son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote: " Your role? What exactly *IS* your role, that you have to train for? Or are you just bullshitting? "
To educate Permafrost. It sounds as if I can help you also.
I see... so, it takes a lot of training to educate Permafrost, eh?
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote: "So right after telling permafrost that he's missing the fundamental problem because he isn't trained to look for deeper reasons like you are... you state the obvious and dive no deeper. (You're so convincing). "
It is only obvious now that I have stated it.
No, it's been obvious since the 80's.
son of witless wrote:
I have dived deeper than anyone else so far. ( I am glad you are convinced ).
Yeah, I bet you have... just how deep do cesspools go anyway? ;)
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote:
" First of all, I think you're wrong... America was still "able" to produce 100% of it's own oil in the 70's. It just wasn't as profitable for the oil companies to do so. Technically, an oil peak is the point where the oil that's left in the ground can no longer be extracted at a cost low enough to profit and that's what happened during the Nixon era... we hit our oil peak and so the oil companies decided to invest in overseas operations where high grade oil is cheaper to extract, or in some cases like Enron the game was to simply buy cheap foreign oil and sell in on the American market for an easy profit. "
Me wrong ? That is not possible. American oil companies are for profit enterprises. When something is not profitable in a large way, then it is not possible to be done. All corporations must raise capital. If you do not make a profit on that capital you go out of business. What part of that statement do you not understand ? ? ? ? ?
straightUp wrote: i br " First of all, I th... (
show quote)
What makes you think I don't understand any of it? You're just saying the same thing I already said. Witless... we KNOW how capitalism works... the reason I said you were wrong is that America was WAS able to produce it's own oil... you said otherwise and that's where I think you were wrong. Just because domestic oil is a less attractive investment in a free global market doesn't mean it can't happen. If domestic oil was nationalized, it probably would have happened.
son of witless wrote:
Only when Reagan let Oil companies make all the money they wanted, did oil production go up and the price come down. A FREAKIN AMAZING how that worked.
The price didn't go down, they went up. Maybe you don't understand how price control works... in a nutshell, centralized price controls keep prices lower than market value. BTW, these price controls didn't originate with Carter, they originated with Nixon. So give credit where it's due ;) - in any case, when Reagan deregulated, the prices were allowed to go UP and THAT attracts investment into more production. So yeah, pretty amazing. But the direct result of deregulation was that the prices went up, not down.
Prices did eventually go down, but that was sometime afterward and although the increase in domestic output did factor in, much of that drop was a result of Carter's long term strategies, like investing in research that resulted in increased MPG ratings for cars during the Reagan era.
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote:
"
That's it? All your training in looking for deeper causes and all you can come up with is that Carter tried to manage demand... and THAT caused stagflation? "
YES YES YES ! ! ! ! Just cutting demand would not cause stagflation. It was Carter's methods of cutting demand that did it. Carter had a way of ordering things to be done without considering the peripheral damage he was doing. Whatever methods a President employs he must be aware of side effects. Carter seemed to have no comprehensive vision for blending the results of his various policies. Okay allowing prices to rise to discourage consumption. Fine, but poor working classes bore the brunt of that pain. That caused those people to cut back their spending in other areas. They could not just trade in their gas hog for a brand new high mileage car.
straightUp wrote: i br " br That's it? All... (
show quote)
Yeah, being confused about who allowed the price to rise is really screwing up your position on this. So, when you realize it was Reagan, not Carter that allowed the price to soar will you totally change the bit about the poor working class bearing the brunt of the pain? 'Cause ya know... that wouldn't make the GOP look so good.
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote: " What Jimmy Carter was "managing" was the encouragement of anything that could reduce our dependency on oil, such as funding research for alternative energy. "
Jimmy Carter was an idiot. The drop in oil prices in the 80s and 90s proved Carter was wrong. It is now 40 years later and alternative energy is still dependent on welfare to survive.
No, the drop in oil prices proved he was right as they were directly related to his conservation policies. You're trying to give credit to a play on domestic regulation on price control. That means the change is limited to the variance between the previously controlled price and the global market value... It's a narrow margin compared to the decreased demand over several years via improvements in energy efficiency and conservation.
son of witless wrote:
It was not Carter's job to manage the next 40 years. it was Carter's job to manage the late 70s and he failed miserably.
No, it was his job to manage the next 40 years. It's the job of every president to safeguard the future for our children. I'm actually flabbergasted that you would even make such a shallow, idiotic statement. In fact, if Reagan didn't make it a mission to fart on every one of Cartgy polices we would much further long in alternate energy today. We would be leading the world in clean energy, not trailing it. We may have even avoided idiot wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.