| ??? 07/25/06 00:10 Read: times |
#120994 - respons Responding to: ???'s previous message |
This will put pressure on the world's crude oil supply that has heretofore been unseen. Which is why we will eventually move to nuclear-generated energy, and hydrogen fuel cells with the hydrogen being produced with nuclear energy. (4) Since U.S. oil importers' profits are a function of the price, they LOVE the price increase. It costs them nothing extra to import crude costing $250 per barrel as compared with $75 per barrel. Refining doesn't cost more for $250/barrel crude either. Nope, it's supply and demand. They will charge no less than the market will bear, and not a penny more, either. However, they have no control over other technologies and as the price goes higher, there is more incentive for the next entrepreneur to make a billion on alternative technologies. Or we, as a nation, will just make the decision to go nuclear. (5) Whie the face of the U.S. government laments the high price of gasoline at the pump, the persons behind that face all profit from its increase. The cabinet is loaded with individuals heavily invested in the petrochemical industry. I do not buy into the conspiracy theory that everything this country does--or what the cabinet does--is based on a little extra money from their investments. Far too much is made of this. But we may have to agree to disagree. (6) As the pump price of gasoline has gone from under $2 to over $3 per gallon, U.S. consumers have continued to consume greater and greater quantities of gasoline. This has dumbfounded economists and industry analysts. Why? It's simple. Gas was far cheaper than the market was willing to pay. It's gone up, but hasn't gone so far that the American population feels obligated to reduce driving. As such, we have nothing to complain about. We continue to consume a product that, even at its current higher price, is apparently worthwhile to us. Craig Steiner said:
Ceople will start using bikes and scooters long before gas costs $100k a gallon. Gas will rise to the price people, collectively, are willing (and able) to pay. And not a penny more. $100k is far more than anyone is willing or able to pay. Richard Erlacher said:
I'd say that (6) Seems to contradict that. $3 != $100k. Our commander in chief has long been known to be a eugenicist. The form that takes, among his associates and peers, is that they want to strip the wealth from the middle class and absorb it themselves, so that they can "manage" those resources in a way that allows them, the oligarchy, to exploit the remaining population by selling them the products that they need to survive, and that they will consume on an ongoing basis. The rich man, since he owns everything, doesn't have a need for labor, aside from someone to mow his lawn, wash his clothes, harvest his produce, and build whatever he wants. Since unemployment will be in the 80-95% range, many people will simply starve. Of course, someone will have to bury them ... Sorry but, respectfully, this is a load of dung. Craig Steiner said:
The price of gas and the move to nuclear energy is not an all or nothing proposition. As the price of gas increases, more and more demand will be placed on electricity and, to support that, there will be a move to nuclear energy to generate electricity and, in turn, create hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells. There will be a gradual, not sudden, move away from gas and to nuclear-generated hydrogen fuel cells. This will also reduce demand for gas which will keep the price in check until nuclear energy is essentially 100% of our power supply and the price of gas will drop to $1E-05 rather than $1E05. When no-one needs it, it will be of no value at all. Richard Erlacher said:
That would be true except for the demand for gasoline in other parts of the world. China and India, for example, are rapidly developing infrastructure which will produce more petrol-fueled automobiles and more demand for them. If the U.S. gave up the use of petroleum for anything at all today, the price would not fall to 0. It would in the U.S. Well, nearly so. Sure, there are other uses of petroleum besides energy, but if you take U.S. energy consumption out of the petroleum pie, demand will drop significantly and the price will fall. And once we implement a nuclear/hydrogen economy, don't think for a minute that other countries will not do the same. Craig Steiner said:
The higher prices of gas is a much-needed motivation to invest in nuclear energy and related infrastructure and end our dependence on a limited natural resource that is not finite and for which we depend on others. The current high price of gas very likely will ultimately be a blessing, not a curse. Richard Erlacher said:
That would probably be true if the U.S. consumer were a sensible one. However, the automobile is too much a symbol of status, personality, fashion, etc. They'll drive 'em even when it costs $100 a gallon. Fewer of them will drive 'em when the price hits $100K per gallon, but some will. Some people drink wine that costs tens of thousands of dollars per bottle, too. I didn't say Americans would stop driving. They won't. They'll stop driving gas-powered cars. Anyway, I honestly see little point in debating this with you. You have a very, very paranoid outlook which, in my opinion, is not based on anything more than paranoia. You believe the rich are evil and the poor are victims. You believe that, given the chance, rich people would just build themselves castles like in the middle ages and have a bunch of serfs doing work, essentially slaves. I've met many people in my life, some of them were pretty dang rich. I've never met anyone with anything remotely resembling the attitudes you attribute to the rich. Regards, Craig Steiner |
