son of witless wrote:
You said we could produce 100 % of our own oil when that obviously was false. Potential is not fact. Production all over the world finally caught up with demand in the late 80s.
We weren't talking about the 80's... Here is exactly what you said...
"Around 1970 or America stopped being able to produce 100 % of it's own oil." 1970 or so isn't the 80's. And I'm not talking about potential either, the confirmed reserves were facts. The oil industry made the business decision NOT to tap those reserves and to shift their investments to cheaper foreign oil.
son of witless wrote:
Like saying if oil was nationalized. Do you mean like in Venezuela ?
Yes, or like Iran... And don't get all freaked out... I'm not suggesting we do the same thing... I am simply stating that governments have the ability to invest in low returns, corporations (that want to stay competitive) can't. So when national interest becomes a low-yield investment corporations are going to choose better investments to stay competitive, where a government has the option to forgo the higher returns in order to stand behind the national interest. It's simple mechanics... try not to get distracted by the "kooties". ;)
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote: " 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. "
Oil got so cheap that beginning in the late 80s there was a decade where oil companies had to lay off drilling crews. That had very little to do with Carter. It was all supply supply supple.
br straightUp wrote: i " Prices did eventua... (
show quote)
Actually, most of that was decreased demand... That's when Carters investments were starting to pay off, such as the increased MPG ratings I mentioned. It's easy to get confused because what happens when demand drops and production stays the same is you wind up with an over supply. It's a silly argument anyway because there are far too many variables to determine the exact cause and effects on a global market over the course of several decades.
son of witless wrote:
straightUp wrote: " 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, i***tic statement. "
If you think you can tell me how the next 40 years will go, I will tell you that you are full of Obama.
I'm guessing that you're referring to Obama's trademark vision for the future. It's called hope. Obama even called it that. Don't confuse hope with prophecy. I'm sure you know that the effects of a president's policies can last much longer than his term. Bush has been gone for almost ten years, but we're still dealing with his debt. The Congressional Budget Office just released a report saying that the recent tax bill Trump signed will put our deficit over a trillion per year all the way to 2035.
Also, some things can't be fixed over night with cheap banker tricks. Carter was the engineer that was planning the long term solution. Reagan was just a finger in the d**e.
son of witless wrote:
Carter needed to get America through the late 70s intact. He pretty much failed.
Seems to me like America got through the 70's just fine. Things didn't start falling apart until Reagan came and screwed this country under with a bag of cheap tricks and no concern for the future of the American people.
son of witless wrote:
If we fail to get through the next 5 years, 40 years from now is irrelevant.
But we probably will get through the next 5 years, so 40 years from now probably is relevant. Do you just not care about the future witless? Do you not have any children?