|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:57 am Post subject: Scenes from what could be our coming oil nightmare |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Aug. 17, 2005, 7:23PM
Scenes from what could be our coming oil nightmare
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY
Raymond J. Learsy has written a book memorable in the special sense that nightmares can be memorable, but also useful. If the nightmare is that you died of an overdose of drugs, and the memory of it causes you when in command to draw back from the marginal dose, then the nightmare has served a purpose. Raymond Learsy writes (his book is called Over a Barrel: Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel ) about what could happen if we continue to go as we are going. The price of gasoline as I write is 60 percent higher than it was a year ago. Such data require extrapolation.
After 200 pages of history and analysis, telling the story of the founding of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, of manipulations and broken promises and extortion and opportunism, Learsy acknowledges OPEC's success. Sixty-dollar-a-barrel oil is certainly a success, but the body on which it feeds does not expand, pari passu, with the successes of OPEC. It does not matter how much you consume, if the supplies are inexhaustible and your capacity insatiable. But here is what we might be facing if oil rose to $100 per barrel.
I paraphrase the author: Commuters suddenly forced to pay double for a gallon of gas begin to brown-bag their lunches, inching away from restaurants and sandwich shops. Americans who can still afford a vacation go on shorter trips, putting a major dent in the tourist industry. Trucking companies hauling everything from wines and spirits to furniture to automobile parts impose a hefty surcharge on shippers, who pass it on to their customers, who then pass it further down the line to the retail buyer if they can.
The crunch forces many truckers to sell their rigs, playing havoc with both cross-country and local shipping. Higher fuel costs send the Postal Service deeper into the red and threaten the survival of rival package shippers FedEx and UPS. With the break-even point for airlines a distant memory at $31 a barrel and carriers already operating with skeleton staffs, sharp fare boosts are the only option. Traffic spirals into a tailspin, and one airline after another declares bankruptcy.
But of course, oil is vital to everything from plastic picnic forks to printer's ink to asphalt. Manufacturers raise prices across the board, and potholes go unfilled in city streets around the nation. At first, municipal and factory employees lose overtime, then they are laid off or fired outright.
Foodstuffs of every kind ?from beef in the butcher case to fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle, to milk and cheese in the dairy section ?reflect the higher costs incurred by growers and shoppers.
Runaway prices on just about everything take the Federal Reserve Board by surprise. Determined to keep interest rates low and dulled by their own assurances that inflation is somnolent, the Federal Reserve's governors are ill-prepared for the economic crisis. The Fed belatedly boosts interest rates a full 2 percentage points.
The heretofore unheard-of move jams on the economic brakes so swiftly and so sharply that you can almost smell the stink of burning rubber. Higher mortgage rates stop would-be home buyers dead in their tracks and cast a pall over the building industry. The real-estate market crashes almost overnight, wiping out billions of dollars of paper profits and putting holders of adjustable-rate mortgages and home-equity loans in peril. Foreclosures and tax-default auctions become common, consumer spending dries up, and soon the entire world is in a recession.
The rise in oil prices is not a fancy of Ray Learsy, and the unpredictability of that rise manifestly requires self-protection. How?
Again, paraphrasing the author:
First, we must cut back energy usage by taking steps to control demand (just as OPEC works to control supply).
Second, we must become energy self-reliant.
We should use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (700 million barrels) to douse incendiary shoots of inflationary fire. Those uses of national oil would be loans, not grants, repayable in kind when the price of oil has stabilized.
We will need to encourage alternative energy sources while adopting a voucher-based gas-distribution program.
For the duration of the emergency, gas users will have access to magnetic debit cards in which are embedded a national quarterly target of per-consumer gasoline. Drivers whose allotted amount of gas doesn't meet their needs can buy part or all of someone else's allotment. For the average driver, this distribution plan would not increase gasoline costs. A consumer would pay the same out-of-pocket cash per gallon, and the government wouldn't get its hands on any more of the taxpayers' dollars. It is a more efficient way of distributing energy because it employs market incentives to allow heavier gasoline users to get what they need without increasing overall consumption of energy.
It was 20 years ago that the Saudis and the United States arrived at a deal. The Saudis would set prices so as to protect the U.S. oil industry. And the U.S. would protect the Saudis' independence. We regret that, and should make the Saudis regret it also.
A note to readers: Ray Learsy was once married to one of my sisters. We are not in regular touch and not collaborators.
Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: Viewpoints, Outlook
This article is: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3315341 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Terrorists' Secret War Strategy:Oil
"But there is evidence that someone, probably in Saudi Arabia, is guiding the terrorists who resist any guidance, that the attack on the United States was a calculated catastrophe, that it was intended to spread economic devastation that would threaten the basic cohesion of the West."
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/newsandyou/011005secret.html
Will the world just passively succomb and pay what is demanded, or will there be a major shift to alternative fuels?...(answer: "they will succomb")
http://me-arab-crude-oil.tripod.com/
"How do I respond when I see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for America? I'll tell you how I respond: I'm amazed. I just can't believe it, because I know how good we are." --President George W. Bush
Before we celebrate the bombings of Afghanistan with hope of their expansion to other countries, let's pause and take a look back on the past fifty years of U.S. folly in the Middle East...
http://www.mises.org/story/818 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In times like this it must be fun to be from Iceland. Maybe I'll move there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Americans are so addicted to their (our) giant SUVs and boring suburban lives. Whenever somebody mentions that we're consuming all the world's oil they start saying "When will the alternative fuels get here?" and they assume that investing trillions of dollars, covering the mountainsides with windmills, and building vast farms of hydrogen plants across the countryside is the logical next step. How about riding a bicycle, fatso? How about developing decent places to live in the downtowns, or building offices in the suburbs, one way or another moving people's jobs nearer their homes, building bicycle roads in the warm dry cities like LA, turning off the TV when you leave the house, and maybe just maybe bringing small cars back into style? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PS: I'm no saint myself... I love and miss my 19m/g Jeep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| maybe bringing small cars back into style? |
Cars were inherent gas-guzzlers before '74/the oil embargo when thereafter car manufacturers began making them much more fuel efficient. When I look at the ginormous Escalades and Tahoe trucks these days, I have to wonder what happened to that way of thinking.
Plus ca change.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
death from above
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: in your head
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| our petroleum-based administration isn't helping either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| The thing is that big oil companies really don't want stuff like this to catch on, not until they can squeeze every last dollar they can out of an ever increasing oil market. |
This old line again. "Big oil" blah blah blah. The fact is, the car manufacturers enthusiastically marketed electric cars about oh five ten years ago and you and I enthusiastically refused to buy them. Said we, "I want a big SUV to compensate for my inadequacies. And I'll be damned if I'm going to pay extra for a little compact and then plug the darn thing in every night, phooey!" Now they're selling hybrids *and* preparing to sell hydrogen cars, and authors like the ones you linked to are accusing them of trying to block environmentalism. Right. All these former hippies in California are buying even bigger SUV's these days while the government is practically giving itself a hernia trying to maintain stability in the Middle East and struggling over the guilt of drilling in the ANWR, and they say "big oil" is to blame. Ha!
When was the last time you saw a California citizen environmentalist riding a bicycle? Answer me that one and I'll give you a lollipop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
A tad angry there? 
Yes, big oil. Big oil and automotive manufacturers have been in league for longer than you or I have been on this earth.
I don't doubt what you say at all. The problem is also one of a lack of adequate mass transportation. Without a car in North America, you are helpless.
But lets look at this a bit. Why were electric cars being cut?
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Apr/13/bz/bz15a.html
Supporters of battery-powered vehicles say the auto companies never seriously gave the cars a chance and didn't do enough to improve the technology or promote the cars to the public — claims automakers dispute.
S. David Freeman, chairman of the California Consumer Power and Financing Authority, said there were long waiting lists of people who wanted the cars when he ran the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Freeman has followed the technology since he was head of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the late 1970s and said automakers predicted the demise of the vehicle before it ever hit the road.
"They've been singing that tune while they built the dang things," Freeman said. "Back in 1990 when the Air Resources Board laid down the zero-emission rule there were no electric cars, it was a dream. Now that the dream is a reality, they're prepared to abandon it."
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Sep/gee20020904016184.htm
It seems to me that they were never really given a fair shot and the move was on for hybrid instead of electric cars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keithinkorea
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a market for efficient transit. There is also an education campaign needed to inform consumers just how important it is to conserve energy.
Americans are energy gluttons and it is the worst thing for them and the world. Other countries are bad but the US and Canada are really irresponsible. Higher tax on fuels would help the situation, laws are there for a reason and the lawmakers in North America should help stop damaging the planet. Money is not everything and a fundamental human right should be to breath clean air and be able to have access to potable water.
It seems some governments are out to savage their citizens air and water. The general populace are guided by these self serving morons. A little education goes a long way and people should start thinking globally and not be such friggin nimbies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Yes, big oil. Big oil and automotive manufacturers have been in league for longer than you or I have been on this earth. |
Says somebody who doesn't understand how business works.
| Quote: |
| Power. Freeman has followed the technology since he was head of the Tennessee Valley Authority in the late 1970s and said automakers predicted the demise of the vehicle before it ever hit the road. |
I don't know about what kinds of electric cars were around in the 1970s, but in the 1990s there were several... I believe Honda had one called EV1 (?). People didn't buy them because they were small but a little expensive. No car company would develop a new model of car deliberately to have it fail. Automakers (and energy companies) would be thrilled if people would buy new technology because they could sell more new products. And if one automaker was deliberately limiting supply, another one would have quickly ramped up production to make More Money. How would "big oil" stop that?
| Quote: |
| It seems to me that they were never really given a fair shot and the move was on for hybrid instead of electric cars. |
Because that's what people wanted to buy.
But, just for a moment, let us forget about new technology that may or may not have been made available to consumers: Would you deny that almost everybody in the United States knows that a compact car is more efficient than a massive SUV, goes just as fast, costs less, and is a much smarter transportation choice? Would you argue that car companies force consumers to buy ever-larger SUVs by, i don't know, limiting the availability of new compacts and buying and destroying used ones? Or can you follow facts to the logical conclusion that American consumers are primarily to blame for an enormous amount of wastefulness, for no better reason than status or fashion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't argue with most of what you say.
Understanding business? It's basic economic fact that if you make all options too expensive except one, people will go for the cheapest option.
But I also don't underestimate the power of big business to "tell" us that the alternatives are just too expensive, so of course nobody will buy it.
There were cars made back in the 20's and 30's that could run on either gasoline or alcohol.
But these days car manufacturers tell us that anything more than a 10% blend of ethynol will void the warrenty. Why is it that they won't make cars that could use a more environmentally friendly blend of fuel?
Why is it that the big 3 auto companies refused to make more fuel efficient cars back in the 70's until they started losing market share to Toyota, Honda, and other imports?
This effort to keep us from alternative fuels seems to have been started back before WWI, as the life and especially the death of Dr. Rudolf Diesel would seem to indicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel
Another motive for his death may have been that his engine demoted petrol oil monopoly profits, already becoming highly consolidated globally. In his bio-oil solution, Diesel provided a technological and energy choice for the consumer that made integrating petroleum needless, and cut into these monopoly profits. After his death, these ideas died with him, and the Diesel engine was engineered to only run on petroleum due to the rapid development of the fossil oil industry, which produced a cheaper diesel.
Last edited by some waygug-in on Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| for no better reason than status or fashion? |
This serves as a good illustration when posters make the argument that money governs all decisions. For example, there can't be another oil embargo because OPEC would be hurting itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Why is it that the big 3 auto companies refused to make more fuel efficient cars back in the 70's until they started losing market share to Toyota, Honda, and other imports? |
Thats an interesting example of how a person with a skewed sense of reality can twist actual facts with loaded language. Most other people would describe the situation as one in which innovative Japanese car makers quickly gained market share with their high-mileage compacts, and sluggish American manufacturers, taken by surprise, struggled to catch up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
