On Jan 28, 7:29Â*pm, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:22 am, BAR wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:29�am, BAR wrote:
What are you doing to stop the Chinese and Indian's from using up all of
the remaining oil?
You're not serious, I hope.
Isn't the official position "Let the free market rule"?
We shouldn't take any organized action to cripple the economy of some
other country just so we can gas up our 12 mpg SUV's for another
couple of years. If the Chinese and Indians are willing to pay more
for the oil, I guess it flows their direction. New idea:
capitalism. :-)
But, we should do everything possible to hamstring and cripple our own
economy?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, but I didn't see anybody recommending that. I was inquiring
about the statement "What are you doing to keep the Chinese and
Indians from burning all the oil".

I repeat my question: Isn't this a situation where free market
capitalism should prevail? (Let the country most willing to pay the
oilcos the most money get the oil). That would make Americans holding
stock in the oilcos very happy. Maybe some of that wealth will then
trickle down *to* those of us who are used to normally being trickled
*on*.

Yes, it is. And, when we have all of the oil left we can sell it for
$100 per bbl.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If taking control of "all the oil" means invading and occupying a
greater number of oil-producing countries I think that's simply a pipe
dream.
We've got our hands pretty well full with just one of those countries
now.
We don't have the troops, the budget, or the moral authority to
conquer the world just so we can continue putting relatively cheap gas
into decidedly inefficient personal transportation.

If we ever do get any oil out of Iraq, it should sell for about $500
bbl.
That would more closely approximate the actual cost of the occupation
required to "secure" the oil fields there.