Article

2008-08-22 Home Front Economy

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

Posted by Steve White 2008-08-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 The stone age didn't end when we ran out of stone.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-08-22 07:45|| 2008-08-22 07:45|| Front Page Top

#2 no, but the wood burning age in the UK effectively DID end when they ran out of wood. Not that it worked out badly.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-22 10:05|| 2008-08-22 10:05|| Front Page Top

#3 Im also not convinced by their analysis of the Persian Gulf strategic situation.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-08-22 10:06|| 2008-08-22 10:06|| Front Page Top

#4 it could surely harass commercial tanker traffic. But it would be hard pressed to sustain an anti-shipping campaign sufficient to reduce oil flows drastically for weeks on end,

They don't have to sink a lot, maybe not even any; they just have to make the attacks plausible so Lloyds (etc.) won't insure the tankers.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-08-22 10:57|| 2008-08-22 10:57|| Front Page Top

#5 Nice analysis of how the reserves and alternate production can smooth over a local disrution of oil produciton in given places. But the politically loaded (lefty?) conclusions drawn are just pulled out of his ass - there is no relationship between them and the points he makes above them. His analaysis, in fact, points nearly to the complete opposite.

I disagree highly with the final conclusions.

Deterring an attack on a nuclear armed Iran is a GOOD thing? Not doubling the strategic reserve is a GOOD thing? Not expanding production here is a GOOD thing?

Wildly wrong conclusions.

Why is it good that the US be dissauded from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program and its IRBM/ICBM program? Does he not know the effect of even a single EMP detonation over Europe or the US?

And this is a more likely scenario: Imagine an Iranian shorter range high altitude EMP over the oil producing regions on the Saudi-Kuwaiti areas, and over the Emirates. Think about all the computer controls needed to produce and refine oil, and them being suddely fried. That puts Iran in the command seat for oil production in the gulf, assuming they suvive the counterstrikes.

So again, how is deterring an attack on the mullah's nuclear weapons capability in Iran a GOOD thing? If we can suvive the oil shock as he says we can, then that's incentive to hit them hard, and remove the threats, since we can endure the loss of Iran's oil.

So, he posits that we can suvive short and medium oil shocks with the current reserves. Fair enough.

So why is it not a good thing to expand our capacity to better endure prolonged production interruptions?

Other places produce large amounts of oil and can jump production in the face of localized disruptions elsewhere. Fair enough.

So why is it not a good idea to spend the money to produce even more here (plus alternate enegry, nukes, electic cars, nat gas as a vehicle fuel, etc) so we place even smaller demand on international supplies -- and our increased reserve goes further so disruptions have an even lesser effect on us?

Posted by OldSpook 2008-08-22 12:13|| 2008-08-22 12:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Sad we couldn't sell the oil in the strategic reserve when prices were high and pay down some of the national debt.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-08-22 12:25|| 2008-08-22 12:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Oil going to $200 a bbl. would make this all academic anyway, as nobody would be able to affor to drive anywhere.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-08-22 12:34|| 2008-08-22 12:34|| Front Page Top

#8 John Stossel is more Libertarian in outlook, with shared weaknesses. Markets don't work in monopoly situations or when the supplier is trying to weaken/destroy the consumer's civilization.

Posted by ed 2008-08-22 14:09|| 2008-08-22 14:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Markets work only when profit and loss is the objective. Suicidal ideological positions invalidate market theory.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-08-22 19:33|| 2008-08-22 19:33|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:44 Lampedusa Glack5566
23:36 newc
23:21 3dc
23:19 3dc
23:10 Anonymoose
23:07 Procopius2k
22:58 badanov
22:57 DarthVader
22:53 Mike Kozlowski
22:24 Frank G
22:13 CrazyFool
22:09 DMFD
22:08 Frank G
22:02 Mike Kozlowski
21:59 Mike Kozlowski
21:48 Frank G
21:45 Abu Uluque
21:42 CrazyFool
21:23 OldSpook
21:17 mrp
21:17 DarthVader
21:15 Eric Jablow