Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bruce Bartlett :: Townhall.com Columnist
Synfuel Boondoggle
by Bruce Bartlett
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Back during World War II, the Allies were successful in largely cutting off Germany’s oil supply. To maintain their war effort, the Germans figured out how to make synthetic oil from coal. Later, the South Africans perfected the German technology in order to cope with international sanctions.

Consequently, making oil from coal is not some pie-in-the-sky dream, but something scientists and engineers have known how to do for quite a long time. The hang-up has always been cost—no one has ever figured out how to make synthetic oil for a price that is competitive with the conventional stuff.

Cost didn’t bother the Germans and South Africans; for them energy independence was something imposed upon them by their enemies. They didn’t have the luxury of choosing among alternatives; synfuel was it.

In the 1970s, American politicians latched onto synthetic fuels as a way of coping with Arab oil embargos. In the waning days of the Ford Administration, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller proposed a $100 billion energy independence corporation that would subsidize synthetic fuel development in order to make it commercial. A similar effort today would cost close to $400 billion.

Although the legislation had strong bipartisan support and passed the Senate by a vote of 80 to 10, it ran into opposition in the House, where a combination of left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans ganged up on it. The lefties were mostly concerned about the environmental consequences of synfuels, while the right-wingers were against government subsidies.

The unholy alliance of left-wingers and right-wingers managed to stop the synfuel bill temporarily in 1975. But whenever there is the prospect of multi-billion dollar subsidies on the table, it takes more than one bullet to kill the beast. The following year, synfuel supporters were back with a scaled-down program. They thought that if they could just get a few demonstration projects going, then they could gradually expand the program.

Once again, the principal opposition was in the House. Although support for the new synfuel effort was much stronger, opponents also picked up some key allies. The most important was the U.S. General Accounting Office, which threw cold water on just about every argument offered by the pro-synfuel crowd. In a tense vote on Sept. 23, 1976, the synfuel bill was defeated by a single vote.

Having beaten the synfuel bandwagon two years in a row, opponents thought they had put the monster away for good. I was not so sure and I held on to all the files I had accumulated on the legislation. This paid off in 1979 when another Arab oil embargo and long gas lines reignited interest in energy independence. A new effort was launched to subsidize synthetic fuels and build a strategic petroleum reserve, with a cost of well over $100 billion.

Fighting this effort was harder because gas lines made people think there was a large absolute shortage of oil. In fact, the falloff in supply was not very great. The gas lines resulted entirely from stupid Carter Administration policies. In particular, it imposed price controls, so that prices couldn’t rise to market-clearing levels, and allocation controls that make gas plentiful on some places and virtually non-existent in others. Basically, the Carter people did just about everything wrong that was possible to do wrong.

Unfortunately, few people recognized that U.S. policies were almost entirely at fault and they focused their ire on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). What better way to punish oil producers than by eliminating the need to import from them by making our own oil out of plentiful coal and oil shale, most people thought.

In the end, the need to appear to be doing “something” got Congress to establish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation. Tax credits and other subsidies were enacted to make synfuels competitive.

The program never really got off the ground, however, because one of the first things Ronald Reagan did after taking over the from the hapless Jimmy Carter in 1981 was to completely decontrol the prices of oil and gasoline. Once prices were free to clear, producers invested in new supply and consumers reduced demand by investing in more fuel-efficient autos.

Prices spiked at first, but after a few years fell to pre-embargo levels. Since synfuels were barely competitive, even with massive subsidies, when oil was at $30 per barrel, they were obviously uneconomical at $10 per barrel.

Today the price of oil is well above $60 per barrel—far higher than the price that synfuel producers have always said they needed to be competitive. Yet they are back again demanding subsidies before they will undertake the effort. One can only conclude that the price of oil will never reach a price at which synfuels can be produced without government subsidies.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

Be the first to read Bruce Bartlett's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
You forgot
I'm not going to sit here and claim to be an expert, but the last I heard there was a possibility of getting oil from shale and other sources but the enviros were standing there with lawsuits before the thought materialized.

Even if I'm wrong, you do have to factor in the price of lawyers, which will make the process less profitable.

If we could jsut shield the producers from lawsuits, that would likely be enough of a subsidy.

It's high time we get back to producing our own oil, creating jobs, and getting the economy booming. I know 3 dollar gas is keeping me at home this weekend.

Causes more CO2
I have read that converting coal into synfuel causes the release of more CO2. Personaly I find energy independence of greater value than CO2 emmissions but because of Al Gore's little Global Warming Cult you will never be able to make synfuel. Until Americans are freezing in the winters due to a lack of oil there will be no large scale synfuel production.
Thank the enviros for this. You can also thank them for buying foriegn oil instead of drilling off of our West Coast or the ability to currently damn a river for hydroelectric power.
The enviromentalists have done MUCH good over the years but they are currently going through life with blinders on.

Greetings from Oil Shale country
Dirty little secret is we're in the most significant domestic oil boom in a long time. There are currently over 1,800 rigs working in the US while just under 1,200 rigs are working in the rest of the world. We are drilling through oil shale to natural gas formations below in anticipation of retort in place technology. Unfortunately that has suffered a setback recently. Shell has gone back to the drawing board to improve the technology we hoped would be viable in 8-10 years, no telling when we can plan on it, but we'll get a lot of oil from shale in the future. Alternative energy all sounds good, but we only use 35-40% of our oil consumption for transportation, the balance is used to make fertilizer, plastics and provide a chemical feedstock for industry. Solar and wind can't replace that.

Sen Bingamon (D)
The new Democrat attempts to "punish" Big Oil will backfire as usual (maybe the Democrat Carter's antics escaped your reading; if they make it difficult, or profit constrained, for drilling on US public domains, then the companies currently recovering crude in those areas will STOP. Supply decreases and people pay more, or the producers import more to maintain supply levels, and we are further at the mercy of our enemies. BRILLIANT!

Right on the $ charlie
Good points. High prices are what is allowing the industry to develop high cost resources. Take the chance for profit out of the picture and a lot of us will be out of a job. I've been on rigs where "little oil" guys spent $8-10 million for no return. "Big" oil typically stays with developed fields to protect stockholder interests, the little guys are innovating. When you hear we are running out of oil, they are talking about conventional sources, like Saudi Arabia where they just open a valve and oil flows out of the well. We have discovered far more non-conventional sources that equal more than we've consumed and more is being found, seems oil is a renewable resource too( and it's here in North America). It's just going to be more expensive to produce. Modern geologic theory leans toward the idea that oil is continuusly being created in the Earth's crust, fossil fuels is a relevant, but antique and limited theory.

Independence without subsidies
Bartlett is definitely opposed to subsidies to develop oil substitutes, but he offers no ideas for decreasing our dependence on imported oil. He also does not appear to be concerned that the U.S. consumer has been whacked by the huge price swings from the oil cartel. We need answers for achieving energy independence, not excuses for the status quo.

I favor a multiple approach which includes conservation and increased domestic energy with a minimum of subsidy. A large tax on gasoline and imported oil, coupled with offsetting reduced income tax, would encourage conservation. The consumer would make the decision how much gas tax he wants to pay and auto makers would change their model offerings accordingly. Domestic oil production would be favored versus imported oil and thus encourage increased domestic exploration and production (does require cooperation from the environmental opposition). Gasoline alternates such as biofuels would become more cost competitive and thus encourage development.

The intrenched political forces have blocked energy independence for too long. Can't enough voters unite to overcome these special interests?

The problem with bio fuels and altern
The net energy consumption to produce biofuels exceeds the energy consumed to produce our current oil based fuels, in essence taking more energy to produce less. In a nutshell that's the latest setback for oil shale development. We can and have successfully mined it, retorted it and produced high grade oil, but the downside is the resulting non-compactable dust that takes up 5 times its rock state volume. Oil holds it together. The disposal problem adds to cost of that method.
Please, keep the subsidies, most operators never see them anyway, and let the marketplace work. Refining has developed so many efficiencies over the past 30 years, but we are to the point we need additional capacity. If Bush would have leaned harder on his proposal to allow refineries to be built on closed military bases, environmentally sound refining capacity could be built with streamlined permitting and hence lower construction costs, and eventually lower consumer costs. It is premature to talk about throwing oil overboard for alternatives, there are other factors determining the price we pay.
Watch crude prices when Iran threatens nuclear development- oil becomes a speculative item. Not all oil sells at the highest price. Extremely high quality oil from Wyoming was only fetching $35/bbl when the "market" was at $65/bbl in 2006. Great oil in abundance, but inadequate infrastructure is in place to transport it to the highest paying markets.

Oops
By keep the subsidies, I mean, drop the program, we don't need them. Just let the market dictate. By the way, oil companies pay the government a 12% royalty on oil and gas developed on federal lands. Some of that goes to locally impacted communities in the form of impact grants to pay for schools and other infrastructure. The royalty is seldom figured in when people discuss subsidies.

Synfuel Boondoggle
Producing syngas and liquid hydrocarbons from natural gas is the sanest thing this country can do. Why? For several strategic reasons.

First, we important about 13 million barrels of oil per day at a cost to the American citizenry of approximately $850 million/day, which equals about $308 billion/year. We are exporting huge amounts of our dollars. This export cannot continue forever. That fact is imutable.

Second, since George Bush took office he has expanded the money supply by more than $ 4 trillion (almost exclusively by borrowing and the subsequent payment of interest in the hundreds of billions of dollars - money we won't be getting back). We will eventually spend at least $1 trillion in Iraq; ostensibly to protect foreign oil supplies and production. If we can afford to spend (or waste) money like this, it is exceedingly easier to sell synthetic fuels since they are an investment in our own future.

Fourth, the synfuel plant in North Dakota that produces syngas, last year reported a manufacturing cost of about $3/mcf. Diesel and other liquids produced from natural gas will likely cost approximately $40/barrel to produce.

Fifth, we can likely produce synfuels on a macroscopic scale that will be highly advantageous to us, as it will dramatically decrease the number of dollars we are currently exporting. It will decrease our reliance on third-world countries like Venezuela where American dollars are largely spent to build socialist states, and it will put us that much closer to energy independence. It will also produce a multi-trillion new industry that does not exist.

The expenditure of more than $1 trillion in our economy on an entirely new industry will result in economic benefits and jobs the American electorate is largely ignorant of right now. It is reason to expect a $1 trillion investment will produce at least 10 million barrels of synthetic liquids per day.

If this country can spend the money it did on the Manhattan Project, on the Vietnam war, on the Iraq war, and on getting a man landed on the Moon, none of which resulted in long-term economic growth (spend money that results in nothing that produces any future income), then it can surely invest in an industry that will produce at least $1 trillion a year in economic benefits. All the while dropping the price of oil to approximately $40/barrel and the price of natural gas to $4/mcf, at the least (let New Yorkers hear about this proposal who are paying more than $12/mcf right now).

Finally, the argument against increased CO2 emissions will require sequestration. A solution that is already being heavily invested in globally, and like most other technologies the U.S. has sought to conquer in the past, will certainly prove successful.

The sooner the American people wake up and demand synfuels, the sooner our economy and long-term welfare will be advanced.

Stop exporting $300 billion American dollars to terrorist-sponsoring states like Iran; cut them off and watch their revenues shrink til they are more concerned with what food is going to be put on the table than on blowing up American. All the while creating investment in our own economy that will result in trillions of dollars of benefit for Americans.

Mark


Oil is being extracted..
from oil sands in Canada as we speak. It must be economical or else the Canadian government is pumping a lot of money into this venture.

The fact is...
...in adjusted dollars $60 per barrel oil is not that high. Let the free market work. When the price is right synfuels will flow.

Alternative fuel
Over a year ago, Fox News in Houston carried an piece announcing the most world-changing inventions in history, namely that, with it, water can be used as fuel. The Fox video can be viewed at WaterFuel.wmv (3.03 MB). This should have been front-page news world-wide, but there hasn't been any mention of it since that I know of even though the process was patented and its inventor was reportedly in negotiations with the US government and one auto company.

Draw your own conclusions.

Here's the text of WaterFuel.wmv (3,03 MB)

Jimmy Klein fires up his new invention. His machine emits a flame that feels only slightly warm to the touch, but watch what happens when he touches anything else.
“Instantaneously I can burn a hole right down through the center of that brick [he demonstrates]”
The flame instantly turns hotter than the surface of the sun, heat so intense it takes only seconds to literally burn a hole through charcoal. Three seconds turns a brass ball to liquid glowing metal, Tungsten lights up like a sparkler [he demonstrates]. Steel, lead and other metal slices on contact, yet the tip of the welder stays ----.
”No other gas will do this.”
Jimmy Klein uses an alternative fuel once thought impossible. He says people still have trouble believing him when he reveals his liquid fuel.
“Water. We take water and electricity and we break it down through our very unique electrolysis process.”
Klein has just patented his process of converting H2O into HHO – producing a gas that combines the atomic power of hydrogen with the chemical stability of water.
“It turns right back to water. You can see the water running right off of this [demonstrates]”
Klein originally devised his water-burning engine for cutting metal. He thought his invention would replace volatile acetylene in welding factories. And then one day as he drove to his laboratory in Clearwater, he thought of another way to burn HHO gas.
“On a hundred mile trip, we use about four ounces of water.”
Klein says his prototype 1994 Ford Escort can travel exclusively on water, though he currently has it rigged to run as a water and gasoline hybrid.
“Simply speaking, it could change the world be reducing our dependence on fossil fuel.”
Pete Dominici is helping Klein take his hydrogen technology patents from a two room office in Clearwater to consumer markets around the world.
“You know what? Microsoft came out of nowhere, came out of the garage, why not hydrogen technology?”
The duo is already in negotiation with one US Automaker and the US Government. Their plans have grown from basic welding with water to powering the entire world from the safest and cleanest fuel on earth.
Craig Patrick, Fox News


Cal
Can you say, "perpetual motion"?

Nert
How is that HHO thing perpetual motion?

Jim's problems that aren't
"Bartlett is definitely opposed to subsidies to develop oil substitutes, but he offers no ideas for decreasing our dependence on imported oil."

So what? Oil is a fungible commodity and by allowing the market to dictate prices (and the most efficient sources) the economic boon to the consumer in this country has been enormous.

"He also does not appear to be concerned that the U.S. consumer has been whacked by the huge price swings from the oil cartel."

Say hello to Mr. Rorke and Tatoo while you're there on the island. The price of gasoline in real terms is about the same as it was back in the early 80s despite higher gas taxes, the end of leaded fuels, more additives and the imposition of 50 different blends of gasoline for environmental reasons ALL of which have increased the price of gas. Net of the impact of such product changes, gas is actually CHEAPER than it was more than a quarter century ago.

"We need answers for achieving energy independence, not excuses for the status quo."

Why? What benefit does it give to us? If the goal is to protect American consumers, how does a policy that ultimately makes gas more expensive to them (enforced energy independence, higher taxes, etc.) protect them? If the concern is that OPEC will shut off our oil supplies, can you tell me what size tin foil hat you are wearing? Oil is readily available on the world market and OPEC has shown a glaring inability to curtail production for any length of time. Personally, I'd rather not adopt a long-term problem in order to address a potential short-term one.

"I favor a multiple approach which includes conservation and increased domestic energy with a minimum of subsidy. A large tax on gasoline and imported oil, coupled with offsetting reduced income tax, would encourage conservation."

Uh, not a chance. Conservation cannot be enforced effectively. It responds well, however, to the price mechanism as developed by the free market. A "minimum of subsidy" will certainly have less impact than a "maximum of subsidy" but subsidies of ANY size are ultimately detrimental to consumers ... as are taxes imposed upon the goods consumers use. Taxes on foreign goods neither protect American jobs, American consumers or the economy as a whole ... EVER.

"The consumer would make the decision how much gas tax he wants to pay and auto makers would change their model offerings accordingly."

True. However, the same type of thing takes place in the free market (albeit the issue is how much consumers are willing to pay for the commodity) without the economically detrimental intervention that you propose.

"Domestic oil production would be favored versus imported oil and thus encourage increased domestic exploration and production (does require cooperation from the environmental opposition)."

Again, true. Only because you are forcing American consumers to pay a higher price. By interfering with the market, you are making exploration of domestic sources more cost-effective. However, rising gas prices were supposed to be the "problem" and higher prices are making those alternatives more cost-effective, again, without governmental interference.

"Gasoline alternates such as biofuels would become more cost competitive and thus encourage development."

Pure mythology. The market will ultimately determine when alternative energy sources are more cost effective. As it happens, they have continually gotten more cost effective over the years, but, at the same time, so has oil. Some time over the next three decades it is likely that the costs will become truly comparable for certain alternatives. Government intervention or "investment" will not change that dynamic in the least.

"The intrenched political forces have blocked energy independence for too long. Can't enough voters unite to overcome these special interests?"

Why not ask voters to unite against pixies, trolls and unicorns?

Insighting Truth has it right
Let the free market work.

I found the following item in Bartlett's piece to be the most interesting:

"The gas lines resulted entirely from stupid Carter Administration policies. In particular, it imposed price controls, so that prices couldn’t rise to market-clearing levels, and allocation controls that make gas plentiful on some places and virtually non-existent in others. Basically, the Carter people did just about everything wrong that was possible to do wrong."

Carter failed completely to learn from the mistakes of Richard Nixon, most importantly price controls, of just a few years earlier. It was during this same time frame, 1977-1980, that Congress enacted many of the environmental laws that are constraining domestic oil and gasoline production to this day. Specifically, laws restricting where oil companies can drill, requiring over 40 different blends of gasoline for different parts of the country (the same political faction that wants to ban smoking in restaurants because "smoke doesn't know enough to stay in the smoking section" apparently thinks automobile exhaust is much smarter than cigarette smoke), and regulations that have stopped construction of any new refineries and caused hundreds of old ones to be closed (ditto nuke plants).

So instead of turning the free market loose to produce energy, especially gasoline, the federal government has gone to great lengths to make the cheapest fuel much more expensive and spent billions in a vain effort to make impractical fuels practical. And nowhere in this foolishness is there any mention that synfuels and agri-fuels like ethanol STILL EMIT CO2 WHEN BURNED (not that I believe in global warming, but if that's the stated motivation behind this we are spinning our wheels with these alternates).

Comprehensive environmental energy policy consists of nothing more than handcuffing Big Oil and Big Electrical and then whining that they aren't providing enough clean, cheap energy.

How bad has it gotten? The recent spikes in gasoline prices are caused in part by the fact that we are now importing GASOLINE, not just crude oil, because our refining capacity is maxed out. Environmentalists will not notice this or relent on their draconian restrictions until we have a massive gasoline tanker spill or explosion on the order of the Exxon Valdez.

You aren't using TODAY's dollars
In the main article, the author claims that if the $60 per barrel price is not enough, when $30 was enough before, then there will never be a price where people don't ask for subsidies. Well, people may always ASK for subsidies, but that doesn't mean they NEED them. $60 today is considerably LESS than $30 in 1979. 1981 (the peak you mentioned) still remains the period when oil prices were THE HIGHEST in U.S. history, because A DOLLAR ISN'T WORTH THE SAME IN TWO DIFFERENT DECADES. What a dumb mistake on which to base your entire conclusion! Synfuel technology needs investment, whether it come from the market or government subsidy. The benefit of subsidy, as you suggest, is that it doesn't depend on the capricious price of oil, while markets are unlikely to invest in developing synfuels until oil prices are higher.

And to the poster who thinks hydrogen is the answer: you see the problem in your own transcript--it takes ELECTRICITY. Electricity is by far the most expensive form of energy, and using it to produce heat (the cheapest) in a car is a process which wastes from 50-75% of it. This is what hydrogen does. After we go through the whole trouble of turning heat into electricity, you want to turn it back again. Hydrogen is not an energy SOURCE, it is an energy VEHICLE. Like a battery. It is a battery with 25% efficiency. Useful if you need a battery, and have no more efficient option (how about simply using an electric car???? Still less efficient than synfuels but miles ahead of hydrogen) but like all batteries, it will never charge itself. Hydrogen will never be a SOURCE of energy.

Mark and Economics
"First, we important about 13 million barrels of oil per day at a cost to the American citizenry of approximately $850 million/day, which equals about $308 billion/year. We are exporting huge amounts of our dollars. This export cannot continue forever. That fact is imutable."

Immutable? One wonders if it will ever become mutable INTO a fact. It is an all too common example of economic ignorance that assumes that purchasing something from abroad somehow harms the economy and reduces the resources of the purchasing country. In reality, all exchanges are value for value and BOTH countries are inevitably made better off. In this example, we valued the oil more than the dollars used to purchase it.

Beyond that, dollars going out can only be used to purchase items from us (or from others who value the dollars to purchase things from us). The concern is non-existent (sort of like the trade deficit non-crisis).

"Second, since George Bush took office he has expanded the money supply by more than $ 4 trillion."

Actually, M2 has gone up a bit more than $2 trillion (and borrowing which certainly devalues the currency pretty much immediately in the form of inflation - there is no future crisis). No one is defending the excessive spending that has occurred over the last six years, but the matter is completely unrelated either to the issue of oil prices or the nature and level of international trade.

"We will eventually spend at least $1 trillion in Iraq; ostensibly to protect foreign oil supplies and production."

Actually, it is "ostensibly" to fight the War on Terror. While I'll concede that we wouldn't be in Iraq if their primary export were chickpeas, the link you wish to make is tenuous at the very best.

"Fourth, the synfuel plant in North Dakota that produces syngas, last year reported a manufacturing cost of about $3/mcf. Diesel and other liquids produced from natural gas will likely cost approximately $40/barrel to produce."

Albeit the energy output from that barrel is less than a barrel of oil and the manufacturing cost is reflected net of already existing subsidies. I have no problem with the development of such resources by the free market. They will eventually be cost effective. They simply are not NOW.

"Fifth, we can likely produce synfuels on a macroscopic scale that will be highly advantageous to us, as it will dramatically decrease the number of dollars we are currently exporting."

This is similar to the argument made by many environmentalists that adopting things like the Kyoto Accords wouldn't be economically devastating because there is a benefit from increased efficiency and new incentives are created to make money. The problem is that if these alternativs were superior to what already exists, the market would be developing them WITHOUT government intervention.

"It will decrease our reliance on third-world countries like Venezuela where American dollars are largely spent to build socialist states..."

This is another economic canard. We are not "financing" despots or socilism or terrorists by buying oil. The fact is that these assets which have a value on the world market REAGRDLESS of where we get our energy are controlled by some pretty despicable individuals. But that's true if the guy who sells you a car abuses his wife and children. We are not "financing" that abuse by exchanging our assets for his.

"It will also produce a multi-trillion new industry that does not exist."

See above. The claim is nonsensical. perhaps such a new industry would be created, but only at a GREATER economic cost than the benefts it provides.

"If this country can spend the money it did on the Manhattan Project ... and on getting a man landed on the Moon..."

This is another common economic fallacy. Military decisions are entirely outside the scope of the discussion. The Manhattan Project and lunar landings were examples of massive commitment to solve an ENGINEERING problem. Synthetic fuels are ENTIRELY different in that it is an ECONOMIC issue that is being addressed (the cost and relative cost-effectiveness of energy alternatives). "Investment" to solve such a problem is flatly impossible since such spending does not alter the economic dynamic. You might as well take the money and set it afire since it couldn't possibly "result[] in long-term economic growth" either.

The sooner the American people wake up and realize that the market works just fine without external meddling, the sooner our economy and long-term welfare will be advanced.

Fletch

Not applicable
I am familiar with the study you reference and the studies of m. King Hubbert. I am concerned with neither. Hubbert's estimates of "peak oil" for BOTh the US and the world as a whole were EACh exceeded half a dozen times and then revised upward. The study you specifically reference came out, unsurprisingly, before the latest Gulf of Mexico find and without considering a growing body of evidence that oil is a replenishing resource (albeit not at anywhere near consumption rates). In addition, it relied upon accessibility restrictions that are hopelessly out of date - the DOE and SEC restrict proven reserves to those acdcessible at a given technology level. The standard has not been revised for some time and limits offshore reserves to those accessible under 600 feet of water when the technology has improved so that oil below 12,000 feet of water is extractible.

Further, the study (and you) operate under the economic fallacy that demand growth will, can or is even remotely likely to continue at the pace that is the basis for their future projections. This leads to the even more egregious fallacy (an absurdity really) "if you have an infinite supply of oil". In fact, the market mechanism works specifically BECAUSE there is no infinite supply of goods. The market sets prices based upon the relative scarcity of particular goods. As a given commodity becomes more scarce, the price mechanism decreases demand and/or creates incentives for the development of alternatives (again, without the need for any outside interference).

And the notion that "we will run out of oil" is simply idiotic. The price may rise to the point that oil becomes a relatively minor source of energy in comparison to others, but that is not the same thing.

Don't make the same mistake that Malthus and Paul "The Population Bomb" Ehrlich made. The whole history of human endeavor is ADAPTIVE. We may not know - in fact we certainly do not - all of the alternatives that will be chosen to meet our energy needs, but to argue that they will not be undertaken and that we will have sudden and devastating shortages is nothing less than incredibly poor science.

In fact, the reason that demand shifted to SUVs over the past couple of decades is because the availability of oil was such (Hubbert's predictions notwithstanding) that it was CHEAP to gas up the guzzler. As relative levels of supply and demand have shifted and the price has reflected this, more and more people are selecting more fuel efficient vehicles - even hybrids.

The market mechanism works just fine. And the Peak Oilers can continue to walk around carrying "The End Is Near" signs but they are the ones suffering from ignorance.

As your own study says
"Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. When will worldwide production of conventionally reservoired crude oil peak? That will in part depend on the rate of demand growth, which is subject to reduction via both technological advancements in petroleum product usage such as hybrid-powered automobiles and the substitution of new energy source technologies such as hydrogen-fed fuel cells where the hydrogen is obtained, for example, from natural gas, other hydrogen-rich organic compounds, or electrolysis of water. It will also depend in part on the rate at which technological advancement, operating in concert with world oil market economics, accelerates large-scale development of unconventional sources of crude such as tar sands and very heavy oils. Production from some of the Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil deposits is already economic and growing.

"In any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be 'right around the corner' as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development."

It should also be noted that the study references a 1995 study's global oil supply at 6 trillion barrels (subsequent research indicates it's between 7 and 8 trillion) and assumes in its estimates that fully half of THAT figure is ultimately unrecoverable.

I am, again, reminded of Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" in which he predicted widespread famine (including in the United States) before the end of the 20th Century and that it was "too late to save most of these people". It massive food shortages never materialized...

...any more than the oil ones will.

Petroleum sources
N/A--wells are not the only sources of petroleum, as is noted in the article to which you link.

Let the market work. As prices rise, other sources become more economically feasible. We purchase petroleum from other countries because it is cheap and does not pose a significant threat to our environment.

Can't Trust the Market

There is only one Market for oil, it's worldwide. We'd be incredibly naive to assume that the efficiencies of the Market and the interests of the United States of America will always coincide.

I find Mr Bartletts' distaste for comparatively tiny subsidies of alternative fuels research and development to be ill-advised, at best. Our automobile/personal travel culture, with it's inherent dependence on huge supplies of cheap oil, was consciously created by our government with massive oil and gasoline subsidies for as long as we could responsibly afford it, and quite some time after that, too!

I'd suggest to Mr. Bartlett that we're decades past the time when we can honestly profess virginity WRTO industrial subsidies.

Energy Independence and Security
I don't care if it is synfuel, ethanol, biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, electric, or whatever the hell you want to call it or however you spell it or WHATEVER.

I want as much of it as possible, and fast.

Personally, I'd be fine with government setting up enormous, and by enormous I mean in the billions, X-Prize like rewards for groups that make a fuel source increasingly competitive and viable. There should also be a multi-billion prize for a car that runs on the fuel and has a high efficiency (read 100 or more mpg compared to gasoline).

Irrational fear of the market
Since I departed yesterday, the loony Left had a convention of sorts here.

First we have Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist who argues that "[w]e'd be incredibly naive to assume that the efficiencies of the Market and the interests of the United States of America will always coincide". For some reason, I'm at a loss to figure out exactly when having access to a commodity at the lowest possible price allowing economic efficiencies to contribute to the economic strength of this country would not coincide with the interests of the United States or when the detrimental economic impact of interfering with the market would ever BE in this country's interests.

There is ONE market for oil in the world and that is because oil is a fungible commodity and the concept of comparative advantage makes it a tremendous boon to the US economy to allow those countries who can do so to meet our energy needs while we concentrate on other things.

Mr. Bartlett;s distaste for subsidies, no matter their size, is entirely understandable given that there has NEVER been a su bsidy of ANY kind that has been anything but detrimental to the economy. There has NEVER been a subsidy in which the benefuts outweiged the costs. Yes, there have been subsidies to the oil industry - though to argue that they have been "huge' in relative terms is downright delusional (but thanks for your input oh GunnyG troll) - and they should never have been put into place. But replacing one bad policy with another makes no sense.

The paranoid silliness that our government consciously created a reliance upon cheap oil rather than simply responding to the market in such a way as to acquire energy in its cheapest available form is too disconnected from reality for words.

Citizen then suggests "enormous" financial investment by government in alternative fuels and more efficient cars. As I mentioned in the previous postings, why not simply collect those billions and start a bonfire. At least then you can capture the heat energy and there may be some small benefit. The economic dynamic can not be altered by government spending.

Then the I'm-on-at-least-my-fifth-ID troll complains about the comments made by Southerner never touching on the (completely accurate) substantive points of his response. Typical.

the level of economic ignorance demonstrated by the Left in this country is appalling.

More thoughts
Huge subsidies to oil companies are really a myth, Exxon didn't make record profits with subsidies. Royalties are paid to the government on federal lands production.
Hydrogen from electolysis requires more energy than gained, it's the pure physics of the process. Hydrogen or diesel extraction from natural gas for transportation is foolish, we already have vehicles that effectively burn natural gas, no need to add processes.
Using natural gas for electrical generation is the most absurd. From generation to consumer there is typically only a 25% efficiency (75% waste). Big Furnace (unsubsidized) markets natural gas furnaces and water heaters with a 97% efficiency. Industry standards for gas transportation range from 3-8% loss and use. Gas can be used for cooling as well, we use gas generated refrigeration in pipeline transportation all the time. Coal scrubber technology has improved sufficiently that no environmentalist with a conscience should oppose it in favor of wasting a clean efficient resource on electrical generation (watch the market pressure come off gas and consumer prices drop if we stopped using gas for electricity). All the good stuff comes from "big" business. I have yet to see some environmentalist innovate any solutions in their garage. If this alternative energy is so great, why aren't the environmentalists throwing all their money behind their cause. Compete and beat your foe if it's that good, please.
In the mean time, figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Fear not we are not running out of oil. We just had a major (!) discovery in Utah that never made it past the local press. I've been in the oilfield over 25 years, and I never cease to be amazed by the improving efficiency, innovation, Mother Earth and our ability to do things in an environmental and economical way.

The Allmighty God of the Market
Fletch:
"First we have Flaming Liberal Multiculturalist who argues that "[w]e'd be incredibly naive to assume that the efficiencies of the Market and the interests of the United States of America will always coincide".

First of all Fletch, I guess I should have specified the "the Oil Market" above, instead of just "the Market".

Fletch:
"For some reason, I'm at a loss to figure out exactly when having access to a commodity at the lowest possible price allowing economic efficiencies to contribute to the economic strength of this country would not coincide with the interests of the United States or when the detrimental economic impact of interfering with the market would ever BE in this country's interests."

OTOH Fletch, by the way that you say "a commodity" above, I assume you are including other commodities besides oil in your statement, above. What if we expanded your list of commodities to include, say, Crack Cocaine? Surely you don't feel that we should step back of let the free Market run free WRTO this commodity, do you?

The reasons to encourage research into alternative energy are more important than, and are not beholden to, and should not be ignored in deference to the efficiences of the world oil market.

Not God but nothing better
"First of all Fletch, I guess I should have specified the 'the Oil Market' above, instead of just 'the Market'."

It makes absolutely no difference. Reliance upon the market as the determinant of prices and resource allocation is superior whether you are speaking of the market in the aggregate or of the market for any individual commodity.

"OTOH Fletch, by the way that you say 'a commodity' above, I assume you are including other commodities besides oil in your statement, above. What if we expanded your list of commodities to include, say, Crack Cocaine? Surely you don't feel that we should step back of let the free Market run free WRTO this commodity, do you?"

Absolutely. The problem is that the examples are completely incompatible. While I, as a libertarian, oppose prohibition even in the case of crack cocaine, the point is moot. We are not discussing a moral argument for the banning of a substance; we are discussing the practical implications of subsidy.

"The reasons to encourage research into alternative energy are more important than, and are not beholden to, and should not be ignored in deference to the efficiences of the world oil market."

There are two very real problems with the implications of that statement. It seems to imply that sufficient research will not take place in the absence of external "encouragement". That position is absurd on its face. One of the largest investors in solar technology is BP Solar - a divison of British Petroleum - because they see that there is money to be made in it. This simple market incentive is exactly what funnels resources effectively into such research. Attempts to alter that dynamic with subsidies must inevitably fail to accomplish anything because the economic dynamic cannot be altered in such a manner. Such monies are inevitably wasted.

Second, I am not discussing merely the oil market but the efficiencies of the market as a whole. Governmental subsidies require taking money away from other more productive and more efficient uses and funneling them into less productive (or in this case non-productive) uses. Again, there has never been an example of a subsidy that did not cost more in economic inefficiencies than any benefits realized from the payment of the subsidy ... because it is impossible.

Third, feel free to name the reasons that are "more important". It is a common misconception of the Left that the demand for things not directly involved in the commercial transaction - such as for a cleaner environment - are not reflected by the market. The reality is exactly the opposite and is why, for example, environmental improvement is HUGELY correlated with economic prosperity. Thus, the argument that subsidizing research into alternative energy in order to get a cleaner environment runs smack into the reality that such a policy accomplishes exactly the OPPOSITE result.

Reply To Fletch

Fletch:
"While I, as a libertarian, oppose prohibition even in the case of crack cocaine, the point is moot. We are not discussing a moral argument for the banning of a substance; we are discussing the practical implications of subsidy."

Crack Cocaine is obviously bad for our society, we would be fools to let it's availability be determined solely by free-market forces. Let's not even consider the massive extent to which our current fossil-fuel-centric system of energy production and consumption was socially and politically engineered by precisely such things as the very subsidies you so abhor. Your endorsement of nothing-but-the-free-market for all our energy R&D gives the determination of our energy future over to those with the money, namely the Oil Companies. Their goal is the maximization of profits on a multinational scale, and not the best economic, ecological, and strategic interests of the USA. I grant that fossil fuel is a far cry from crack cocaine, but you behave as if it has no downside whatsoever, and that the organizations most invested in producing and selling it are the best qualified to determine our energy future. This is worship of the Free Market God far beyond it's power to reward you.

Fletch Quoting Me:
"The reasons to encourage research into alternative energy are more important than, and are not beholden to, and should not be ignored in deference to the efficiences of the world oil market."

Fletch:
"There are two very real problems with the implications of that statement. It seems to imply that sufficient research will not take place in the absence of external "encouragement". That position is absurd on its face."

That research will take place is true, but 'sufficient research'??? It would be incredible naievete for anyone who sees the necessity for a diversification of our sources of energy to trust this task to those whose business is to sell oil.

Fletch:
"Second, I am not discussing merely the oil market but the efficiencies of the market as a whole......Again, there has never been an example of a subsidy that did not cost more in economic inefficiencies than any benefits realized from the payment of the subsidy ... because it is impossible."

This is just silly. The Cancer Research Center where I work has been converting Federal Funds into saved lives for nearly a century. Not even Donald Rumsfeldt is that much of an ideologue.

Fletch:
"Third, feel free to name the reasons that are "more important". It is a common misconception of the Left that the demand for things not directly involved in the commercial transaction - such as for a cleaner environment - are not reflected by the market. The reality is exactly the opposite and is why, for example, environmental improvement is HUGELY correlated with economic prosperity."

Well, those 'more important reasons' are as much strategic as ecological, but since you bring up the environment I have to say that I must have grown up in a different America than you, or maybe I'm just folder. I remember lots of prosperity, especially for oil companies, and lots of pollution. Those nasty Socialistic Governmental Regulations are what made things relatively cleaner these days, not the free market.

Flaming Lib Multicultural
Just some comments on your statement, "Your endorsement of nothing-but-the-free-market for all our energy R&D gives the determination of our energy future over to those with the money, namely the Oil Companies. Their goal is... not the best economic, ecological, and strategic interests of the USA. ..., and that the organizations most invested in producing and selling it are the best qualified to determine our energy future. This is worship of the Free Market God far beyond it's power to reward you."

The reality of economics is that the consumer has the money, if someone such as the nebulus Oil Companies you refer to accumulates profits from transactions with consumers to invest in additional earnings, that is far from despicable behavior. It is indeed in the best economic, ecological, and strategic interests of the USA. It is not the producer who determines our energy future, it is the consumer. If the consumer demands alternative energy and does not patronize current energy sources, producers of energy will respond appropriately. Free Market God is a clever title, but no such god exists.
Consumers demanded environmentally cleaner production of oil resources and producers responded. The consumer controls our energy future.
It would take another one of my long winded disertations to explain it all, but I am impressed by the environmental improvements in the oilfield over the past 25 years. Many liberals love to demonize Halliburton, but if they knew Halliburton has been responsible for more advances in clean drilling technology than all other companies combined, they would praise them to encourage other industries to follow suit as applicable. Case in point- Halliburton is an oilfield services company, they do not own or market oil products, who responded to consumer (oil companies) demand for cleaner drilling technology. They reinvest their profits to create more products to meet consumer demand and hence earn more profit and clean up the environmental impacts of drilling further.
Consumers control the economy, not producers. If you understand the product life cylcle, you know alternative energy will initially be limited in supply and high in price with few providers. As market demand increases, more producers enter the market, increasing supply which results in lower prices. Eventually too many producers swamp the market, prices fall and there is a consolidation of producers until the useful life of the product reaches it's end.
Economics is a science, fully capable of using the scientific method to study. Emotional arguments based on envy, jealousy or pure misunderstanding serve no useful purpose. If liberals in general would embrace economic realities rather than stand solely on ideology and condemnation, think of how productive the debate could become. Capitolism is the best economic system. It allows for upward (and downward) mobility, fair pricing and innovation. Best of all it is controlled by the collective interests of the consumers, not the producers. Without consumers, the dread and evil big business can sell nothing, much less force consumption. Producers only profit when they provide products demanded by consumers.
All in all a great debate here, not much name calling, distracted agendas and criticism of typos as if they were ideas. F1etch- great input- you keep me on my toes.
I look forward to reading all of these relevant posts and a strong debate in the future.

Learn some economics
"Crack Cocaine is obviously bad for our society, we would be fools to let it's availability be determined solely by free-market forces."

Crack cocaine is obviously bad for the individuals who use it, but (obviously) the societal problems that exist related to it have FAR more to do with its prohibition than its use. It is its prohibition that is responsible for gang involvement, the violent crime associated with it, etc. - just as alcohol prohibition was directly responsible for the rise of organized crime in this country.

"Let's not even consider the massive extent to which our current fossil-fuel-centric system of energy production and consumption was socially and politically engineered by precisely such things as the very subsidies you so abhor."

Next, let's discuss satyrs and pixies and unicorns. Your position is nonsensical. Yes, there have been subsidies for the oil industry for decades (as with countless other industries) - and they were all just as bad - but in relation to the market as a whole, they were miniscule. The reliance upon fossil fuels as our primary energy source was and is entirely a market phenomenon.

"Your endorsement of nothing-but-the-free-market for all our energy R&D gives the determination of our energy future over to those with the money, namely the Oil Companies."

You just can't get anything right, can you? Reliance upon the market puts the decision making power in the hands of CONSUMERS who will continue to consume those energy sources that are brought to market with the most economic efficiency (which are - and will continue to be for some time - fossil fuels). The moment an alternative becomes cost effective, consumers will switch and the incentives to come up with an alternative are HUGE because whoever can make it work stands to make a fortune.

"Their goal is the maximization of profits on a multinational scale, and not the best economic, ecological, and strategic interests of the USA."

True - that is not directly. But the profit motive AUTOMATICALLY meets the best economic interests of the USA (by most efficiently allocating resources), the prosperity that such efficiencies bring IS the primary strategic interest of the United States and the link between prosperity and ecological improvement is speciifically WHY the environment in this country has been steadily improving (not governmental fiat). The goals are different, but the results are identical.

"I grant that fossil fuel is a far cry from crack cocaine, but you behave as if it has no downside whatsoever, and that the organizations most invested in producing and selling it are the best qualified to determine our energy future. This is worship of the Free Market God far beyond it's power to reward you."

Again, all you have demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of the market mechanism.

"That research will take place is true, but 'sufficient research'??? It would be incredible naievete for anyone who sees the necessity for a diversification of our sources of energy to trust this task to those whose business is to sell oil."

The answer is "unquestionably". It is not "naivete"; it is comprehension of reality. The interest is not merely put in the hands of the oil companies - of which you apparrently have an (incredibly) irrational fear. It is put in the hands of anyone who stands to make a buck from the research. The market allocates "sufficient" resources to the research BY DEFINITION as it allocates resources in the most efficient manner - including for research.

"This is just silly[:] The Cancer Research Center where I work has been converting Federal Funds into saved lives for nearly a century. Not even Donald Rumsfeldt is that much of an ideologue."

Yes, your statement is silly. The presumption that subsidizing the Cancer Research Centersaves more lives than permitting reserach to take place in the absence of governmental interference IS monumentally silly. It's entirely possible that more people would die of CANCER in the absence of that subsidy, but that's only because the market may well determine that those resources are better allocated to fight AIDS or heart disease or muscular distrophy or whatever.

"Well, those 'more important reasons' are as much strategic as ecological, but since you bring up the environment I have to say that I must have grown up in a different America than you, or maybe I'm just folder. I remember lots of prosperity, especially for oil companies, and lots of pollution. Those nasty Socialistic Governmental Regulations are what made things relatively cleaner these days, not the free market."

LOL! Yes, you apparently grew up in a different America than I did. And when you and the cast of "Sliders" come back to this planet maybe we can chat. The reality is exactly the opposite and the reaon why this much more market based country is relatively clean ecologically and the socialist wonders of Europe are still emerging from a layer of soot!

Please but a basic economic textbook and learn something. Your misconceptions are amazing.

sevenheart
Well said.

Alas, we may be washing against the cliffs of an entrenched belief system.

There's reality and There's Economics
sevenheart:
"The reality of economics is that the consumer has the money."

Well, maybe YOU'VE got as much money as Exxon-Mobil, but I sure don't.

What's annoying about your own and Fletch's arguments is that you insist that we individuals behave as if we lived in a world that was as precisely governed by free-market economic principles as the laws of physics govern the physical world, while large multinational corporations get to live and prosper in the REAL world, the one with Greed, Ambition, Lobbyists, purchased legislatures and desire to Accumulate Vast Wealth and Vast Power.

There's reality and there's lib nonsense
"What's annoying about your own and Fletch's arguments is that you insist that we individuals behave as if we lived in a world that was as precisely governed by free-market economic principles as the laws of physics govern the physical world, while large multinational corporations get to live and prosper in the REAL world, the one with Greed, Ambition, Lobbyists, purchased legislatures and desire to Accumulate Vast Wealth and Vast Power."

Large multinational corporations thrive because (and ONLY because) they peovide some good or service to consumers. ExxonMobil, for example, earns huge amounts of money in revenues but only a tiny margin on each sale (as compared to the vast majority of industries). You would be appalled if the little shopkeeper on the street was told that he could not earn more than eight cents on the dollar of every sale he made, but scream bloody murder when an oil company makes a comparable margin but happens to sell so much more product.

sevenheart's point is that consumers IN THE AGGREGATE have the money. Consumer demand generates the profits taken in by anything from the Mom-and-Pop shop to ExxonMobil and the primary use of the revenues taken in by such entities is to have the sheer unfettered gall to create wealth and JOBS.

As it happens, the laws of economics are as fundamental as those of physics and they reflect the uniformly detrimental impact of governmental interference. Lobbyists and "purchased legislators" are examples of such interference as well, but the reality is that liberals typically look at this situation and shoot the victim.

The problem isn't with business; it is with a GOVERNMENT that has the power to intervene and the flow of money through Washington (which is, again, part of the problem - and tax dollars are included in that) is more frequently extortion of business than bribery BY it. For two millenia, rational people have understood that "Caesar demands tribute!" This is why when Microsoft (which never met the practical, economic or legal definition of a monopoly and were providing a direct benefit to consumers) was crucified. THEY did not finance political campaigns (while its competitors did). It wasn't until Microsoft entered into that little game, that they were able to make the (bogus) charges go away.

The fear of business power is irrational (businesses have huge incentives to meet consumer needs, retain qualified workers, etc.), particularly when the presented alternative is governmental power, which is VASTLY more dangerous (government's only incentives are self-perpetuation and the accumulation of power).

I'm sorry that an accurate take on the real world is "annoying" to you, but there's nothing I can do about that.

This IS Religion
Fletch:
"As it happens, the laws of economics are as fundamental as those of physics and they reflect the uniformly detrimental impact of governmental interference."

If I were to worship the laws of Physics the way that you do the laws of Economics, I'd declare it immoral to ever build a Dam, since it prevents water from flowing downhill.

Fletch:
"The fear of business power is irrational (businesses have huge incentives to meet consumer needs, retain qualified workers, etc.)"

Can you truly look back over the history of every large business entity since, say, the creation of the corporate citizen in the USA, and still make the above absurd claim with a straight face? Even the large corporations that you place at the top of your Religion don't believe in it the way you do.

Thank you...
...for properly labelling your post.

"If I were to worship the laws of Physics the way that you do the laws of Economics, I'd declare it immoral to ever build a Dam, since it prevents water from flowing downhill."

I worship neither, but, at the same time, I don't suggest that governmental intervention can effectively address the "fairness" of whether or not an object falls when dropped from a building. Governmental interventions such as the minimum wage (which only destroys jobs), subsidies and tariffs (barriers to trade that ony harm consumers - and also destroy jobs) run smack into the laws of supply and demand. They are called "laws" expressly becasue they are immutable.

fear of business business power is irrational (businesses have huge incentives to meet consumer needs, retain qualified workers, etc.)"

"Can you truly look back over the history of every large business entity since, say, the creation of the corporate citizen in the USA, and still ... claim [fear of business business power is irrational (businesses have huge incentives to meet consumer needs, retain qualified workers, etc.)] with a straight face?"

What is difficult for me (and essentially anyone with a grasp of basic economic principles) is to regard claims to the contrary with a straight face. The history of business in this country is one of competition for consumers and workers that has vastly increased the choices available to consumers (and the quality of those products as well) while creating literally countless jobs (which pay market wages in the overwhelming number of cases in excess of any legal minimum). Certainly there are examples of unscrupulous individuals in business (as in every walk of life though you will find less in business than, say, government as a percentage of the whole - and by several orders of magnitude), but that is not reflective of business activities in the aggregate which are near universally beneficial to consumers and workers alike.

An accurate reading of history yields no other possible conclusion.

You're Revising History
F1etch:
"The history of business in this country is one of competition for consumers and workers that has vastly increased the choices available to consumers (and the quality of those products as well) while creating literally countless jobs (which pay market wages in the overwhelming number of cases in excess of any legal minimum)."

In this 'history' of yours there does not seem to be any recognition of the role played by Organized Labor and huge bodies of Government Regulation in curbing the tendency of the unrestrained profit motive driving large corporations to swallow, chew up, and spit out working people like any other commodity. I fear that if you ran our Government there would be no OSHA, no FDA, and no EPA.

F1etch:
"Certainly there are examples of unscrupulous individuals in business (as in every walk of life though you will find less in business than, say, government as a percentage of the whole - and by several orders of magnitude)"

It's interesting that you find Business to be more virtuous (by 'several orders of magnitude') than Government. It's commonplace (especially here at TH) to read how Liberal and Democratic policies are wrong-headed and ineffective because they don't recognize or follow economic common sense, and in some cases there is truth to this. But the other side of that coin is that the most systemic corruptions and perversions of Government (ex Watergate, Iran-Contra) occur during Republican administrations precisely because of this *contempt* for the process of Government that you so aptly exemplify.

The recent unfortunate return of Russian authoritarian rule illustrates how wrong things can go when extremist free-market ideologues are given virtual carte blanche to determine public policy.


Economics In It's Place

Though I'm arguing here against making it one's supreme god and the sole determinant of all public policy, I do recognize value in understanding and using the Principles of Market Economics. I recognize it as one of several important factors that Government should consider in formulating public policy, and also as an important factor in effectively *implementing* a policy once that policy has been defined.

But I believe that you and Mr. Bartlett go far beyond this proper use of Economics, and wish to make Maximum Market Efficiency the sole determinant of all public policy. This is taking things too far; this is rejecting the possibility that there would ever be an overriding humanitarian, strategic, health-related, ecologic or other reason to pursue a public policy even if it wasn't the most economically efficient policy.

In particular, given our present circumstances of overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels and a comparatively monolithic energy infrastructure, it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing for the Government (in particular a Government elected by and presumably representative of it's people) to take a relatively tiny amount of it's tax revenue and use it to encourage research into alternative forms of energy via subsidy. In the software development world it's recognized the person who developed a body of code is in many ways uniquely ill-suited to the task of reading through it for bugs. Similarly, it's foolish to trust that the people most heavily invested in the current energy system are the ones best suited to innovate and diversify it.

Your "history" ... isn't
It’s nothing more than an all-too-pervasive liberal fantasy.

“In this 'history' of yours there does not seem to be any recognition of the role played by Organized Labor and huge bodies of Government Regulation in curbing the tendency of the unrestrained profit motive driving large corporations to swallow, chew up, and spit out working people like any other commodity.”

It never happened. In fact, EVERY “advance” made by organized labor was originally developed by the private sector as a means of attracting the best workers: the progression to the six and then five day work week, the progression to the 12 to the 10 to the 8 hour day, paid leave, workers compensation, improved working conditions, employee benefits and on and on. The assertion that these things would not have come into existence or would not have spread as the level of prosperity rose in this country is pure delusion. As an example, before the Johnstown flood wiped it off the face of the earth, the Cambria Iron Company, a non-union shop, operated one of only two steel mills in the country with an eight-hour-day (abandoned already at a number of union shops). The company had also built a town hospital which, among other things, treated injured employees immediately and without fee, and ran a night school so that employees could learn science, mechanical drawing and engineering. The other shop with an eight hour day? A mill built by Andrew Carnegie, also non-union, that implemented the practice in order to lure away Cambria’s workers.

The minimum wage is another perfect example of the silliness of the position that corporations “exploit” or “chew up” working people. If it were at all justified, then, by definition, workers would be paid as little as possible and it would be all but impossible to find an entry-level job paying above the legal minimum. That is OBVIOUSLY not the case. In fact, even as the economy fell toward – Fed and tax-hike created – recession, entry level positions typically paid well in excess of any legal minimum. Only a handful (well below a million) of low-skilled, entry-level positions even pay the legal minimum and most of those jobs are held by young people and part-time workers.

The FDA’s primary accomplishment has been to delay the availability of effective and often lifesaving drugs for an average of about 12 years while significantly increasing its cost. Examples of unscrupulous companies foisting defective or hazardous products on consumers are incredibly rare and usually represent things that were simply undetected in initial testing (while drugs like Thalidomide went through full FDA scrutiny and STILL had problems). And the EPA was created by the (liberal) Nixon administration in the wake of the (factually inaccurate) “Silent Spring”. Laws making companies responsible for their environmental actions were already on the books and were entirely appropriate, but the EPA has done little to improve the US environment at great cost.

“It's interesting that you find Business to be more virtuous (by 'several orders of magnitude') than Government.”

It’s an inescapable reality. In fact, human nature cannot possibly yield any other result. Human beings act in what they perceive to be their own self interests. It is in the businessman’s best interests to preserve the company that earns him his living by providing products or services that consumers demand and to hire and retain the best and most productive workers for the same reason. If he fails to provide a consumer need, he goes out of business. If he fails to keep quality workers, he can’t keep a good workforce, his productivity falls, his competitors clean his clock and he goes out of business. It is in the politician’s interest to retain his office, but there are no constraints on his behavior in that regard to ensure that his actions are in the best interests of you or me. Instead, he is hugely incented to cater to individual constituencies that can get him money or votes (businesses, organized labor, the AARP, ATLA, etc. and engage in activities that may look good to those constituencies that are either unproductive (non-binding resolutions) or are harmful (steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies, minimum wage laws that do nothing but destroy jobs). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with a “contempt for the process of government”, but an inescapable reading of human nature.

The reality is that the “most systematic corruptions and perversions of government” that you mention have been nothing of the kind. The process that I have described has done more harm to more people to a much greater degree (by the New Deal programs ALONE) in any given year than the damage to the lives of the American people of the two instances you mention have done combined. This is not a defense of those actions (which were also examples of self-interest playing out), but a real assessment of the actual level of harm done.

“The recent unfortunate return of Russian authoritarian rule illustrates how wrong things can go when extremist free-market ideologues are given virtual carte blanche to determine public policy.”

Say hello to Mr. Rorke while you’re there on the island. The move to greater authoritarian rule in Russia has been DESPITE the work of free marketers whose implementation of free market reforms (primarily tax policy) had turned the Russian economy around.

“Though I'm arguing here against making it one's supreme god and the sole determinant of all public policy, I do recognize value in understanding and using the Principles of Market Economics.”

This argument is getting tiresome. The notion that I, or anyone else treats the principles of market economics as “God” is complete BS. Economics yields an understanding of human behavior (in the aggregate) in the real world. As with any other science, it has established both theories (that have not been proven) and laws, which are irrefutable. The Law of Supply and Demand is no less immutable than the Law of Gravity. Thus, it is not necessary for those making public policy to revere or worship either set of laws, but it is foolhardy to formulate public policy that attempts (unsuccessfully) to violate those precepts.

Certainly “Maximum Market efficiency” is beneficial but that does not mean that any and all policies need achieve that goal. ECONOMIC policies, however, must be evaluated on their level of economic soundness. Thus, a policy that attempts to set a price floor (the minimum wage) or a price ceiling (price freezes) or tariffs (as for steel) or subsidies (as for agriculture) or “investment” in research to solve an economic problem (the cost-effectiveness of alternative energy sources) or reallocate resources (welfare) is opposed by those with a grounding in economics not because economics is our “God” but because, as each of them violates those economic precepts, none of those thing accomplish ANYTHING of value and simply DO NOT WORK. In fact, many of them demonstrably create even more problems or worsen that which they are ostensibly designed to address.

It is because of our economic prosperity that we have the strategic and military superiority that we have, that resources are available to continually improve the environment, and that we have the finest healthcare in the world (that we do not is an easily – albeit at length – disposed of myth). Further most attempts to subvert basic economic principles in the name of “humanitarian” goals can be rejected on a strictly humanitarian basis as frequently they do more harm than good – as the welfare state has increased poverty and created an entrenched dependent underclass.

“In particular, given our present circumstances of overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels and a comparatively monolithic energy infrastructure, it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing for the Government (in particular a Government elected by and presumably representative of it's people) to take a relatively tiny amount of it's tax revenue and use it to encourage research into alternative forms of energy via subsidy.”

That stance is irrational. The sole reason for our reliance upon fossil fuels is that, at present, they remain the most efficient and reliable sources of energy available. Many alternative energy sources have become more cost effective over the years and, in fact, are more cost effective than oil was in the 1970s, but oil has become steadily more cost effective (and less environmentally unfriendly through improved technology and increased efficiency) as well. When alternatives become more cost effective, the change will occur gradually without undue pain and without wasting money to bring it about.

The reason to oppose subsidy for alternative fuels is because the practice does not work. It can’t. It not only can’t solve the economic problem of the difference in cost-effectiveness of the energy choices, but actually impairs the incentives to improve cost-effectiveness (by artificially reducing the differential in the meantime. The subsidies actually WORSEN the problem.

“[I]it's foolish to trust that the people most heavily invested in the current energy system are the ones best suited to innovate and diversify it.”

What’s “foolish” is the belief that any such trust is being undertaken. To the contrary, there are all sorts of individuals who are seeking to make the technology more effective. The reason that energy interests are involved in the research as well is because they are in competition with others who, if they make it work – and eventually they will – can be more competitive than they are. The “software developer” example involves the problem of a single individual being too close to the product and is completely incompatible with the situation under discussion.

Our Common Ground
F1etch:
" This argument is getting tiresome."

I have to agree. I'll just content myself with being grateful that the Senate doesn't think like you, and I'll hope that the House votes the same way.

But, when some obscure Academic runs with that Grant Money and finds a catalyst or something that is truly transformative to the process of generating synthetic fuel, I WILL hunt you down to say 'I told you so'. (And you'll turn around and tell me that ExxonMobil would obviously have discovered the process far sooner had they not been taxed into near bankruptcy to pay for the Research Subsidy.)

Since you are by FAR the most devoted Acolyte --err, sorry --enthusiastic advocate of FreeMarket Economic Principles that I have ever encountered, I'd like to ask your opinion on another matter:

It seems to me that a pragmatic free-market economist would look at the current 'Crisis' in illegal immigration, create a well-designed Guest Worker program, and declare the issue solved.

In return for legal status, freedom from fear of being deported, and a chance to seek work in the U.S., the vast bulk of the people now sneaking across our borders would instead line up for Guest Worker cards with the best identity documents that their country of origin can provide, and be issued a Biometric Guest Worker ID bearing their photo and prints. They'd pay a small part of the fee they now pay to coyotes who dump them in the desert. The current complement of Border personnel could now deal with the tiny numbers of real criminals, drug smugglers, and terrorists who are still trying to sneak in.

Paragons of enlightened virtue that they uniformly are, of course the employers now forced to hire illegals in order to stay in business would instead hire legal Guest Workers as they become available (for the same wages) over Illegals. Knowing that employers finally have a practical legal recourse to going out of business, law enforcement officials would be far more enthusiastic in enforcing laws against employing illegals. Illegals would thus be STRONGLY incentivized to document themselves and become Guest Workers.

Finally, and best of all, these Guest Workers would no longer be in the underground economy. Presumably they would be eligible for lesser benefits than citizens, and they would pay taxes to fund the services that they consume.

There! NO stupid publics work project (The Great Wall of CA-NM-AZ-TX), NO massive Federal Hiring Spree to multiply the numbers of border guards, and NO erosion of civil liberties and expansion of the 'Nanny State' via a national biometric ID for citizens. Just a problem solved, cost-free, by free-market principles.

Is that a program that you could endorse??


FLM
There IS a Guest Worker program. It is called LEGAL immigration.

[roll eyes]

Unfortunately, the millions of liberal (i.e. uninformed) voters such as yourself screw things up royally for the rest of us.

Game, set, match (via folding, spindling, mutilating) to Fletch.

Reply to Buzzkat

Please explain to me how the present legal immigration system serves the needs of, say, the mushroom farmers in Lancaster cty (near here in Philly) to get pickers. Does the farmer write to the embassy and wait for next year?

Please remove your cranium from your rectum and at least read the postings.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.