I know this is piling on, but

[devilsadvocate]

So, let me see if I've got this straight, someone offered to give you a new car, and you turned him down?

I'm the naive one?

I think it stands to reason that the less government intrusion, and the more competition there is, the lower the price of oil will be.

Yes I did turn it down, you see part of being a grown up is cutting that umbilical cord.
The American ideal is work hard for what you have, not sponge off mommy and daddy.

Do you think we have enough local oil to be self sufficient and if so do you think the oil companies will sell it below the world market price? It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.

[clocker]

It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.

Demand is not an issue with oil companies anymore.
India and, to a much greater degree, China, can suck up every drop that can be produced.

Don't confuse- or commingle- OPEC with Big Oil...they are separate and distinct.

OPEC does find it useful to regulate output but their position has become much more precarious in the last decade.
OPEC's entire strategy has been based on leveraging the West- we being the largest consumers by far- but now that China has so drastically expanded their demand and actively courted Chavez in South America, OPEC is threatened with irrelevancy.

The oil companies on the other hand, owe allegiance to no one save the shareholders and will sell as much of anybody's oil to anyone who can pay (which increasingly, will not be America).

What young Mr. 9 fails to realize is the consequences of his logic.
Unfettered by government regulation and only bound to j2's mythical "real" free market, the oil pumped from the Gulf coast, the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve or the Colorado oil shale fields will go directly on a boat and end up in a gas tank in Beijing.
Because they have the money.
And money is the be-all-end-all of corporate life/free markets.

[devilsadvocate]

Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.

[clocker]

I do not believe we should be silly about it unto bankrupting ourselves and ruining our economy.

We are already bankrupt with a ruined economy.

Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.

I understand, but who is going to do the drilling/refining/transporting...the government?

It's only "our oil" till it breaks ground, after that it's just "product", a commodity sold to the highest bidder. Corporations have no patriotism or sense of fair play...concepts inimical to the overarching need for profit.

And don't for a second think that transport costs mean that it's better to sell "locally" rather than internationally.
Look at the American steel industry- you'll have to look hard, since it doesn't exist anymore- for a graphic example of this in action.

We used to have the dominant position in steel production till the Japanese came into the picture.
Somehow, they made it possible to ship American iron ore all the way to Japan, refine/process it and ship the finished product all the way back and still undercut the price of locally produced steel.

These days, iron ore mined in Pennsylvania is more likely to end up in a girder in Dubai than one in Denver.
All sorts of major infrastructure projects are on hold or delayed- and certainly forced above budget- because they can't get the material to proceed (this is even more true of concrete lately) or they can get the material but prices have risen beyond estimates.

Oil is no different.

[devilsadvocate]

We are already bankrupt with a ruined economy.

Clocker.

While what you write is true I am dealing with the "drill our own oil so we don't have to get it from others" theory.

I understand, but who is going to do the drilling/refining/transporting...the government?

It's only "our oil" till it breaks ground, after that it's just "product", a commodity sold to the highest bidder. Corporations have no patriotism or sense of fair play...concepts inimical to the overarching need for profit.

And don't for a second think that transport costs mean that it's better to sell "locally" rather than internationally.
Look at the American steel industry- you'll have to look hard, since it doesn't exist anymore- for a graphic example of this in action.

We used to have the dominant position in steel production till the Japanese came into the picture.
Somehow, they made it possible to ship American iron ore all the way to Japan, refine/process it and ship the finished product all the way back and still undercut the price of locally produced steel.

These days, iron ore mined in Pennsylvania is more likely to end up in a girder in Dubai than one in Denver.
All sorts of major infrastructure projects are on hold or delayed- and certainly forced above budget- because they can't get the material to proceed (this is even more true of concrete lately) or they can get the material but prices have risen beyond estimates.

Oil is no different.

Who are you arguing with? I'm well aware of the reality of trade. I'm simply trying to find out if number actually has a plan, good or bad, behind his theory or if he is just another catchphrase repeater.

[clocker]

Who are you arguing with? I'm well aware of the reality of trade. I'm simply trying to find out if number actually has a plan, good or bad, behind his theory or if he is just another catchphrase repeater.

I suppose that was primarily directed at Mr. 9 but I'm not sure why I bothered.
He is clearly too young and too misinformed to have any rational input on this question.

[999969999]

Dudes, I'm busy with some stuff, but when I get more time I will respond to you, in the meantime, this is what Ron Paul had to say about Global Warming...

“Global Warming”, which is now frequently called “Climate Change” to account for the recent decline in global temperatures, has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is “Global Warming” just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

Just like many of his supporters, Ron Paul took a long, hard look at the issue, and after careful consideration, and even before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, he identified the artificial panic around “Global Warming” as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

[clocker]

Why are you posting Ron Paul's opinion...did he become a climatologist while I wasn't looking?

[999969999]

So, let me see if I've got this straight, someone offered to give you a new car, and you turned him down?

I'm the naive one?

I think it stands to reason that the less government intrusion, and the more competition there is, the lower the price of oil will be.

Yes I did turn it down, you see part of being a grown up is cutting that umbilical cord.
The American ideal is work hard for what you have, not sponge off mommy and daddy.

Do you think we have enough local oil to be self sufficient and if so do you think the oil companies will sell it below the world market price? It stands to reason that without regulation oil companies are going to keep supplies low enough to keep demand and price high.

So if you saw a $20 bill on the sidewalk, you wouldn't stop to pick it up and put it in your pocket? If someone offers to give me something, I'm going to take it, and not think twice about it.

Yes, I have heard that we actually do have enough domestic oil supplies-- if all of them were drilled and pumped-- to supply our domestic oil needs for 120 years.

It is the regulations that make everything more expensive. Without them, there would eventually be enough competition to bring down the prices. If they didn't have to ship the oil in all the way from the Saudis, I'm convinced that it could be done for a much lower cost, and that savings would eventually be passed on the consumer.

[999969999]

No.

Let's try an easier method.
Legalize the drugs that the cartels exist on.
Institute a sane and logical immigration policy.
Let Arizona secede from the union and fend for themselves.

There, problem solved.

I have no problem with legalizing drugs. The war on drugs is another unwinnable war that should be abondoned, and that alone would save a huge amount of money and free up a lot of police to focus on actual crimes.

I think we have enough humans in this country. We really don't need to keep increasing our population. Anyone is free to leave the country whenever they felt like it, but no new people should be allowed to come here for at least 50 years, so we would have enough time to assimilate the huge flood of immigrants who are already here.

Secede? Only if we could get New Mexico and Texas to go with us. We would need an ocean port, and there are too many commies in California. I'd rather have Texas, than California.