User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Drill More Oil

  1. #41
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    I guess that's where I don't see the private sector doing a whole lot, voluntarily, either. Especially when things are so profit driven.
    I just don't agree with this, at all. Self-interest (sometimes in the form of profit) is the driving force behind everything. As fuel prices increase, you'll get more and more companies and individuals seeking solutions (true, economically viable solutions) to the problem because they'll be able to make a profit. Government subsidies cannot mimic this effect, but they can hinder it. The only thing the government can hope to do to accelerate this process is to create a shortage (which is basically the premise of this thread, stop all drilling).

    Creating a shortage is far more effective than subsidies, but I find that to be unethical. The government shouldn't be doing that sort of thing.

    Perhaps a poor example, but environmental regulations on companies, as far as limiting levels of pollutants entering the air or water, or disposing of things properly. If it wasn't enforced by the government (and sure, with any aspect of enforcement, paperwork can clog the system, or there will be loopholes, etc...), would the companies really have an incentive to do all of it? Of their own accord?? No, not really. There would be a few companies who might, but I believe they would be the exception.
    You're right, this isn't really a good example.

    So that's why I do think the government needs to play a role in getting things in motion -- since ultimately the government, as it exists in the here and now, drives to a certain extent how our society as a whole operates.

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)
    I don't see the government as visionary, I see it as reactionary to public opinion.

  2. #42
    4x9 cascadeco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    4 so/sp
    Posts
    6,931

    Default

    First of all, where did I ever mention subsidies, or most of the stuff you're talking about? I never said the government was the ONLY player in this. It is *a* player.

    Yes, rising fuel prices will cause company perspectives to switch and they'll shift their processes/focus to accommodate this - and will seek alternatives.

    But on topic, the one thing the government CAN do, and that is in its hands, is not allow the drilling. And this action too would cause a shift.
    "...On and on and on and on he strode, far out over the sands, singing wildly to the sea, crying to greet the advent of the life that had cried to him." - James Joyce

    My Photography and Watercolor Fine Art Prints!!! Cascade Colors Fine Art Prints
    https://docs.google.com/uc?export=do...Gd5N3NZZE52QjQ

  3. #43
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    First of all, where did I ever mention subsidies, or most of the stuff you're talking about? I never said the government was the ONLY player in this. It is *a* player.
    You didn't mention subsidies, but others had mentioned corn-ethanol, so it was already part of the discussion. But you did say you don't see private entities doing much 'voluntarily'. Perhaps you should be more clear? My natural assumption is you're talking about incentives (subsidies) when you mention 'voluntary' in that context.

  4. #44
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cascademn View Post
    I guess that's where I don't see the private sector doing a whole lot, voluntarily, either. Especially when things are so profit driven.

    Perhaps a poor example, but environmental regulations on companies, as far as limiting levels of pollutants entering the air or water, or disposing of things properly. If it wasn't enforced by the government (and sure, with any aspect of enforcement, paperwork can clog the system, or there will be loopholes, etc...), would the companies really have an incentive to do all of it? Of their own accord?? No, not really. There would be a few companies who might, but I believe they would be the exception. So I don't think the private sector as a whole really operates in longterm-thinking mode.

    So that's why I do think the government needs to play a role in getting things in motion -- and with this topic, that would mean not allowing the ANWR to be open for drilling. End of story. Since ultimately the government, as it exists in the here and now, drives to a certain extent how our society as a whole operates.

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree. ;-)
    There would be an incentive not to pollute if you weren't shielded from lawsuits by individuals or class actions suits by groups of people. And believe me, there is a MASSIVE amount of private investment going into alternative fuels. Watch 2-3 episodes of Jim Cramer's Mad Money or the like, and it will come up. People are making major bets that new energy sources will pay off down the line. And hybrid/electric/fuel cell cars didn't spring into existence due to a government decree, either. Automobile manufacturers need many years of tweaking before those cars can reach production status. They see the profit potential, too.

    And an intelligent corporation takes a FAR longer-term view than government officials do. A corporation could theoretically be in existence forever, but politicians generally look toward the next election. That is why we can have BS like "we will lower emissions 35% by 2020" when there is no way to hold anyone to that. The next administration or Congress could just change the targets.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #45
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't agree with your position on this. Why make the assumption that drilling for oil detracts from research on alternative energy supplies? That's not necessarily true. You don't think drillers would be in a lab, running alternative fuel experiments if we didn't drill for oil, do you?
    It's because it is all resource driven. Most resources (though I admit not technically all) that go into furthering oil aquirement can go into something else. Is it a big deal? You might say not, but I when I put together my two conclusions that:

    Oil finances can go into bio finances.

    +

    Oil is no longer of much long term value.

    I again conclude that money is wasted on new oil projects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I don't see the government as visionary, I see it as reactionary to public opinion.
    As oppose to...?
    I suppose market forces aren't reactionary in the least? :rolli:
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 06-22-2008 at 11:56 AM. Reason: added something
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #46
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It's because it is all resource driven. Most resources (though I admit not technically all) that go into furthering oil aquirement can go into something else. Is it a big deal? You might say not, but I when I put together my two conclusions that:

    Oil finances can go into bio finances.

    +

    Oil is no longer of much long term value.

    I again conclude that money is wasted on new oil projects.
    Well never agree on this because it goes back to the zero-sum argument.

    As oppose to...?
    I suppose market forces aren't reactionary in the least? :rolli:
    Individuals and businesses are both reactionary and visionary. Those who look to government for solutions do so under the assumption that government is visionary when, in practice, it's not. Pure mercury sort of hit on this point in his last post. Government officials care are getting elected, so they cater to popular demand, special interests, etc. They don't look 20+ years into the future because if their supporters aren't satisfied RIGHT NOW, they might not win their next election. So we end up with all sorts of half-ass solutions.

  7. #47
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Well never agree on this because it goes back to the zero-sum argument.
    Yeah, about that. I didn't respond last time because I got tired of it, and I really wanted to respond to ygolo, but he went and made another topic, so I moved there.

    The last thing you said was that monetary wealth, if anything, actually adopts the characteristics of material wealth. My answer would be that this is impossible. As I had elaborated before, money can never go beyond it's representative value. You can never convince someone that money has practical value unto itsef. The most important aspect of material wealth, it's inherent value, cannot be imbued onto money.

    You can make people follow rules though, at least to some extent. So while you can't hand something to someone and tell them "this is valuable to you" and expect them to believe it, you can tell them "you have to do this and that to get what you want". This is how money actually works. Money becomes the intermediate rule system people use to get what they actually want. So as long as people are following these rules, the nature of monetary wealth trumps the nature of material wealth, because monetary wealth is the means and material wealth is the ends. This naturally means that the way things are done will be influenced by monetary wealth more than material wealth. By definition, the means are what determine how things are accomplished.

    So look, this is all about human psychology. You cannot give money the characteristics of material wealth, because you cannot assert inate value, and you cannot change peoples' values. You can restrict material wealth to the characteristic behavior of monetary wealth but making management of material wealth coordinated through monetary wealth. This is possible because you can make people follow procedure to get rewards.

    So, in any monetary/material wealth hybrid system, the nature of monetary wealth trumps material wealth. Money is rock and material is scissors.

    Material wealth cannot have its characteristics imbued on monetary wealth:
    Material > money X

    Material wealth can be bound to the social properties of monetary wealth by requirement:
    Money > material O


    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Individuals and businesses are both reactionary and visionary. Those who look to government for solutions do so under the assumption that government is visionary when, in practice, it's not. Pure mercury sort of hit on this point in his last post. Government officials care are getting elected, so they cater to popular demand, special interests, etc. They don't look 20+ years into the future because if their supporters aren't satisfied RIGHT NOW, they might not win their next election. So we end up with all sorts of half-ass solutions.
    Neither you nor mercury ever quite justify the psychological premise of this. If business owner cares only for him/her self, he/she does not need to look twenty years into the future. A person can easily harvest the system for him/her self and leave the rest to die. It's only a matter of smoothly disconnecting from the situation before it collapses. Business robbery is hardly an unheard of practice. So there's no reason to expect better of a business owner.

    Again, I state that if anything, the politician appealing to popular issues is actually remotely more relevant than the business owner in terms of personal concerns.
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 06-22-2008 at 01:22 PM. Reason: clean up
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. do you think if a far better more efficent alternative to oil was found,
    By jcloudz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 12:55 AM
  2. BP planned to consult dead man on oil spill's effects on marine life, and more
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 10:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO