Can you guarantee there won't be cataclysmic events in the Middle East?
I can't gaurantee that a large comet won't hit the earth within the next 20 years and make all of these pretty much moot.
But even a major crisis in the Middle East is unlikely to result in $500 oil any time soon.
"Letting the market adjust mostly by itself, will be slower than throwing around massive subsidies, but that's a feature not a bug."
[A] Please show us where the word "subsidy" was used. Ever.
[B] Please describe what is meant by "... adjust mostly by itself..." - as opposed to completely by itself?
A - You didn't use it, but any really rapid transition would be likely to happen only with subsidies (unless its happening AFTER your $500/bbl oil scenario)
B - If you want it to adjust all by itself, that's fine with me. You want to get rid of all barriers, interventions, subsidies etc. in this area, fine, you have my vote. But I don't think it would give the results you seem to be pushing.
[A] Please explain how "the market" is providing sufficient capacity and security of supply for cost and demand in 2019.
Higher prices encourage supply, and discourage demand.
If you leave things to the market, the higher supply part works out better. If instead you have political restrictions, shifting patterns of subsidies and penalties etc. than the situation is more problematic, but its hardly the fault of the market when the politicians decide to distort it.
"Slower is less expensive (even with the transportation cost going up, and even before considering time value of money), and its more likely to result in a superior result than a rushed, massively subsidized, crash effort."
Are you stating facts, or opinion?
Such broad statements are generally considered "theories" not facts. Fact usually refers to something specific and highly verifiable. Theory, does not imply that much uncertainty, just a model or explanation of complex phenomena. It explains the facts, and puts them in a coherent framework.
In this case its a rather solid theory.
Is this an ideological discussion masquerading as an energy dialogue?
Ideology is obviously going to color and effect any such discussion, either obviously, or subtly, if everyone agrees on the basic ideology then they may think they are just discussing the specific facts, but all their ideas about what the facts mean, will be based on their previously existing ideas, including their ideologies, even if those ideas are so accepted without question, that they aren't even noticed. If you have ideological disagreement, then the ideology part tends to become more obvious, but not always. Sometimes each side can still not see their own ideology, and just paint the other argument as all about ideology, while their point is all about facts.
Ideology in a discussion like this is probably unavoidable, and in many ways isn't even a bad thing.
I would distinguish between ideology and faith (in this case non-religious faith)
Message 24344742 |
