Really?!?!

by Don Boudreaux on September 24, 2007

in Energy, Environment, Standard of Living

Here’s a letter that I sent a couple of days ago to the Washington Times.

22 September 2007

Editor, The Washington Times

To the Editor:

Carl Henn makes two astonishing claims (Letters, Sept. 22).  The first is that “our fuel of choice oil runs out at exactly the rate we use it.”

According to MIT’s M.A. Adelman, “At the end of 1970, non-opec countries had about 200 billion remaining in proved reserves.  In the next 33 years, those countries produced 460 billion barrels and now have 209 billion ‘remaining.’ The producers kept using up their inventory, at a rate of about seven percent per year, and then replacing it.”  Over the same time period, proved reserves in opec countries have nearly doubled from 412 billion barrels to 819 barrels.  [From Adelman, "The Real Oil Problem," Regulation, Spring 2004.  Available here.]

Clearly, we don’t run out of oil “at the exact rate we use it.”

Second, Mr. Henn avers that cars aren’t important because “our country somehow got along without them for more than 200 years.”  Well, yes – and Americans in the past also “got along” without refrigeration, indoor plumbing, and antibiotics. Is Mr. Henn content to “get along” also without these things?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

Add a Comment    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 50 comments }

dave smith September 24, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I can't believe the Times printed that letter. I hope they print yours.

Mathieu Bédard September 24, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Nice one ;)

And civilization somehow got along without environmentalists for a couple thousand years…

M. Hodak September 24, 2007 at 2:52 pm

The truth is that we probably could have gotten along with far fewer cars if not for all the government social engineering around the automobile. It's governments, not the free markets, that built all those roads while regulating/micromanaging our railroads into submission.

diz September 24, 2007 at 2:53 pm

It's probably not far from true to say that the amount of oil in the ground decreases at the rate we use it.

"Proved reserves" are a subset of the oil in the ground. Proved reserves are oil reserves that have been discovered, and can be produced economically with today's technology at today's prices.

So, we can add to "proved reserves" by a) discovering more fields; b) developing technology that allows us to recover more oil from new/existing fields; c) watching oil price increase.

The net effect of these can and generally has allowed proved reserves to grow faster than production since the oil age began.

At some point, it does seems likely this trend will reverse.

What benefit we get by artificially extending this point is not clear.

Forcing ourselves to use Fuel B instead of oil now — when oil is more efficient at meeting our needs — has immediate direct negative consequences and hidden possible future negative consequences.

Prices will eventually tell us when it makes more sense to use Fuel B instead of oil. But then, since we don't know which way the technology may break, maybe prices will tell us to use Fuel C, D or E.

John Dewey September 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

"It's governments, not the free markets, that built all those roads while regulating/micromanaging our railroads into submission."

Oh, please! Government leaders had political support for roads because that's what voters wanted.

Freight railroads are doing just fine today. In fact, intermodal transport combines the best features of rail and highway, and gives us all the lowest distribution costs.

Long distance passenger rail travel died because air travel became safe and affordable, and was days faster. Commuter rail failed because commuters wanted the freedom and accessibility the automobile provides.

Governments may have built the highways, but they were gladly paid for by motor vehicle users through licenses, tolls, and gasoline taxes.

John Dewey September 24, 2007 at 5:18 pm

diz: "Forcing ourselves to use Fuel B instead of oil now — when oil is more efficient at meeting our needs — has immediate direct negative consequences and hidden possible future negative consequences."

I completely agree. But when did common sense ever stop government interventionists?

Eric September 24, 2007 at 6:39 pm

It rarely does. Nor does empirical evidence.

muirgeo September 24, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Forcing ourselves to use Fuel B instead of oil now — when oil is more efficient at meeting our needs — has immediate direct negative consequences and hidden possible future negative consequences.

Posted by: diz

Oil is more efficient? Is that a statement based on belief in free market principles? I will believe oil is more efficient when the suppliers are getting their product to the market without the backing of the US military and its soldiers, without ripping up our public lands and without the backing of the US treasury to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

You guys speak of common sense but your common sense is at the expense of your supposed ideology from every way I can see it. Absolutly no consistency with what you preach and what you practice. Sometimes I think I'm far more Libertarian then the lot of you.

Brad September 24, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Muirgeonomics 101. Step 1. Identify possible externalities. Step 2. Claim that they are measurable in $. Step 3. Conclude that since they exist and are measurable in $, they must therefore exceed the benefits of X.

Don, that was a dangerous question to conclude with. He might be looking for a book deal like that family in NYC that won't even use locally grown toilet paper.

muirgeo September 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Muirgeonomics 101. Step 1. Identify possible externalities. Step 2. Claim that they are measurable in $. Step 3. Conclude that since they exist and are measurable in $, they must therefore exceed the benefits of X.

Posted by: Brad

Please DO NOT read this if your not interested in the true externalities. Very horrible picture included in last link.

Step 1;
Hmmm…how about war for oil? Is that an externality?

Greenspan: 'The Iraq war is largely about oil'

Step 2;
Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion.

Scott Wallsten, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, put the direct cost to the United States at $212 billion as of last September and estimates a "global cost" of $500 billion to date with another $500 billion possible, with most of the total borne by the United States.

But externalities as cost are indeed diffucult to quantify. I mean what's the worth of 1 million dead Iraqis? How much did it cost to relocate 3,000,000 Iraqis? What's the cost of 4,000 U.S. Soldiers lives and another 20,000 morbidly wounded?

Step 3
And I'm not sure how to tell if cost benifits analysis is even appropriate because everything doesn't boil down to dollars for me. How about you?

Lowcountryjoe September 24, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Burden of proof is on you, muirgeo.

When you can identify a fuel that is more efficient than oil, you'll have an audience. Of course you'd be so damned wealthy afterward that you could put your altruistic, class-warfare spewing self to noble use and distribute your own vast quantities of wealth to all the down-trodden you claim to be a champion for.

You would share it, right?

Lowcountryjoe September 24, 2007 at 9:25 pm

The toppling of the Iraqi dictator (and his regime) and the subsequent nation building was largely about enforcing UN Security Council resolutions that were created in the spring 1991. Have you forgotten the events of August 2, 1990 that got this ball rolling, the missteps along the way, the 1998 and 2002 expulsion of weapons inspectors? If it is a war just about oil it started much earlier. Perhaps we shouln't have got involved to liberate Kuwait but because we did, this whole thiing is upon us. But maybe you thought a defiant Hussein was good for the region and our (America's) lack of willingness to address that defiance sent great messages of peaceful coexistence to a bunch of nutjobs who have a predispossed disdain for western values. Come to think of it, I notice that you have your own disdains of the West.

Nick September 24, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Muirgeonomics 101. Step 1. Identify possible externalities. Step 2. Claim that they are measurable in $. Step 3. Conclude that since they exist and are measurable in $, they must therefore exceed the benefits of X.

Posted by: Brad

Step 4: Bring out the magic fairy dust to support your assertion that you can eliminate all the externalities of X while retaining all the benefits.

raja r September 24, 2007 at 10:10 pm

The toppling of the Iraqi dictator (and his regime) and the subsequent nation building was largely about enforcing UN Security Council resolutions that were created in the spring 1991

Really? And how many UN resolutions is Israel in violation of? And when will the US enforce those?

And didn't Saddam finally relent and let inspectors in? Or did the sacred UN resolutions mandate military action?

But maybe you thought a defiant Hussein was good for the region and our (America's) lack of willingness to address that defiance sent great messages of peaceful coexistence to a bunch of nutjobs who have a predispossed disdain for western values.

Wait a minute…didn't you just say it was about UN resolutions? Now it is about defending western values? It has been 4 years – make up your mind man :
WMD, UN resolutions, removing a tyrant, democracy to the middle east….

Here is a quote from Perle that may help you decide:
"There were of course many reasons for starting the war in Iraq……For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because that was the one reason everyone could agree on," says Wolfowitz (Vanity Fair, July 2003).

Mark September 24, 2007 at 10:18 pm

"Or did the sacred UN resolutions mandate military action?"

You bet your *** they did. UN Resolution 690 was a cease fire agreement. The ceasefire agreement specified actions that the Iraqi government was required to take to avoid the resumption of hostilities.

The Iraqis managed to put off the resumption of hostilities while not fullfilling their requirements for a dozen years.

LowcountryJoe September 24, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Enlighten me, raja r., because I have no idea how many resolutions Israel is in violation of nor do I know the details of that/those resolution(s) nor whether or not action is warranted. Basically, you tell me and be the teacher.

I know many of the details regarding Iraq only because I was deployed there during Desert Shield/Storm.

Now, as to what you're claiming I said: I actually wrote, not said, that Hussein was defiant and was disregarding resolutions. Nowhere in my post did I claim that Western values were the reasoning behind the resumption of warfare. What I claimed instead was that a defiant Hussein — and our lack of reponse to his defiance — probably emboldend some nutjobs and that those nutjobs had a disdain for Western values.

By all means, though, you keep reading into things that are not there and demonstrating your fine command of reading comprehension.

I would like you to give me a lowdown on the Israel's UN defiance in the form of a linked to article or wikpedia entry that you find compelling. Send it to my e-mail.

M. Hodak September 24, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Dewey wrote: "gladly paid for"

I rarely see that in the context of taxes. If they were so happy to pay, why did we need government to finance it?

"Freight railroads are doing just fine today."

Yea, after being bankrupted, before finally being deregulated in 1981. We will never know what distortions our society has suffered as a result of all that 'gladly paid for' politically designed transportation system.

Perry Eidelbus September 25, 2007 at 12:18 am

muirgeo, what our military action in Iraq did to the price of oil is *raise it*, because of the disruption of output. Everyone knew it would happen, I guess except you?

Regardless of how one perceives the war in Iraq, it cannot be argued that we're "subsidizing" its oil output. True subsidies pay for part of the operating costs. In this case, what we're spending in Iraq raises the price by more than what we're spending. If we had wanted cheap oil, it would have been far cheaper to make peace with Saddam. So please, spare us the absurd argument that we went in to raid Iraq's oil reserves.

I had forgotten about this conversation here, which we can continue if you so like.

http://cafehayek.com/2007/09/more-room.html

raja r September 25, 2007 at 12:51 am

Enlighten me, raja r., because I have no idea how many resolutions Israel is in violation of nor do I know the details of that/those resolution(s)

Sure – let's start with U.N. 242, 250, 267, 338, 446, 452 and 465. That takes us up to 1980. Once we're done with that, I'll continue the lessons.

And this list does not include all the resolutions that America vetoed to protect herself and Israel.

nor whether or not action is warranted.
Wow – you think ahead, don't you?

Now, as to what you're claiming I said: I actually wrote, not said,
Well, you typed, not wrote – as long as we're nitpicking, let's do it right.

By all means, though, you keep reading into things that are not there and demonstrating your fine command of reading comprehension.

Well, I did make a mistake and misunderstood what you said. But you might want to check your command of grammar first. English is my third language – what is your excuse?

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot.

Send it to my e-mail.

No. Sorry – let us just post it here.

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 2:18 am

If we had wanted cheap oil, it would have been far cheaper to make peace with Saddam.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus

Who said the war was about CHEAP oil. It was about making profits from oil. Do I need to put up the stock trends for the major oil companies?

Yeah, I think I do. I think you need a visual. So not only did you subsidize their product with your taxes you also paid much more for their product at the pump such that they saw record profits. And on top of all that they have you , a supposed liberal economist type, making cover for them. Dude….check your sources.

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 2:21 am

This is all pretty funny here because I feel like I'm the one coming to the defense of liberal economics while you all are tossing it under the bus in defense of God only knows what.

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 2:30 am

Have you forgotten the events of August 2, 1990 that got this ball rolling, ….

Posted by: Lowcountryjoe

Lcj,

I pretty much understand you're a young whipper snapper so in fact you need to go back a little further to see what got this ball rolling. How about you listen to the most libertarian of the presidential candidates?

Russell Nelson September 25, 2007 at 2:31 am

Ever notice how muirgeo manages to hijack comments? He/she does it by posting something related to the subject but outrageously untrue. This is trollish behavior, folks. The only way to control it is to STOP RESPONDING. Yes, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, she/he is so wrong. It's very pleasing to put him/her in his/her place. But don't.

andy September 25, 2007 at 6:47 am

muriego, it seems to me that the US wars have raised the price of oil, not lowered it…

lowcountryjoe September 25, 2007 at 8:37 am

Instructive sample and what I've learned is:

242 – while requiring Israel to withdraw from the territories captured during the Six-Day War, it also required "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

250 – That damned parade was so offensive that it made your list, huh?

267 – Was it even a binding resolution?

338 – no less than 48 hours after 338 was established, 339 was established. Israel then came into compliance and a cease-fire occurred. That was, until, hostilities resumed…began again by someone other than Israel.

446/452/465 – Binding?

Look, raja r., we can continue to trade insults — a belated Iraqi-voting purple finger to you…just not a thumb — and cite international SNAFUs one after the other but we will likely not get anywhere with it because you are not sympathetic to my views nor am I with yours.

For what it is worth, I am slowly moving toward a position that interventionalism is a fool's game with a never-ending series of consequences that beget more strife. I am actually starting to come to the realization that trying to contain the nuclear genie and put it back in its bottle is borderline hypocritical; that all sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves; and that much world tension could ease by promoting trade with one another even when nuclear arsenals are scattered in various silos on the landscape.

I'd like to refocus on the content of the post at hand. If you wish to find error with Don's facts and figures, go there. Just know this, when someone like muirgeo decides to throw junk statements into the blog with his/her claim that the recent conflict in Iraq was begun over oil interests and therefore are costs in the form of externalities, I feel it necessary to respond to it…it was thrown out there to divert attention away from the issues at hand. One of the issues at hand is that muirgeo, when not getting anywhere in a debate (a frequent occurrence), will throw all sorts of roadblocks into a discussion.

John Dewey September 25, 2007 at 9:22 am

"If they were so happy to pay, why did we need government to finance it?"

Highway design and funding was a federal project because:

1. The project's national scope was just too big for private industry.

2. For defense purposes (in a different era) weight limits, road widths, and bridge clearances needed to be standardized.

Note: It is true that the Defense Dept later increased its requirements so that some interstate sections no longer comply. But the 1949 and 1956 requirements of DOD were intentionally included in the interstate design.

Today's travelers probably take our interstate highway system for granted. But in my youth, construction and completion of this largest public works project was a source of great pride for the nation. Those who were foreced to travel long distances on the pre-interstate system are well aware how much we have progressed.

One can easily criticize the nation's highway builders 50 years after the deed was done. One can list dozens of ills "caused" by our nation's desire for mobility. But it should be apparent to anyone that the nation's highways have sharply reduced the cost of distribution, increased our standard of living, and opened up new markets for thousands of producers.

andy September 25, 2007 at 9:28 am

John, how does it to respond to the question – why did we need the government to finance it?

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 9:46 am

The only way to control it is to STOP RESPONDING.

Posted by: Russell Nelson

Russell do you understand how weak and impotent it makes you look when you keep responding to my post with responses NOT to respond to them?

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 9:55 am

like muirgeo decides to throw junk statements into the blog with his/her claim that the recent conflict in Iraq was begun over oil interests and therefore are costs in the form of externalities, I feel it necessary to respond to it…

Posted by: lowcountryjoe

Lcj,

I have Greenspan on my side and I can't speak for them but I'm not so sure the professors here wouldn't completely disagree with me.

We have a President who has close family ties to the Saudi Royal family, a Vice President who was the CEO of Haliburton and still has a huge portfolio with them and a Secretary of State with an Oil tanker named after her. At some point Lcj you need to question your sources and your own objectivity.

Isaac Crawford September 25, 2007 at 9:57 am

Muirgo, you still have not identified a more efficient source of energy than oil. The Iraq war has no bearing on that fact. Your bile over the war has absolutely nothing to do with the original facts at hand, that oil reserves keep growing as we use it.

The Iraq war has nothing to do with Free markets and everything to do with people IN THE GOVERNMENT with too much power and not enough common sense. The war is not an externality of oil use, it is an externality of an ideology.

Isaac

Lowcountryjoe September 25, 2007 at 10:00 am

Muirgeo,

I find it entertaining, yet curious, that you, of all people, should point out to another member of the audience how they appear to come across to others. To say that "three just pointed back at you would" would be an understatement.

LowcountryJoe September 25, 2007 at 10:17 am

Yes, muirgeo, Issac and I, and I'm sure others too, want you to identify those fuels that are more efficient.

You made the claim and were called out on that claim, now pony up and provide your opinion. Provide it without inserting roadblocks, too, if you would be so kind.

LowcountryJoe September 25, 2007 at 10:25 am

Scratch that muirgeo. Rereading your post, you never actually made the claim that there was a more efficient source of fuel than oil. You simply questioned oil's efficiency is properly accounted for because 'externalities' are included…using that argument as a means to insert your roadblock.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 10:43 am

This is still appropriate since this discussion is still based in economics.

Well muirgeo here you are still posting and blathering on with your distortions of history, particularly of this nation, yet you still find yourself unable to answer the simple question posed you.

In case that history is difficult to remember I will remind you, tell us what "rising income discrepancy" is, how it is determined or judged and then how it effects any one's ability to obtain affordable housing.

Simple English words found in the Webster's unabridged dictionary will do for the explanation. Your words, you wrote them in advancing your position so I don't feel it is asking too much to have them explained.

Com'on boy, give it your best shot. Proof my compost pile's view of you is unjustified.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 10:54 am

President Eisenhower is credited with being the "father" of our interstate road system and the reason he pushed it was because of the cold war and the perceived threat of possible invasion.

The nation had no way except railroads at that time to move massive amounts of troops and materials across, and around in, the nation.

The interstate system had its conception in military matters not commercial. That it boosted commerce and convenience travel is a wonderful side benefit.

One of the reasons the time of "peak oil" is constantly pushed back and energy reserves are magnified is the wonderful inventiveness and innovation of capitalism. Such as occured in the 1980s when we saw computers replace mechanical carbs, that alone nearly doubled the "reserves".

Reserves do grow for reasons other than just newly discovered sources. Not longer ago than four years I read a discovery announcement in the newspapers on the fact that old fields that had been depeleted in readily extracted oil and in which production had ceased for high numbers of years were found to be replenishing themselves and production was resuming.

Earth is still such a mystery, but what is not a mystery is the devoted distortion of reality brought to societies by the disciples, the proselytizers, the faithful, and the high priests of the socialist church; as is ably demonstrated by the consistent and futile blathering of the useless fool, muirgeo.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 10:57 am

muirgeo, you respond to Russel with such courage, such verve, such bravery, such confidence and tell him how impotent it makes him look to contend that even acknowledging you is a mistake……yet for some strange reason you can't muster that same courage, verve, bravery, and confidence in telling us exactly what "rising income discrepancy" is, how it is determined or judged, and how it effects anyone's ability to obtain affordable housing.

Do you realize how impotent and how useless that makes you look?

You can't even do a competent job as a proselytizer for your religion.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 11:09 am

"Second, Mr. Henn avers that cars aren't important because "our country somehow got along without them for more than 200 years." Well, yes – and Americans in the past also "got along" without refrigeration, indoor plumbing, and antibiotics. Is Mr. Henn content to "get along" also without these things?

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux"

Don is exactly correct in his refuting Mr. Henn.

Cars, vehicles, are the primary reason the USA leaped from a rich productive nation to become an extremely wealthy nation and a power to be reckoned with in the world. Vehicles allowed individual and local markets to expand to become regional, district, and national markets which dramtically increased their ability to serve their customers while creating new customers far beyond what would have possible without the rapid transportation afforded by the automibile.

Couple the automobile with the almost concurrent invention of the telephone and radio communications. and you had the structure laid for national and international marketing which skyrocketed the markets ability to produce wealth, whether that market was small or large.

It is also no small matter, as one participant mentioned above, that the automobile provided the average man with affordable more rapid transportation than animal based transportation ever did, and without having to be fed when parked. That personal rapid transportation gave the individual an extremely valuable and valued tool to experience a greater range of culture and education than ever previously available in the world.

Those nations that lagged behind us in the development of the tool and the roads upon which to run them fell way behind in the production and accumulation of wealth and that effect still explains as much as anything else the 1st world, 2nd world, and 3rd world status of the nations of Earth.

And the clincher, who wants to take that away from us and gather it into the hands of the state where it will be even more intensely regulated and in many cases regressed because of the "precautionary principle"? Yep, muirgeo and his church.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 11:52 am

Allow me to insert the word weak in my own post.

"Do you realize how impotent and (weak)and how useless that makes you look?

You can't even do a competent job as a proselytizer for your religion.

Posted by: vidyohs | Sep 25, 2007 10:57:45 AM

John Smith September 25, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I am impressed with muirgeo’s relentless tenacity of posting his position/opinion while being outnumbered at least 10 to 1.

From personal experience Posting on forums with the majorities view diametrically opposite is hard work. And let’s not forget the heaps insults.

I am also impressed with those who continue to respond, which is also hard work.

The hard work will unquestionable “hone” ones skills.

Taking the path of Publicly educating their economic ideas will encounter many muirgeo(s) and perhaps one day the muirgeo(s) will encounter many libertarians.

Unlike this forum our current Society outnumbers libertarian-economic view IMHO at least….. 10,000 to 1. Not to scare those who wish to go public but imagine debating 10,000 muirgeos?

John Dewey September 25, 2007 at 12:48 pm

andy: "John, how does it to respond to the question – why did we need the government to finance it?"

Andy, my response was:

"The project's national scope was just too big for private industry."

As far as I'm concerned that answers the question.

If your question is "Why was the scope so large?", then my answer would be different.

If your question is "Why did the highway system have to be done so quickly that private enterprise was unable to fund it?", then my answer would be different.

You know what, though? All this is irrelevant. The highway system is here. It is not going away. It is, for the most part, user-funded. It is providing enormous economic benefits. Our urban landscape, our distribution centers, our transportaion networks, our civil and national defense plans, and much more are all now totally dependent on that highway system. We cannot change those even if short-sighted fools convinced out government we should. So why even bother discussing what the nation would be like without the highway system?

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Muirgo, you still have not identified a more efficient source of energy than oil.

Isaac

I don't think I made that claim. There may or may not be a more efficient source, but my point is that we'll never know if a more efficient source exist until we stop subsidizing oil and externalizing its cost.
We'll never know because oil runs our govenment policy.
You guys consistently claim you're for free markets and then like a kid with a baseball glove standing next to a broken window claim the war is not a subsidy. In so claiming you've lost all credibility with me of objectivity on the subject.

muirgeo September 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm

In case that history is difficult to remember I will remind you, tell us what "rising income discrepancy" is, how it is determined or judged and then how it effects any one's ability to obtain affordable housing.

Posted by: vidyohs

Vidhoys if ONE single other poster explains to me that what you are asking is any way significant then I'll attempt to answer your question. But I suspect everyone here knows what I meant by "rising income discrepancy". Until then STHU you pointless oaf. H=heck

John Dewey September 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm

muirgeo, what vidyohs is asking is significant to me. I do not know what you meant by "rising income discrepancy" and I would like to know.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 5:29 pm

There you go muirgeo, you've called.

From: The pointless Oaf

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Poor muirgeo, no one here knows what you meant, because you don't know what you meant, because what you said, "rising income discrepancy" was just important sounding gobble-de-gook strung together and can in no way be made to fit any explanation for why it is difficult for anyone to obtain affordable housing, but I and others are proud to give you the chance to now come clean, as your challenge has been answered and to "one" other person the answer is significant to his understanding.

Com'on boy, give us your best shot.

brotio September 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm

I was going to ask Muirgeo to explain "rising income discrepancy" but John Dewey already asked, and Muirgeo said if "ONE single other poster explains to me that what you are asking is any way significant", so I'm afraid if TWO people explain why it is significant, that Muirgeo will again duck (quack quack) Vidyohs' request, because he wants only ONE person to ask for explanation, and TWO people asking for an explanation would violate Muirgeo's rule for explaining himself. So I'm not asking for an explanation – honest :-p

lowcountryjoe September 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm

I don't think I made that claim.

No, but putting it in the context that you did, you came close.

There may or may not be a more efficient source, but my point is that we'll never know if a more efficient source exist until we stop subsidizing oil…

Maybe you should account for all these costs, publish a paper, and recieve tons of publicity for it. The topic would be so hot that your facts wouldn't need to be all that accurate and could be published with very little effort. Of course if you find that it's still less costly to use oil, then what will you say?

We'll never know because oil runs our govenment policy.

Funny, you had once said (paraphrasing here) that pure democracy, being such a wonderful thing, puts 'policy' in the hands of the people, where it belongs, and those people ultimately (albeit, indirectly) make the policy. And of course we have to respect what democracy gives us, now, don't we.

Doubly funny: why is it that you do not have qualms with other subsidies — subsidies that attempt to equalize incomes and so-called access to services that only the wealthy supposedly have access to? Could it be that you lack guiding principles (and possibly knowledge) and are a raving partisan of the Left? Quack, quack, AFLAC!

I'd also like to know what a "rising income discrepancy" is. Is this sort of like when you cannot trust the numbers concerning income gaps because there may be even more errors in the reporting than there were in previous reports. Or, did you really just mean to write "rising income disparities" and cannot bring yourslf to admitting that you used the wrong word in putting out your repackaged class warfare rhetoric? And now, perhaps, it's too late and you're too proud to save face.

vidyohs September 25, 2007 at 8:08 pm

The pointless Oaf says,
"Oh my muirgeo, doesn't it just get better and better!"

Your bluff has been called again and now again, and still no honest effort from poor muirgeo to keep his word.

My compost pile is waiting with bated bre…., um whatever compost piles wait with. LOL Show it that you're more than just one of those useless idiots that Lennin et. al. talked about.

muirgeo September 26, 2007 at 1:48 am

Well here you see above lowcountryjoe admitted he knew what I was talking about when he said, " Or, did you really just mean to write "rising income disparities". And I presume John and Vidhoys if you were being honest you'd admit that indeed you knew exactly what I was talking about. But instead you'd rather be dishonest and play games and make the debate about semantics because you can win on substance. And you all talk about me side tracking the debate??

Here's the Wikipedia reference on the subject. Note they even use discrepancy and disparity interchangeably.

Here's a chart of what I meant by rising income discrepancies.

Now John, lowcountryjoe and "the liberal guy with the publicly funded pension" I think I've answered your question so please answer one for me. Look at the chart and tell me which direction you think our country should go with regards to income discrepancy? Because that's the question as much as you'd like to make it to be about semantics.

And if you are incapable of answering that honestly I have great new blog you might want to participate in.

muirgeo September 26, 2007 at 1:50 am

….CAN'T win on substance…

Previous post:

Next post: