New Oilfields?

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Please define conservation.


Getting more out of it without expanding its consumption. Not an easy task when you base your total economic theory on 100% perpetual saturation of available markets with infinite expansion. It knows not "conservation" and cares not about "running out". It just does.


I am looking for specifics.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Please define conservation.


Getting more out of it without expanding its consumption. Not an easy task when you base your total economic theory on 100% perpetual saturation of available markets with infinite expansion. It knows not "conservation" and cares not about "running out". It just does.


I am looking for specifics.


I'm looking for a specific interest that you have in defining "conservation".

Since I'm foggy ...just what are your views on conservation ..and if you don't have any, can you give us your preferred market solution to energy problems ..and give us your vision on the maintenance and EXPANSION of current trends in liquid energy usage ..and what they'll mean to the USA ..and in fact the entire globe? If the effects are unfavorable, just what, since you are market savvy and have faith in it, would you do in response to the highly likely condition of people seeking increasing shared in a declining market of a vital and essential resource??

Got anything specific??

 

[Tempest]

I always hear "conservation, conservation, conservation" from people on the boards on up to various politicians. I have yet to see ANYONE define what they mean by this.

What this means to me is forced rationing by government. So many gallons per person per unit of time, in violation of market forces. This will result in poor allocation of resources and a black market for gas. Who does this hurt? Poor people and the economy in general, all in the guise of saving the planet.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
I always hear "conservation, conservation, conservation" from people on the boards on up to various politicians. I have yet to see ANYONE define what they mean by this.

What this means to me is forced rationing by government. So many gallons per person per unit of time, in violation of market forces. This will result in poor allocation of resources and a black market for gas. Who does this hurt? Poor people and the economy in general, all in the guise of saving the planet.


You don't always have to hurt poor people. If we have a system that tax new cars with low mpg and reward new cars with high mpg, then "poor people and the economy in general" will buy smaller cars, and thus conserve.

Many buyers don't factor in the cost of fuel in the long run and if you make them consider the incentives, then it can conserve without hurting the "poor people and economy in general", and cut oil import along the way, saving environment is a point that is subjective and icing on the cake. It is a matter of implementation that makes the difference.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
If we have a system that tax new cars with low mpg and reward new cars with high mpg, then "poor people and the economy in general" will buy smaller cars, and thus conserve.

Then what you have is a subsidy and the government still deciding resource allocation and what is "good".
Same problem, different method. Government is not good at resource allocation.

And how many "poor" people buy new cars?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Then what you have is a subsidy and the government still deciding resource allocation and what is "good".


The subsidy may be "ungood" (my INGSOD comrade

) ..but it may be necessary.

 

[MarkC]

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌkän(t)-sər-ˈvā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin conservation-, conservatio, from conservare
Date: 14th century
1: a careful preservation and protection of something; especially : planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect
2: the preservation of a physical quantity during transformations or reactions
— con·ser·va·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective

 

[MarkC]

Government mandated conservation of whatever may suck, but wouldn't become necessary if people weren't wasteful and selfish on a private level.
Don't want government to get involved? Then don't make it necessary.

 

[Tempest]

A cut and paste out of a dictionary does not a government policy make.
Quote:
if people weren't wasteful and selfish on a private level.

That is all a matter of opinion and the market has proven itself to be self regulating in this matter.
Quote:
Then don't make it necessary.

In who's opinion? Government has already gotten involved with ethanol, and since that has been such a resounding success, why not have the same people make decisions on gas rationing? It is patently obvious they know the best course...

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: MarkC

Don't want government to get involved? Then don't make it necessary.


YIKES! That's one of the most sinister things I've heard in a while. Almost sounds like something a mafia enforcer would say.

 

[MarkC]

You (Tempest) asked for a definition, I gave you one.
In simpler terms, conservation means avoiding waste, protecting resources.

I didn't say the government would do a good job, or a pleasant one. My point is that the best way to avoid that situation is to do it ourselves, before the government needs to-or decides it needs to-step in.
The market is not the answer to everything.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Then what you have is a subsidy and the government still deciding resource allocation and what is "good".
Same problem, different method. Government is not good at resource allocation.


Isn't that what the government should do anyways: police is there to make sure people do not harm others for their own advantages. Highway is there so that people can share a common, better path, than running over each other's backyard, but the highway has to be near someone's backyard.

Originally Posted By: Tempest

And how many "poor" people buy new cars?


They don't, but where are old cars come from? New cars from a few years ago. If you encourage more supply of new small cars as a percentage, the chances are that poor people will drive smaller cars a few years later.

Eventually all policies trickle down from the top and trickle up from the bottom.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
The market is not the answer to everything.


Well, I disagree. The market has an answer for everything. It's just not necessarily the most favorable answer or the most beneficial answer.

It gives you superfund sites
It gives you Yankee Whaling
It gives you children chimney sweeps
It gives you pollution ..then sells you remediation modalities to manage it.
It gives you sweatshops and unsafe working conditions ..and tells you if you don't like it ..find another job.
It gave you "company stores" in coal towns.


The market has an answer for everything. All you have to do is ask for it ..and afford to pay for it.

 

[MarkC]

Well....

 

[Gary Allan]

Zactly! Soylent Green is a market answer to market demand.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
You (Tempest) asked for a definition, I gave you one.
In simpler terms, conservation means avoiding waste, protecting resources.

I didn't say the government would do a good job, or a pleasant one. My point is that the best way to avoid that situation is to do it ourselves, before the government needs to-or decides it needs to-step in.
The market is not the answer to everything.

Could you be anymore vague? That is the problem with all of this, no specifics.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
The market is not the answer to everything.


Well, I disagree. The market has an answer for everything. It's just not necessarily the most favorable answer or the most beneficial answer.

It gives you superfund sites
It gives you Yankee Whaling
It gives you children chimney sweeps
It gives you pollution ..then sells you remediation modalities to manage it.
It gives you sweatshops and unsafe working conditions ..and tells you if you don't like it ..find another job.
It gave you "company stores" in coal towns.


But you see, Gary, those were the glory days to some people.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
police is there to make sure people do not harm others for their own advantages. Highway is there so that people can share a common, better path, than running over each other's backyard, but the highway has to be near someone's backyard.

Those are not free market activities. By your logic, we should nationalize everything.

Quote:
If you encourage more supply of new small cars as a percentage, the chances are that poor people will drive smaller cars a few years later.

So who decides what % of these econobox cars get put on the road and the associated subsidies that go along with them? What government subsidized programs have had good long term effect. Nearly none.
What you are suggesting is a nationalization of the car industry by proxy, and people will not be able to buy the cars they want and can afford. If people buy more car than they can afford, that is their problem.
Why not apply this strategy to everything made in this country that the Government considers "bad"?

 

[Gary Allan]

Rather hard to give specifics for something we've never really done yet.


Would you have been able to ask for specifics from JFK when he embarked on putting a man on the moon in his speech announcing the escalation in the Space Race???

Kind of a rather hollow question when there can be no "specific" answer. That is, your tertiary implication is already in the bag. You, on the other hand don't have to project "good" results from the market ...since you don't care one way or the other when you see it as a solution to all things.

Again, the market is just a modality in population and resource management ..just like a multitude of others. There's absolutely no assurance of "good" to it. There's no assurance of "fair" to it. There's no assurance of anything ..as you'll profoundly assert/support.

That's why you attempt to avoid easily predictable occurrences, in terms of resource and population management, since the market may very well be indifferent to the two elements that it's managing. The consequences can be dire ..and the market will continue to drone on in it's own best or worst interests.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
There's absolutely no assurance of "good" to it. There's no assurance of "fair" to it.

Notice the quotation marks as you do not have a hard definition of these ideas. No one does, including government, and that is the problem.
Quote:
There's no assurance of anything

That is absolutely true, in any aspect of life or nature, and we are entrenched in both.
Quote:
Again, the market is just a modality in population and resource management

History has proven it to be the best one to date. NO centralized government/economy has done well long term, inspite of dozens of tries. The first time a market driven country was established, it became the dominant world power in mearly 150 years, and was a major player even before that. The modality is clear.
I could make another comparison here, but it would probably violate board policty.