More Libertarian facts about oil

[RedImperator]

This thread is much too intelligent for Testing. I think I'll toss this to...hrm...SLAM seems like a good fit.

[Junghalli]

Why the fuck is price so high? Does he fail basic Econ 101, the price is dictated by demand which is indicative of the volumes of US consumption

Oh come on, you know what a lolbertarian will say to that.

"It's all the government's fault! Oil is costly because of taxes! If the free market was allowed to operate the price of oil would drop!"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How about the US downsizes it's army massively?

Scrap half your carriers, disband the Marine Corps, scrap the amphibious assault ships, gut the Army, kill all those ridiculous programs like the Stryker and the FCS. Retain the Air Force and concentrate on nukes as a deterrence.

In other words, gut the US power projections capabilities completely, reduce spending to 2-3% GDP or even lower, invest the massive savings into nuke power plants. You can work on getting back into the power projection business after the crisis is solved.

And maybe we can get a cool space program or two out of it :D

There's no reason for that. We can maintain a huge military (or even expand it) and still build our way out of the crisis with enough dirigisme.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Adam Smith's arguments work better if you make a lot of rather silly assumptions, like:

1) Every consumer is omniscient and perfectly rational.
2) There are no barriers to entry or competition.
3) There are no scientific factors limiting production: the only limiting factor is human labour.

Except Smith didn't believe the market could do it by itself, but had to tempered and limited by social and cultural values. People (especially Republitards and lolbertarians) hate the fine print.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Adam Smith's arguments work better if you make a lot of rather silly assumptions, like:

1) Every consumer is omniscient and perfectly rational.
2) There are no barriers to entry or competition.
3) There are no scientific factors limiting production: the only limiting factor is human labour.

Except Smith didn't believe the market could do it by itself, but had to tempered and limited by social and cultural values. People (especially Republitards and lolbertarians) hate the fine print. :)

Also, Smith explicitly limited his work to small, single-owner businesses. He even more so explicitly railed against large joint-stock companies.

[Andrew J.]

There's no reason for that. We can maintain a huge military (or even expand it) and still build our way out of the crisis with enough dirigisme.

Now now, more blimps won't help anything.

...urgh, now I've got the taste of pun in my mouth...

[Adrian Laguna]

Adam Smith's arguments work better if you make a lot of rather silly assumptions, like:

1) Every consumer is omniscient and perfectly rational.
2) There are no barriers to entry or competition.
3) There are no scientific factors limiting production: the only limiting factor is human labour.

Except Smith didn't believe the market could do it by itself, but had to tempered and limited by social and cultural values. People (especially Republitards and lolbertarians) hate the fine print.

Also, Smith explicitly limited his work to small, single-owner businesses. He even more so explicitly railed against large joint-stock companies.

Wait, wait, so the entire field of laissez-faire free market economics is based upon a reading comprehension failure of The Wealth of Nations?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Except Smith didn't believe the market could do it by itself, but had to tempered and limited by social and cultural values. People (especially Republitards and lolbertarians) hate the fine print. :)

Also, Smith explicitly limited his work to small, single-owner businesses. He even more so explicitly railed against large joint-stock companies.

Wait, wait, so the entire field of laissez-faire free market economics is based upon a reading comprehension failure of The Wealth of Nations?

More or less.

[Adrian Laguna]

Wait, wait, so the entire field of laissez-faire free market economics is based upon a reading comprehension failure of The Wealth of Nations?

More or less.[/quote]
*Bumps Adam Smith up in reading list*

Oh but what fun I'll have smacking libertarians around by quoting that particular guy.

[Surlethe]

Adam Smith's arguments work better if you make a lot of rather silly assumptions, like:

1) Every consumer is omniscient and perfectly rational.
2) There are no barriers to entry or competition.
3) There are no scientific factors limiting production: the only limiting factor is human labour.

Except Smith didn't believe the market could do it by itself, but had to tempered and limited by social and cultural values. People (especially Republitards and lolbertarians) hate the fine print.

Totally. They also probably ignore the fact that understanding of economics has developed in the last two centuries; using Wealth of Nations as a guide to governing a modern economy is probably like using the Principia as a guide to building relativistic spaceships.

[SirNitram]

Adam Smith was explicitly pro-Public Works, and pro-government funded education. Roads, bridges, and so forth were noted in his list of things which were second only to public defense. He even comes out explicitly to tax and toll fancy personal travel!

When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.

How about selling roads?

The tolls for the maintenance of a high road cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons. A high road, though entirely neglected, does not become altogether impassable, though a canal does. The proprietors of the tolls upon a high road, therefore, might neglect altogether the repair of the road, and yet continue to levy very nearly the same tolls. It is proper, therefore, that the tolls for the maintenance of such a work should be put under the management of commissioners or trustees.

There's lots more, of course. Wealth Of Nations is outdated, but it bears no resemblence to the stupid parody of economic conservatives who cite it.

[Junghalli]

One thing I find interesting about economic conservatives is when they talk about cutting big government they're usually willing to make exceptions for the military. Take this guy for instance (from another board).

I HATE government involvement in just about everything. In fact if I
was to be the one trimming fat...

Eliminate the following departments:

250 - General Science and Basic Research
270 - Energy
370 - Commerce and Housing Credit
450 - Community and Regional Development
500 - Education, Training, Employment and Social Services
550 - Health
570 - Medicare
600 - Income Security
650 - Social Security

What's left?
050 - National Defense (and DOD related research)
150 - International Affairs
300 - Natural Resources and Environment (this one is iffy, it would
probably need streamlining)
350 - Agriculture (this one is iffy, it would probably need
steamlining)
400 - Transportation (highly modified)
700 - Veterans Benefits
750 - Administration of Justice

Notice that three of the things he wants to leave are national defense, international relations (directly related to a nation's viability on the international stage), transportation (again directly related, just ask the Romans) and veterans benefits (tangenitally related, if you have a volunteer army you don't want to shaft them or nobody will sign up).

It always reminds me of that bit in 1984 where it talks about how up till the development of their present world system conflict international was the great enforcer of sanity: in philosophy or domestic policy you were free to say 2+2=5 but when dealing with external threats you didn't have that luxury, it had to be 2+2=4. The "cut big government" types often seem to agree.

[Junghalli]

Ghetto edit: that's 4 things actually.

Come to think of it agriculture and natural resources could be seen as tangenitally related as well. An army marches on its stomach after all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that the new oil stream will not lower and stabilize prices; it will simply make them go up more slowly. Hence, cushioning the blow instead of evading it. EDIT to clarify: That is to say, I do agree with you that we should be pushing offshore drilling and opening ANWR.

I do not.

Here is a case study I did, on a different topic, but the principles apply.

“Being hungry is not Sufficient reason to sacrifice the park...Humans ought not always and everywhere dump their mistakes, mismanagements, and misfortunes onto jeopardized wildlife; and basic needs unmet is no unchallengeable exception. We might not make this argument for every endangered beetle but the lithe, supple cat; epitome of feline power, joined with the other charismatic species there, displays a richness in value that one ought not to sacrifice for a temporary and ultimately futile solution to these deep human problems.”~Holmes Rolston III

This quote was referring to the Royal Chitwan national Park in Nepal. A place of incredible biodiversity and home to many endangered species. The area surrounding the park is home to a million desperately poor people. With minimum agricultural land, and prohibitions on their using the park for forage and materials, these people are in dire straits, and Rolston argues that the current state of affairs should continue and the park should remain protected. And he is right, though perhaps for some of the wrong reasons.

First thing is first, we need to break down the idea that we are fundamentally any different from the rest of nature. This is not the case, as evolution unifies us with nature and there are no non-arbitrary criteria by which we can separate from or elevate ourselves above it. Something interesting follows from this. If we exist for our own sake, if we have Intrinsic Value, then by extension at the very least other life forms must as well, thus we have direct moral obligations toward them. This is very similar to the outlook of Paul Taylor (Taylor, EE, p.74) without the “teleological center of life” bit. It does not follow from this that we have Kantianesque obligations toward other life forms like non-interference or fidelity. The point remains though that we are not different from any other animal, we are not separate or superior, Now, if we are not fundamentally different from nature and thus can manage it the same way other animals do, it also follows that as beings capable of reason and forethought we have to take responsibility for that management (Dizard, Going Wild, p.168)

So, with that responsibility what should be done in this case? We can quibble about our responsibility in this case. Perhaps the mosquitoes should not have been eradicated, perhaps people should not have been allowed to move into the area. But the fact remains that these things did happen and complaining about it will not help the people who live there, or the park. Taking responsibility for management, even mismanagement, means we need to fix the problem. To do this, we have to take a problem solving approach and we need to take the fact that we do have obligations toward the living things in the park into consideration. Now, many of these individuals cannot be considered to have rights. Rights are a social construct, there is no evidence that they exist as a metaphysical property of a being. In order for a being to be considered to have them they have to be able to comprehend their own existence, and make reasoned choices, and be part of our social contract. (Dizard, Going Wild, p.137) Many, indeed most animals that live in the Chitwan do not meet this criteria and thus rights based arguments do not apply to individual animals. However we can consider the aggregate, the system, as a stakeholder and we can infer what would be in the best interests of this stakeholder.

So, what are the options in the Chitwan? Well, we can save nature, or we can feed people, as Rolston put it, there are many assumptions that we make that may well be unfounded. Such as the idea that feeding people comes first. But how can this be? If that were really our top priority we would not spend 1200 dollars on a smallish plasma screen TV now would we? We would spend the money on sponsoring a dozen south american children. (Rolston, EE, p. 451) Rolston is right in this respect. We cannot be consistent and engage in this, to demand that nature forever take the brunt of our mismanagement. To never foot even some of our own bill. We (the wealthy) consume, in developed countries a massively disproportionate portion of the world's resources, its wealth, and we force the poor into areas where they cannot even subsist. Thankfully, this dichotomy is a false choice. It almost always is. Partially because allowing access to the park is not a solution. With over a million people living around the park in desperate poverty, chances are they wont be able to support themselves on the resources present anyway. So opening up the park is probably not a solution to the hunger problem. There are other options. The rich could support the poor. They could sacrifice a tiny portion of their massive wealth to help the impoverished. In this case a tax on luxury goods and imports could be instituted that goes to directly aid the people living around the Chitwan. Alternatively the park could be opened up for local-ecotourism with the money spent by rich european tourists being injected directly into the local economies. This runs the risk of going into the pockets of the rich locals, but with proper controls it could work rather well.

As the population expands we will be left in the unenviable position of having to make these hard choices. To feed populations of people, and to have sustainable reserves of natural capital and protect nature for its own sake, we need to take responsibility, we need to make choices, and we have to plan ahead not only for development, but preservation (Attfield, EE, p.463)

So, how does this apply? Well, drilling in ANWR will only put a bandage on a wound that needs a shit-ton of stitches. I can extend this analogy further to someone who is poor in the US medical system, refusing to go to the hospital because they "have a bandage on it" and eventually the wound becomes infected, and the person dies of gangrene.

We have much of the technology, right now, to transition away from a lot of our hydrocarbon use. We need oil for materials, and however there are other means to gain these. Not the least of these is to genetically modify bacteria to produce them (will take some work) or synthesize them from other organic compounds like sugars (doable easily, but the corn lobby will LOVE it)

The only problem we have right now is infrastructure, and will. We lack the nuclear plants, we lack the production models of electric cars (which we have the technology for and have for some time) we lack the homes outfitted with solar power generation in sunny climates (they will even reduce fuel use in other climes) The only way we get these things, is to ratchet up the pain. The only way we solve the problem is if we stop trying to reduce the price of gas, and allow the pain to be ratcheted up and generate the political will to do what needs to be done to solve the problem.

Do you honestly think that people are going to maintain the same will to change energy-use and generation patterns if we make a big hooplah about drilling ANWR and starting new oil exploration? I should hope not. They will breath a collective sigh of relief and idiocy, and continue putzing along as usual, while gas prices slowly rise, our climate spirals into chaos, and peak oil starts to be felt in earnest. If we try to assuage the problem, it will be wore than it would be if we were forced to deal with it earlier. Just like bandaging a serious wound, or treating the symptoms without treating the underlying disease.

And to add to that, Alaska is my native home. It possesses some of the last untouched wilderness on this pile o' rock we call earth, an ecosystem that has not been developed or (intentionally) altered by our ravenous quest to develop every square meter of this planet, the rest of life be damned. The interests of ecosystems, populations, and individual organisms should not always have to pick up the tab for our gross mismanagement.

[Illuminatus Primus]

One thing I find interesting about economic conservatives is when they talk about cutting big government they're usually willing to make exceptions for the military. Take this guy for instance (from another board).

I HATE government involvement in just about everything. In fact if I
was to be the one trimming fat...

Eliminate the following departments:

250 - General Science and Basic Research
270 - Energy
370 - Commerce and Housing Credit
450 - Community and Regional Development
500 - Education, Training, Employment and Social Services
550 - Health
570 - Medicare
600 - Income Security
650 - Social Security

What's left?
050 - National Defense (and DOD related research)
150 - International Affairs
300 - Natural Resources and Environment (this one is iffy, it would
probably need streamlining)
350 - Agriculture (this one is iffy, it would probably need
steamlining)
400 - Transportation (highly modified)
700 - Veterans Benefits
750 - Administration of Justice

Notice that three of the things he wants to leave are national defense, international relations (directly related to a nation's viability on the international stage), transportation (again directly related, just ask the Romans) and veterans benefits (tangenitally related, if you have a volunteer army you don't want to shaft them or nobody will sign up).

It always reminds me of that bit in 1984 where it talks about how up till the development of their present world system conflict international was the great enforcer of sanity: in philosophy or domestic policy you were free to say 2+2=5 but when dealing with external threats you didn't have that luxury, it had to be 2+2=4. The "cut big government" types often seem to agree.

Ugh, what a no-education fucking imbecile. I wonder where he thinks all the meat and strength to the armed forces came from except by well funding basic science and research.

[K. A. Pital]

I wonder where he thinks all the meat and strength to the armed forces came from except by well funding basic science and research.

Listen... it's the sound of private nuclear aircraft carriers and fifth generation fighters. Or maybe not

[PeZook]

Listen... it's the sound of private nuclear aircraft carriers and fifth generation fighters. Or maybe not

Nonsense, private enterprise would've given us fusion power, asteroid mines and intelligent apes ages ago if it wasn't for the goddamned government.

[Junghalli]

Well, notice he does make an exception for military-related research. That keeps getting funded.

Like I said, it's eerie how well it parallels that bit in 1984. In philosophy or domestic policy you can say 2+2 makes 5 and implement your mad whims as law, but when dealing with outside forces you can't count on being able to rearrange the facts to fit your views and you better stick with 2+2=4.

[bobalot]

I find libertarians are very similar to communists except on the opposite end of the spectrum. Communists believe in the power of government to solve everything and the libertarians believe in the mythical power of the 'free market' to solve everything.

When you point out that real world applications of their ideologies have been disasters, they both say "well, thats not REAL [Insert Communism or Libertarianism here]". They will then nitpick minor details to "prove" their point.

Both believe in a fantasy Utopian society.

I keep a general rule: Never trust a group of people who have one scapegoat for every problem.

As for shale oil, as I understand it, shale oil from water sands requires a hell of a lot of water. There simply isn't enough in Alberta or Colorado to support the amounts required. It's the flow rate that matters. A trillion barrels don't mean anything if you can only get a rate of a few million barrels per day. The energy return on investment for shale is shithouse as well.

As for that claim of 1 trillion barrels, I have read that only a few hundred billion is recoverable (I will try and dig up the link).

Honestly, the conventional oil we are getting now is amazing stuff. Relatively easy to get, a high energy return on investment, a high energy density, easily transportable, etc. Our grandkids will be amazed that we went through so much of it so quickly.

To the original poster: Don't bother talking about actual physical restraints to libertarians. Actually come to think of it, don't bother talk about any physical/engineering/technical/geological etc. restraints. It seems they truly believe that the free market can overcome the laws of physics. I have tried, never works. Most libertarians I have talked to have no idea how things actually work.

[bobalot]

Correction: 'oil from tar sands' not 'shale oil from water sands'.

Should really check my posts more thoroughly before I post.

[Paolo]

As far as refineries, there's no need to build new refineries. Instead, keep maintaining the current ones and use them as imports drop and these new fields ramp up.

I'd like to crunch the numbers first, but while I'd like to see oil prices remain high relative to historic averages until such time as feasible alternatives come online, the increasing spread between heavy and light crude prices suggests some demand can be met by increasing current refining capacity. Whether such mitigation would be appreciable and target excess consumption is something I haven't figured out yet.

[PeZook]

There's lots more, of course. Wealth Of Nations is outdated, but it bears no resemblence to the stupid parody of economic conservatives who cite it.

Libertarians in general seem to be stuck in Econ 101, and invariably use the most basic models of economic theory. You know, the kind professors show you so that you can get a grasp of how things are done later on.

It's like a guys talking politics, who only knows one model of government: the despotic city-state, and wonders why we use anything else.

[Commander 598]

How about the US downsizes it's army massively?

Scrap half your carriers, disband the Marine Corps, scrap the amphibious assault ships, gut the Army, kill all those ridiculous programs like the Stryker and the FCS. Retain the Air Force and concentrate on nukes as a deterrence.

I'm not entirely sure how you came to the conclusion that completely nixing the relatively most economical branch of the US military but keeping the widely believed to be least economical branch fully intact was a good idea...

And maybe we can get a cool space program or two out of it

We'd just use it all to uselessly plant a flag on Mars and confirm with the MK1 Eyeball that Mars sucks...in half a century from now...assuming NASA gets it that is.

[JN1]

Now I'm no expert on this situation, but I did hear on the radio (the BBC so presumably trustworthy ) that price rises have more to do with refining capacity than actual supply of oil. No new refineries have been built in at least a decade and those that exist can't quite cope with increased demand.

[Patrick Degan]

Adam Smith was explicitly pro-Public Works, and pro-government funded education. Roads, bridges, and so forth were noted in his list of things which were second only to public defense. He even comes out explicitly to tax and toll fancy personal travel!

When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country.

How about selling roads?

The tolls for the maintenance of a high road cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons. A high road, though entirely neglected, does not become altogether impassable, though a canal does. The proprietors of the tolls upon a high road, therefore, might neglect altogether the repair of the road, and yet continue to levy very nearly the same tolls. It is proper, therefore, that the tolls for the maintenance of such a work should be put under the management of commissioners or trustees.

There's lots more, of course. Wealth Of Nations is outdated, but it bears no resemblence to the stupid parody of economic conservatives who cite it.

Libertarians read Adam Smith the same way Christians read the Bible —they cherry-pick the bits that suit them and the rest of the text goes quite conveniently forgotten.