Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?
Yes, of course. The only folks who do not are the "math challenged" (retards) folks who actually believe the globalony they are preaching.
if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?
Absolutely yes.
if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?
Always fix yourself, first. That is the path of self-responsibility and success. Means demand reduction. As in US.
if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?
Why fight over and for a shrinking and dying resource?
if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?
None of the above.
Getting off an addiction means GETTING OFF IT. There are no half-drunks and no half-addicts. You (we) either are or are not. We have ran a little over 100 years on the stuff, with some benefit and some loss. Overall there is a severe legacy of pollution, as well. Time to grow up and move on to better ways.
Do not so much need any new programs as much as simply updating and replacing the ones we have. Stop building ANY gas (or diesel) only roads and highways. Make all new and remodels ONLY multi-use and electric grid enabled, so vehicles can take their power directly from the road with no batteries.
Thank you dear sir answering the question and being a good sport. while i don't think your ideas are entirely realistic you have at least introduced some novel lines
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit? Yes, production over consumption; it would be less of a problem if imports are allocated to investment in a significant proportion, but with interest rates too low, most are allocated to consumption.
if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contributing factor?
Not necessarily. Until a few years ago, the US was the most efficient user of oil.
if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?
The problem is not oil per se but energy supply and demand. In any case, they need to address both sides of the equation: the US needs to diversify sources of supply, both kind and geographical area, and needs to leave room for the most efficient extraction and, above all, consumption of energy, by letting the money market set interest rates.
if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?
See above posts
if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, AND rising prices alone will flatten demand?
anything i have left out please add?
If the government let the money market set interest rates, households would allocate spending more efficiently.
Did I forget to mention in these posts that letting the money market set interest rates is important?
In short, if the price mechanism through interest rates were allowed to work according to free market principles, the relative increase in energy prices means that the US economy should downsize, especially in terms of consumption (maybe even population). The reason for the gross imbalances, in terms of trade/budget deficits and wars (even illegal immigration), is the refusal to accept this downsizing. A more civil way of adjusting would be to subsidize research into alternatives, curb consumption, and increase production of domestic oil supply, with a reasonable, but not ideological, respect for the environment.
Basically. Government got us in this mess, so we cannot trust them to get us out. Instead of tax credits that will gravitate toward the well-conencted, how about removing restrictions that prevent alternative fuels from taking hold. Until we get some freedom back, and cap Government spending we will not be able to have a sustainable economy. The emphasis should be on both conservation and new energy sources. Get rid of subsidies for ethanol or other biofuels and those for conventional sources. If the Government gets control of runaway inflation, and takes its heavy hand off citizens, the problem will resolve all by itself.
Though filtered through the oil/gasoline equation, your question is so wide-ranging that what you are really asking is what can be done to address the structural imbalances in the US economy. Nonetheless, certainly the rise in energy prices, oil & gas in particular, are a major cause of the imbalance, also reflected in the trade, government budget, and household budget deficits.
The main problem is that US economic agents, mainly the government and households (we have the politicians that we deserve) consume more than they produce, consuming resources from outside the US.
The organization of space in the US (transportation networks, zoning laws, suburban sprawl, etc) is based on cheap fuel for the internal combustion engine, not only automobiles, but also airplanes and ship transport (I suppose).
As the rest of the world has been industrializing and it seems that the supply of oil has peaked (at least in relation to the increase in demand), the US went on a spending spree, mainly in the form of energy-inefficient cars and housing - the housing part actually egged-on by some insane ideology of home ownership being the American dream and insane government intervention in the money market - while at the same time gutting its manufacturing base as the corporate sector expands abroad.
Absolutely suicidal. Of course foreign powers, many of them rivals, will keep lending to the US because who wouldn't want to see their rival commit suicide?
Sinking the US economy, then, is consumption over production and inefficient use of resources - energy resources, other commodity resources, and human resources - as reflected in the housing bubble (not only bringing and transforming materials in the wrong places at the wrong proportions, but also the outsized proportion of real estate agents and mortgage brokers, etc.) and oversized, gas-guzzling cars (the Big 3 US automakers are in big trouble), and not only.
I would prefer to see market prices determine the best allocation of available resources. The first step would be to remove from the Fed the power to set money market rates and have it focus on regulating the issuance of credit and achieving a balance between production and consumption.
But for as long as the money supply is distorted, then we can debate and implement any combination of the proposals you list, both on the supply side and the demand side, without making much of an impact on the overall economy.
I can't add much to this, except to emphasize what you said that I have put in bold italics. That pretty much says it all.
The real crisis in our economy for the "typical American" can be summed up this way:
Most everything he or she owns is stuff that costs money (like houses, cars, RV's, boats, etc., etc.), rather than what produces income or real wealth.
Most everything he or she borrows money for either depreciates in value, or is an outright expense. Little borrowed money is used to acquire things that truly appreciate in value or generate income.
Much of what he or she "invests" in is not a productive asset, but is rather a speculative one. (Ah, those bubbles . . . )
He or she usually equates consumption with wealth, when it is really overconsumption that leads to poverty.
He or she believes the status quo will continue to work because it always has. It won't and it never did.
He or she believes that it is possible to remain the greatest and the strongest, either individually or collectively as a nation, while practicing mediocrity and sloth. It's not.
He or she believes it is possible to spend, consume and borrow ourselves rich. It's not.
He or she believes that it is possible to live and behave as we do now and not destroy the future of our children and grandchildren. It's not.
He or she believes a bright future is an entitlement and "just happens." It isn't and it doesn't.
I can't add much to this, except to emphasize what you said that I have put in bold italics. That pretty much says it all.
The real crisis in our economy for the "typical American" can be summed up this way:
Most everything he or she owns is stuff that costs money (like houses, cars, RV's, boats, etc., etc.), rather than what produces income or real wealth.
Most everything he or she borrows money for either depreciates in value, or is an outright expense. Little borrowed money is used to acquire things that truly appreciate in value or generate income.
Much of what he or she "invests" in is not a productive asset, but is rather a speculative one. (Ah, those bubbles . . . )
He or she usually equates consumption with wealth, when it is really overconsumption that leads to poverty.
He or she believes the status quo will continue to work because it always has. It won't and it never did.
He or she believes that it is possible to remain the greatest and the strongest, either individually or collectively as a nation, while practicing mediocrity and sloth. It's not.
He or she believes it is possible to spend, consume and borrow ourselves rich. It's not.
He or she believes that it is possible to live as we do now and not destroy the future of our children and grandchildren. It's not.
He or she believes a bright future is an entitlement and "just happens." It isn't and it doesn't.
Do you see a problem with the widening trade deficit?
Yes
Quote:
if yes, do you think consumption of foreign oil is a major contibuting factor?
Yes.
Quote:
if yes, how do you think the powers that be should be tackling the problem, by addressing our demand for oil or/and addressing our supply of oil?
Both.
Quote:
if you answered by addressing supply, would that be by more local exploration(anwr/ oil shale), gassification of coal, biofuels, invading iran, you don't care because rising prices alone will raise supply? anything i have left out (please add)?
None of the above. Chasing oil (indeed, any fossil fuel) will leave us as the last buggywhip manufacturer in the age of automobiles. We need to end the petrolium economy and transfer to mixed energy sourcing. Electrical energy should be supplied primarily by nuclear fission plants with solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric utilized as possible. Oil, gas, and coal powerplants should be phased out.
Storable energy for transportation and local power generation should come in liquid form as ethanol and hydrogen, and in solid form as fuel cells and batteries. Gasoline should be phased out. Hydrogen should be manufactured by electrolyzing water and ethanol should be processed and cracked using electric power sources. This will require a HUGE increase in the supply of electrical power and will require a reduction in the price per kWh which might require nationalization of the electrical grid and a infrastructure improvement campaign much like the construction of the interstate highway system.
Oil should be conserved for the manufacture of durable hydrocarbon products like plastics and lubricants, NOT BURNED.
Quote:
if you answered by addressing demand, would that be by legislation eg raising CAFE standards, imposing further fuel taxes/surcharges, taxation of vehicles which require more gas, rationing, limiting the number of flights, funding of alternative energy research, tax breaks for 'gas sippers' or any thing deemed energy saving, promoting a culture of energy saving with our leaders leading by example, you don't care because rising prices alone will flatten demand? anything i have left out please add?
A heavy tax on oil imports would do the trick. Actually, an initial tax of a few cents a barrel would be a good idea which progressively increased by several cents each year. The proceeds from the tax should go to subsidize industries which create/utilize the alternative energy sources. The subsidies would start off small--as would the tax burden. As the tax increased and demand built for the alternatives, subsidies would reach their peak, keeping the price of non-fossil-fuel alternatives affordable. As oil useage tailed off, so would the subsidies, ensuring that the alternative-energy companies do not become dependent on the government dole and forcing them to plan ahead for when the subsidies become negligable.
Tax exemptions could be granted to industries which manufacture durable goods from Oil (or they could simply meet their needs using domestic sources. Additionally, exemptions could be granted to low-income families and small businesses at a level which would allow them to more gradually transition to alternative-fuel vehicles (furnaces, generators, etc.) without going bankrupt.
A gradual increase in the tax would minimize the disruption to the economy while providing an economic incentive to wean ourselves off oil. As Chinese industrialization and peak oil begins to affect other countries, US manufacturers would be well-positioned to sell mass-use, high-volume, alternative energy products to the developing world.
Thank you dear sir answering the question and being a good sport. while i don't think your ideas are entirely realistic you have at least introduced some novel lines
novel ideas being the grid powered highways? (as opposed to batteries) I guess I have seen the discussion held and tabled often enough to see that as less than novel, but certainly against the Status Quo.
Actually the increase in exports is one of the bright things happening.It is goping to be a long time before any alternative fuel of consequence come into play; I am afraid and then it will probaly be more expensive.I thnik you will find that puuting a tax on oil will just drivepu tyhe price of ags;electricity and everyhting else.IMO what we need to do is supply more of our own oil by drilling just as we did in the 70's but this time it will be in places some seem not to want to drill in.Butin the end when things get bad enough there be be a deamnd to do it.Just a matter of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
