Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why don't Liberals understand simple supply and demand economics, like drill here drill now?

*Exclude the fact that there is stiff competition between oil companies and the fact that they don't have a monopoly...

15 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Drill away pal. Let us know how it works out for you 20 years from now when the first drops of oil are refined.

  • Mark T
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Let's see I don't see Sinopec or Total drilling in Texas, now do I.

    Suffice it to say, they are separate entities in the same way that children are all separate, true enough, but they work together such that there is alot more collaboration than most folks realize.

    The Japanese have a word for it, Keiretsu, sort of an alliance between corporations that compete in some areas, but are collaborative in others.

    The law of supply and demand is a good one, and it's clear. The geology speaks unambiguously to the fact that no amount of offshore drilling or conventional oil extraction on the North American continent will help. We could drill everywhere, and it wouldn't change the fact that we are running out and we are unprepared as a nation.

    The last thing we need to do is inspire some false sense of confidence among the consumer, that there is a stable world supply of oil. There isn't and it's plateaued and will soon start declining, and we had best be prepared.

    Once the decline in production occurs, the results for any economy still using oil (we get 82% of our energy from oil), will be in trouble, and not just a little bit, but rather completely, commuting, food distribution and a large percentage of economic production and all manner of other work will be significantly reduced, unless we start preparing immediately.

    Peak Oil :

    Youtube thumbnail

    James Kunstler on the Long Emergency :

    Youtube thumbnail

    In a way, if we aggressively put wind/solar and geothermal everywhere we could, gave tax credits for hybrids & high mpg cars, eliminating them for conventional vehicles, and a tax-credit for any and all that move into cities we'd still be in trouble, because it just won't happen fast enough.

    Furthermore, the OPEC nations, have actually had the proverbial spigot open all the way for a few years now, and you are not considering a cold, hard fact. China uses more oil than we do, India's use of oil has tripled in just a few years, and Indonesia (an OPEC member state),has in the last 2-3 years suffered 2-4% declines year over year,and uses more than it produces.

  • 1 decade ago

    My friend the question you just asked is whats called a false analogy. I'm an economic major, I know. Liberals, like myself, realize that off shore drilling doesn't solve anything. It only costs more money, pollutes the earth more, and causes us to delay using energy thats more efficient, cleaner, and cheaper. I promise you if we began drilling today off shore we would not be able to use the oil for ten years. Do you really think in ten years that the price of gas will drop? Do you really think that the oil companies will drop the price of gas because they have more? They only will supply enough to keep the prices consistently high. Just like our middle east oil suppliers and domestic oil companies do now. I'm afraid you're simply being naive.

    Source(s): macroeconomics, microeconomics, extensive research into oil wells and alternative energy
  • 1 decade ago

    some people will believe anything that sounds good without any consideration for the actual FACTS

    The Republicans have once again tried to take our attention off

    the VERY serious problems facing this country by trying to focus our attention on bs.

    McCain has spent his time focusing on energy policy, making some surprising, and inaccurate, statements.

    Among them: He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.

    The Energy and Information Administration concluded in a 2007 report that:

    EIA: The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

    Something that takes 22 years to deliver significant results hardly qualifies as a "short-term" solution.

    Why would it take until 2030? To vastly oversimplify: First, the government has to identify properties to be leased and hold a lease sale. Then, winning bidders need to contract with drilling rigs (all of which are booked for the next five years, according to the New York Times), drill exploratory holes and analyze core samples - "They drilled 75 holes in the North Sea before they figured out the geology" sufficiently to begin drilling productive wells, says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the oil industry-funded Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc. And then, if oil is found, companies would have to order and put in place production equipment, build pipelines to get the oil to shore, and get various permits and environmental analyses every step of the way

    Republished with permission from

    Source(s): I have a brain and I use it
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Why don't Republicans understand that the oil will be sold as crude on the international market and the profits will go to oil companies that will spend it on the international market.

    It will not make us less dependent on foreign oil, because the more oil that is produced, the more China and India will buy with their stronger currency. They have not even come close to hitting their pace when it come to oil consumption.

    It will provide jobs to Americans (provided that those rigs aren't manned with Mexicans who would not even be illegals outside the territorial waters- 12 miles)(Gee, I wonder if they will use immigrant labor?)(and of course most of the wages then would go back to Mexico).

    Drilling might serve as a stop-gap (not even a good one unless we keep the oil) but it is hardly a plan...unless you mean a plan to make the oil companies richer.

    Edit...notice that no Republicans responded with facts to back you up.

    Sucks to be Republican.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well you have to look at who were talking about, They appose anything the republicans come up with good or bad. They only reason they are going to come up with a solution with the bail outs is because americans are going to go nuts if they don't.

    They are also afraid it might scare micky the moose If we drill and that's the point we can drill off coast and they still disagree.

    O well will be living in those woods there protecting b/f liberals see logic.

  • 1 decade ago

    Because real economics is not that simple. Supply and demand economics does NOT take in to account speculators, middle men, changing number of consumers, consumer preference, prices of related goods (like coal and natural gas in this case), government taxes, age and income distribution of the population, nominal income of the consumer, or arbitragers. The oil "industry" has all of these things, and, in fact, so does every industry. Economics is rather complicated, and politicians of both parties need to start listening to their economic advisers a lot more.

    Source(s): Dr. Kishore G. Kulkarni, Ph.D. (this is not me btw)
  • 1 decade ago

    We understand supply and demand, but the problem is that we need to break our selves of our addiction to oil! besides the fact that its bad for the environment, someday, maybe not today or next year, but someday the oil is going to run out, and if we don't find a alternative were going to be up a creek without a paddle.

  • 4 years ago

    you're making a exceptional element. the sole way we could result the cost of oil sufficiently could be to locate a sufficiently sufficiently super grant that could be rather well worth the worry to extract. Therein is the concern. most of the web content commonly stated do no longer critically develop the provision to result the cost on the pump and/or the up-front expenses to extract them is purely no longer well worth the cost of utilising the essential technologies. One section the place we do have some reward is organic gasoline, even however this is at maximum suitable a transition gasoline till we get to the subsequent era in power materials. possibly we'd desire to diversify our power base so as that we are no longer based on any single source for our power desires. interior the quick run, that probable capacity utilising oil and organic gasoline, coal technologies (regardless of the undeniable fact that I easily have concerns approximately its toxins inflicting residences), and that i ponder whether we are able to rapid music nuclear fusion technologies (as against nuclear fission which additionally has its problems). I additionally think of the Boone Picken's Plan merits a severe look because it addresses a number of the issues I easily have. it is been recommended with the aid of leaders around the political spectrum.

  • 1 decade ago

    It seems generally accepted that we send $700,000,000,000 overseas every year for imported oil.

    Congress is about to approve a $700,000,000,000 bailout for the mess created by Fannie May, Freddie Mac and Alan Greenspan.

    Seems like it would be a good idea to keep as much of that money as possible in the US economy.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.