that everyone actually understands what the agreement is, so that they can go back to their clients and tell them exactly what they're in for. It's an expert service like any other; the bosses say what they want, the lawyer translates that into results in the agreement. No different from "I want this machine to make widgets" to an engineer, who makes a machine for widgets on those instructions.
-
Now, as for government and business - Micro has captured exactly what I'm saying.
It is important to consider your own interests even where a corporation is asking for deregulation because, in many cases, that deregulation will simply allow the corporation to wield its government-subsidized hammer with greater ease. It does not do the free market any good to, for example, remove price controls where there is a government-backed monopoly in charge of all the products subject to the controls. All that achieves is less money in your pocket, which you might have used to contribute to real reforms.
Likewise, it may sometimes be advantageous to support a government restriction; if, for example, it strangles a major supporter of government welfare that would be a good thing. It might also just add up to more money in the average pocket, which is also a good thing (people can spend on things they choose to, allowing for more of the GDP to flow to privately chosen endeavors.)
-
The lawyer tells the company what its risks are, and importantly in this context, how to approach and structure a transaction so that the result is predictable and that all parties know what the rules will be given the likely set of results.
If it was actually about understanding and pricing risk, then they'd use actuaries and not lawyers. They need lawyers because the risks involved are usually artificial constructs of the legal system (i.e. what can the other guy's lawyers do to us) rather than true inherent risks. You need a lawyer simply because everyone else has a lawyer. People who don't engage in the lawyer arms races can, and often do, get along quite happily together.
-
Headless, you do not understand corporate transactions.
The actuary tells you what the statistical risk is for any given course of action. The lawyer tells you that you and your other party to the same contract are putting actuaries to work on the same risk analysis. Big difference there, and it's not work that the actuary can do (or else the corp wouldn't pay lawyers like myself ridiculous fees for the service).
Sorry, but people who do not use lawyers often end up in long, drawn out fights about how to resolve a dispute. That's why corporations always have lawyers, and always pay them at the top of their scales....no lawyers means bad agreements.