Hi Frank,
Thanks for the well written reply. Unlike others on the thread, I find myself largely in disagreement with your conclusions and aspirations. Regarding your son, like many at Cato, I'd like him to come home on the 10:00 PM flight and allow one festering wound that the Arab "street" is angry about heal. We have no good reason to be so unapologetically intrusive, hegemonic and meddlesome in that part of the world. Our imperialistic thrust has been met with an ugly parry in the 911 incident, and we can only expect more of the same if we maintain our belligent stance in the Middle East. Which is a pity, since I can see myself in utter agreement with the very intelligent analysts at Cato, such as Jerry Taylor, who wows me with his clear-headed and lucid understanding of the macroeconomics of world oil supply. I'll post the webcast of the Cato Institute's outstanding presentation on Saudi Arabian-U.S. relations when it becomes available on the Web. It was on C-SPAN a couple of nights ago, and I was tremendously impressed. It should be available in about a week's time.
Taylor addressed the 1973 oil embargo in a very straightforward manner. His conclusion was that crude oil if fungible, there never was a shortage and the reaction in the U.S. retail market did not in any healthy way reflect what was occurring in the upstream wholesale markets for crude. There was an over-reaction in U.S. market, where hoarding was responsible for at least half of the shortfall.
In other words, the sort of panicked response to a crisis that you and Quehubo express become self-fulfilling prophesies of doom.
I'll have more on the subject later, but let me assure you that there is no shortage of crude oil in the world, there is a vastly more diverse supply of non-OPEC oil than was the case in 1973, and it is market hysteria that is going to be the most likely cause of market hysteria.
Re: Our children and granchildren will rue the day we allowed our energy infrastructure to atrophy and placed ourselves at the whims of those who despise us, our way of life and our freedom.
I agree with that sentiment. That is why I so completely aghast at the short-sighted and prejudicial "National Energy Plan" as proposed by Dich Cheney. It is narrowly drawn to make sure that we attempt to use 1950 solutions to 21st Century problems. The emphasis on drill & spill technologies is risible, in the face of a seemingly assured lack of petroleum reserves within U.S. sovereign territory. What we should be doing is using the auspices of the DoE and other scientific apparatus within the government to advance renewable energy, be it wind, solar, hydrogen conversion, fuel cells, etc. But what we find, in the fine print of course, is that Cheney is rewarding his pals in the oil & gas industry by further subsidizing their regime, while quietly cutting off funding for nascent technologies that make imminently more sense for the U.S. citizenry, should the goal truly be energy independence.
Sadly, it appears that that is not the case. What seems to be true is that the extraction of petroleum from the most dangerous and implacably intolerant corners of the globe is the goal of the American corporate elites, who cynically employ your son as a thug and enforcer in their game of resource domination in hostile territory. Not only do you pay for this as a taxpayer, while the corporate interests enjoy a free ride with a nation's armed forces hired out as a private police force, but you may eventually get to endure having your son come home in a body bag. And for what? A few more barrels of oil? A bit more profit for Exxon and Chevron? Seems like you're getting the raw end of this bargain. I'd rather see my tax money go into intelligent research into how we end our oil dependency, not on sending our sons and daughters into harm's way half way around a very hostile globe. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Salaam aleikum, Ray |
