- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,605
- Reaction score
- 39,893
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Fungibility is precisely why your argument is utter crap.
not at all. supply remains supply.
#5 actually.
now that's interesting - that's changed in the past couple of years. Guess nationalization isn't everything it's cracked up to be.
Then your argument does not make sense.
in fact it does. I don't pretend there will be no effect, I point out that the effect becomes manageable.
Uh. Thanks for admitting you don't know how commodities markets work. Your idea won't work. Venezuela will merely create a number of sham holding organizations and agents to shuffle the heavy sulfur oil around such an import restriction
:shrug: we can identify venezuelan oil. I don't care who ships it here, we don't process it. Remember that this doesn't need to be any kind of permanent exercise; that regime is already unstable enough.
Or merely sell the oil futures over and over again
:lol: at discounted prices each time? who buys oil futures from people with no future?
Furthermore, your idea would require the US government to directly bar or place restrictions refineries from buying that crude
and I'm fine with that.
That will only increase oil prices
you are correct.
Furthermore, Venezuela will merely cut deals with other nations trading the oil for other items in a barter sort of way it already does with Cuba.
and they will do what with it? they cant' turn it into gasoline.
Which at the most liberal estimate is 10 years.
considering that's the point where we are going to most need the revenue and growth, gosh, I guess we'd better get started right away, then, huh?
10 years away :roll: I should stop saving for retirement - it's 40 years away. 40 years away will obviously never come and I will never wish in 40 years that I had saved now. Why plan for the future when in the long run we're all dead and I can just spend my way into prosperity?
And that means prices go down how again?
in the same way that Republicans are "cutting" Medicaid - we reduce them off the baseline. Why should we have (inflation adjusted) $5 a gallon gas in 2020 when we could have $4?
That does not make logical sense (Like all your posts!). Getting off oil at least for transportation needs would dramatically reduce the price of oil and thereby revenue to Russia, Venezuela and Iran (and Saudi Arabia which is a two sided problem).
ah, yes, the magical unicorn windmills again. And ethanol. perhaps cars in the future will run off of solar panels that are placed on windmills anchored by algae? and, pray tell, what transportation fuel is sitting on the shelves ready to be put into place that will run our vehicles cheaper than gasoline? Oh, this is a "let's just keep gas prices high and hope one comes along" plan? how in the world does that jibe with:
But not in the way you are thinking. Chavez needs the US committed to oil to keep prices high. If the US dramatically reduces its oil demand, Chavez will fall.
when what you propose is ostensibly a deliberate "let's keep gas high" plan.
and on the contrary. the US need only cut it's demand for Venezuelan oil and Chavez falls. That's what being a monopsony means - when we stop buying, Chavez is F'd.
Except that being a major supplier won't change prices with the amounts we bring and the total aggregate demand. All you have done is create some more jobs and keep American demand right where Russia wants it.
All I have done is created more jobs. And raised revenue. And raised GDP. And raised our growth rate. kept American demand where Russia wants it? American demand for energy only goes up along with the rest of the world. When an alternative source becomes more efficient and cheaper than gas, then we go with gas. until then, let's beat Russia at her own game - we can outproduce her.
Furthermore, the cost of getting oil to Eastern Europe far outweighs the benefits.
Depends on whether or not Russia has decided to cut them off for political gain. You're the one who felt the need to point out how fungible oil is.
You do realize that oil is primarily used for transportation fuel no with industrial uses for byproducts?
and lots of byproducts at that.
Wind and solar are base grid power sources. Not the same thing.
yup; which is why i find it hilarious when people talk about them as alternative energy sources. not to mention that the tech isn't there, windmills are unreliable (and have to be paired with coal) and would take up too much space.
We can replace petroleum based transportation networks with a mix of natural gas and electric fuels
if people wanted to do that, or if it were economically efficient to do that, then we would be doing so.
since they don't and it isn't, they aren't.
(incidentally, just pointing out, when people discuss windmills and solar as replacements for gasoline, they are talking about electric cars receiving power from the grid. Just thought you might like to know that basic, elementary fact ).
That alone would dramatically reduce oil demand and basically annihilate the large revenues to Russia.
how much oil does Russia sell to the US?
not all that much, really. but oil is fungible (again), and a reduction in demand will reduce the world price.
but so will an increase in supply.
the difference being that artificially increasing the price of oil in hopes of eventually producing a viable alternative reduces our productivity and destroys wealth and jobs, while increasing our production and the world supply on the market creates wealth and jobs.
that decision is so easy, a caveman could do it. and only a modern malthusian could **** it up.
Last edited: