Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 years ago

Do I not understand the market system correctly? Or is our aggressive oil diplomacy restricting alternatives?

When whale oil became too expensive, the market offered kerosene as a lower cost alternative. When oil became too scarce for demand, the profit motive attracted enough investment into developing kerosene.

Japan, Brazil and Europe use MUCH less oil than we do both in total and per capita. Alternatives must therefore exist. The question is simply whether they're viable in the market.

Doesn't trying to stabilize and expand access to oil simply retard this process? Interfere with it, even? Of investment, development and deployment?

In short; mustn't real shortages and unreliability already exist in the market for real investment in alternatives to take place?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • Full
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Best Answer

    Apples and oranges.

    America can't be compared to china and brazil, take out what we contributed in the last 200 years, they would be throwing stones at each other trading beads.

  • 7 years ago

    If alternative anything doesn't have nearly the value of what the free market already provides then no, it will not help in it's development. However, vision of potential (and realistic) profits, by those with an idea of how to make it happen as well as investors, will drive R&D of alteratives, in this case energy.

    This is going on right now. Celuosic ethanol is right around the corner, improving the marketability of using ethanol for fuel (without taking food out of peoples' mouths). LED lighting is starting to make inroads in the CFL market. In fact, there is a break-through in some energy source or product every week it seems.

    We DO NOT need to shoot ourselves in the foot by artificially making plentiful, mainstream sources of energy high just to drive development of new ones. As for kerosene, one of the first big marketers of it was Standard Oil, you know, the company that made it big in petroilium oil. They simply had vision to see what the next big thing would be. Without that vision, they would have eventually gone out of business. They didn't need government subsidies nor artificially high anything to make it happen.

    Because Japan, Brazil and Europe use much less oil, that means there are alternatives? That logic falls flat. Some alternatives work OK on small scales but are too expensive to replace oil, coal or natural gas on large scales.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    What we learn is that talking about alternative fuel does nothing. Of All the Presidents, Bush did the most on alternative fuel, and yet he did the least work. He let oil rise so the people push companies to look for alternative fuel. market force is a greater incentive then lets' say some movie made by a pompous jerk who thinks he invented the internet. I support higher fuel prices so we could look for alternative, drive more fuel efficent cars and force people to take public transit.

    As for your otehr assertions, teh reason other countries have less oil per capita and survive isn't so much of alternatice fuel source. The only exception is Brasil. Japan and Europe has a higher population density so public transportation is far more practical. In New YOrk and San Francisco, they behave like Europeans and take the subway to work, because the population density makes it easy. In Los ANgeles and Houston where urban sprawl is the rule, it's a different story though.

    Brasil switched to alcohol based fuel awhile back and teaching the world. We can support it in tropical countries, but Bush over exaggerate it's capability in the united states. The problem is corn is king here, and it's heavily subsidized. The amount of fuel from corn is not as good as sugar cane even if we don;t use the Brazilian methof of making alcohol

    Also in Armenia where they are at war with Azerbajian, they are cut off from oil supply. They converted tehir vehicles to natural gas, where they have a reliable supply from Russia and it's subsidized by the russians.

  • 7 years ago

    There is no valid alternative to oil for transportation at it's current price point. It does not exist for the market to develop. The other countries you mentioned use less oil, it's not replaced by an alternative. Europe for example has a much more fuel efficient fleet and better access to public transport than the US. Couple that with corporate strategy for research based on the quarterly earnings reports and not long term planning and you get the current situation.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    Whats restricting is Obama. There has been several large oil finds in the gulf of mexico that has never been tapped. The Obama administration will not allow any new leases in the gulf.

    Americans could have much cheaper oil and more jobs by drilling and producing our own, but insted were addicted to oil from the mid east that supports terrorist the send us bombs in return for our good deeds.

    The President can make a few signatures and put more production at home and put Americans to work, but it seems he wants to save our oil and buy up the rest of the worlds while we pay the price.

  • 7 years ago

    I have been playing the market for over 30 years and I have done well. And in the past 6 years, even I can't figure out what it going on.

    It is not the market but those driving the show

    Here are some current facts.

    The DOW no longer represents how people are doing, I now represent how corporations are doing.

    Bernanke has got to go. Since Bush hired him on he has made some really bad decisions. And his latest one (if he is allowed to follow through) will drive the price of gas up to $5.50 / gallon by New Years.

  • 7 years ago

    Currently Canada is now extracting oil from tar sands. Because the price of oil has risen it's now economically feasible for them to pursue large scale production. Like wise for deep ocean drilling. The same holds true for natural gas. Because we have NEVER actively pursued alternative energy sources alternative production of oil and gas has now created a viable market for them.

  • 7 years ago

    We didn't rebuild industry the way europe did after the wwII. Until a genius comes along and unlock unlimited clean energy we will continue to suffer under what resources are available. Stand in the way of industry and progress is slow at best.

    Thomas EDISON would have had enormous EPA scrutiny with the regulations bogging down industry today. Innovation is what got us out of the darkness.!

  • 7 years ago

    Our market system is not reatricting po; alternatives. There are, at present, no alternatives. Coal is pretty dirty and it doesn't work well for automotive fuels.

    We should have jumped on this issue during the oil embargo of 1963-1964, but we didn't. Now we are under the gun, and we better do something soon or we will be toast. That's government in inaction.

  • 7 years ago

    Those countries use much less oil than we do because their governments tax it more. Oil is a world commodity, we would all pay the same amount. The higher cost pushes them to use more public tranportation (trains) and alternative sources. Americans don't want that so our government does everything it can to keep the cost low, including subsidizing the oil industry.

    Obama is trying to push for renewable energy without allowing gas prices to go to those that they have in Europe. Republicans want to pretend we have enough oil to make any difference in the world market.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Here is the long and short of it, Billionaires make the calls, poor people take the falls.

    There is NO such thing as free trade, that is a college course in market manipulation.Since 1980 the economic model has been Neo-Liberalism.If you don't believe me google it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.