I share your love of salt but again it is not really a necessity. In the long run we're all dead. Likewise for oil, we survived for millennia considering it a nuisance. And by the way, I've never dug into the ground to find oil, or have I ever collected salt out of sea-water. Even though I intensely desire both salt and oil, I usually trade some of my hard-earn cash for them. So far society has always provided me with plenty salt and oil. I could of course decide that my dependence on society is unbearable, and therefore I could try to become more energy independent. I could buy a generator, produce energy out of my garbage, install solar panels etc…This would cost a lot of money that I couldn't spend on other things. Notice also, that this other technology would also be provided to me by the out-side world. So I would simply be shifting dependency. Now if you want me to really produce all the oil and salt that I want by myself, from scratch. I'd have to cut my consumption to infinitesimal levels.

As I see it, we should only pursue energy independence if producing our own energy is the most economical way to meet our energy needs. But if producing our own energy were most economical, we'd already be doing that.

A goal of energy independence would thus imply we are willing to spend more for energy than we need to spend. Spending more for energy will not provide increased economic benefits to our nation. It's as simple as that to me.

Now, if you are arguing that we are already spending too much for oil because certain energy sources are off limits, that's fine. I am willing to join the fight to lift any restrictions on development of energy sources, in the U.S. or anywhere. But that's not at all the same thing as pursuing energy independence.

Government owns about one-third of all land in this country. That takes a lot of property out of private hands for discovering resources.

If I grew bananas, I could do this on my own private property (unless government owned much of the temperate areas where bananas could grow). Owning my own property would allow me to weigh if the opportunity cost was lower and more profitable than importing bananas.

Unfortunately with oil government holds the reins to whether or not companies are able to drill on government owned property. So measuring opportunity costs can be more difficult.

Ahhh, here´s the beauty of private property rights.

This is only a pipe dream, but I say the government sells land to the highest bidder. If an environmental group wants to out bid an oil company, then they’re able to sit on the tundra if they so desire (I´m sure if the environmentalist bought property with rich oil reserves under it, they would drill immediately though). Or if an oil company or private citizen desires to purchase the property, let´em, and they can drill or do something else with it.

Hey, Methinks

Do you think if Lenin had lived another 80-odd years that he'd have referred to them as "useful muirdiots"?

RE: your post of Aug 14, 2008 3:18:11 AM. I agree with everything you wrote in that post.

"If we can gain energy independence through the market, by eliminating drilling restrictions(which I support), solar energy, nuclear power and whatever other sources than it's well worth it. If it works in a free market than its fine."

That paragraph states the point I was trying to make better than I did. Thankyou.

Let's back up to Mr. Higgs' article. Thanks to LCJ, I realized that I need to clarify exactly what my objections are and in terms that can't be mistaken.

However, I stand by my break of the tight rack set up by Don:
"Don,
I guess I will be the odd man out again but I read the piece and I saw some great linguistic gymnastics, some dazzling shuffling, some skillful shucking and jiving, but Mr. Higgs wandered all over the map and didn't convince this country boy."

I am going to lay out what I understood from what I read and why I think it is shuckin' and jivin'.

I would like to add that I do not see any government mandate being the deciding factor in seeking or obtaining "energy independence", far from it. It is government interference that is preventing us from attaining that state and all that is needed is for government to get their asses out of the way and stop impeding our ability to obtain and use our own natural resources.

I have Mr. Higgs' article in front of me. I agree totatlly with his first paragraph, but it is a "throw-away" paragraph of linguistic gymnastics, words, rhetoric, and do nothing to advance his later attempt at a point. This first paragraph is entertaining fluff, no more no less.

But, his 2nd paragraph is really unconnected to his first paragraph, his shift is to "energy independence" not oil independence, and as LCJ showed me they are not the same. I made the mistake of not making myself clear on that issue. Oil is just part of the "energy" picture. We have several ways of operating machinary. internal combustion engines, electric motors, steam turbines, jet turbines, and simple water power.

So, when Mr. Higgs says, "Suppose a serious policy of 'energy independence' were actually implemented, rather than….." he is not talking oil, or even natural gas, alone. He is talking energy, which is a product of the use of the several things I mentioned in the last paragraph.

So, look at his 2nd paragraph where he addresses the folly of seeking "energy independence", and again I ask, how would we not be better off by having all of our "energy" production entirely within our possession and control? How in the name of God, "would we be vastly poorer because we would have to sacrifice a great deal more of the non-oil products we now produce and consume in order to acquire the petroleum products we demanded"? What are these non-oil products we now produce and consume that we would lose because of seeking "energy independence"?

I am sorry but I see that paragraph as being sensationalist hyperbole. Please tell me someone that if we went for energy independence how we would not be able to produce toasters, computer chips, tupperware, enfamile, flu vacine, autos, bicycles, shotguns, corn, wheat, tomatos, milk, butter, cheese, and etc. It is counter intuitive to me.

In my world, the efforts to drill, extract, pipe, refine, and retail oil and natural gas would put so much capital in circulation that instead of production of goods suffering, I see them as accelerating.

Think of the raw materials bought and sold in order to accomplish independence, think of the wages paid and spent. And, if we found them in short supply in domestic production…..hells bells, China will make stuff for us and we can buy it at Walmart.

Now, as we are now talking about "energy independence" not just oil independence; along with the efforts on the continental shelves, ANWR, coal, and oil shale in the mountain west, we would also be building nuclear power plants, more wind farms, solar collection, perhaps even tapping more subterranean hydrothermal sources; in other words expanding all of our capabilities to obtain and use natural resources to power internal combustion engines and electric motors.

How could that not spur our economy and domestic production of consumer goods?

Now, address Mr. Higgs' 3rd paragraph, and it is now redundant to point out that "energy independence" and toasters are not an either or reality. We can have both.

Lastly, what in seeking "energy independence" would mean that any other aspect of international trade would be sacrificed? Certainly capital would not become in such supply that we could no longer buy titanium, tin, lead painted toys, etc. from foreign sources. I just can't see where Mr. Higgs or anyone else can make a convincing cse on that. Energy independence does not mean isolationism or refusal of foreign trade.

And, to unit, I am sorry my friend, but my analogy about salt I thought would give you pause and convince you of the difference between luxury (bananas) and necessities (salt, oil). Salt is a basic of my diet, without sufficient intake I will die as will you. To our present economy and industry here in the USA oil is a necessity as it is a major source of energy, without oil a huge portion of our industrial production and distribution grinds to a halt.

Ok, gents & lady, flail away at me.

I got carried away myself with hyperbole in my rebuttal above and said without oil we would regress to the 18th century of water and steam power at best. LCJ, reminded me of electricity, which is produced by means other than burning oil, coal, or natural gas. Insufficient to our needs at this time, but generated none the less.

After equating oil to bananas, Mr. Higgs' article descends into irrelevant nonsense as it pertains to "energy independence" which was his thesis.

classic liberals here completely willing to bend over back wards to defend or deny the subsidies that oil companies receive (as well as Wall Street and the Financial industries) while complaining of subsidies for alternatives as FORCE against the minority clearly allows me to appropriately label many you corporatist and elitist and denial-ist.

There lies the fallacy in your argument. One regulation will lead to 1000 other regulation. It is like playing whack-a-mole with unintended consequences. 1 subsidy will lead to 1000 others. The problem with socialists is that they are not against subsidies in principle. They are for subsidies when it is for their pet projects. They think they know better than others how to spend other people's money. They never see subisidies as a systemic problem ( because they like some kinds of subsidies ), of government over reach.

As for the war, socialists don't have any disagreement with it in principle ( most card carrying members of the socialist caucus in Washington voted for the war ) they just have a problem with tactics and strategies.

Solutions to subsidies is not giving away more, but to get rid of them all.

Yes, I am against the war in Iraq in principle, because it is none of our business and also because i'm not a collectivist "do gooder" wanting to spread mob rule a.k.a democracy in Iraq.

It was Clinton administation who first stated that it was the goal of the U.S to seek regime change in Iraq. War was just a matter of time, regardless of who was in power.

It absolutely drives me up a wall because these multi-national corporations and their leaders have no desire for the libertarian principals you all espouse.

Exactly! Have you asked yourself Why? Because all their power comes from the government and the 35000 lobbyists in Washington. In a libertarian society a small coterie of elites cannot distribute the loot they extorted from the people through regulation and taxation. Only in a highly regulated socialist society, the people with money and influence over the regulators can live like parasites.

How do you know, muirgeo, what anyone else desires? How can you possibly know that?

By law and by contract, corporate leaders are required to act in the interests of the owners of corporations – the shareholders. If Congress is handing out subsidies right and left, those corporate leaders are legally obligated to pursue them. Corporate leaders may be true libertarians, but they have no choice other than acting in the interest of their shareholders and trying to get a piece of the pie for their firm.

Our elected Congress is supposed to act in the interest of the electorate. But Congress is instead accumulating power by handing out subsidies to some and taxing others. It is Congress that is at fault for the hellacious system we have. Not the corporations, Muirgeo, but Congress.

I know I am going to regret responding to you, but I do so anyway in hopes that someone else will become aware of the error in your comment.

For example, Muirgeo, I have never compelled you to surrender any of your property to me. This does not mean I have subsidized your entire life.

As for any actual subsidies, meaning actual transfer of government money or whatever to the oil companies or financial industries, I oppose that. Most of your detractors here also oppose it. You seem mentally unable to comprehend that.

& before you trot out another straw man: I agree that the war is wrong.

I'm a socialist for wanting more democracy.
I'm a socialist for wanting more subsidies for alternative energy.
I'm detached from reality for suggesting a trillion dollar war is a subsidy I'm forced to pay for.

My words or views here have nothing to do with Marxism but what I see coming from the supposed classic liberals here completely willing to bend over back wards to defend or deny the subsidies that oil companies receive (as well as Wall Street and the Financial industries) while complaining of subsidies for alternatives as FORCE against the minority clearly allows me to appropriately label many you corporatist and elitist and denial-ist.

Your best defense is always personal attacks or labeling.

It absolutely drives me up a wall because these multi-national corporations and their leaders have no desire for the libertarian principals you all espouse. They IMO use you like they use guys, guns and abortion. Just one more voting block willing to defend them when they really have no interest in what you stand for.

Many Firms Didn't Pay Taxes
Most Corporations Skipped Payments From '98 to '05, GAO Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102324.html

Posted by: Crusader | Aug 13, 2008 4:42:01 PM

Obama hates nuclear. McCain supports. This is "no difference?"

Muirgeo is waiting for you and me to fund his solar/wind project in his backyard!

"Did you watch the recent battle over the energy bill which would have ended the current $15 billion dollar subsidies to the oil industry just to continue present subsidies for solar and other renewables?"

I am no expert on the oil industry but I wonder what the net subsidies are after taxes. You are preaching to the choir here if you are arguing against government subsidies, but of course you are not. You just want the subsidy going to you and your pet interests.

"Can you imagine the price of oil if they had to get it on their own from THEIR own private property or from governments like Iraq or Iran that wanted to nationalize their oil industries."

You read this blog regularly and you still think that the price of oil is dependent on the cost to extract it?

"So please don't pretend that I'm anymore a socialist then those that run the oil companies."

So you admit you are a socialist but no more so than some others. Why so reluctant to embrace that label? Recognition of the problem is the first step to a cure.

Well ok. Then there won't be any environmental problem drilling for it if it's not there. And no environmental problem burning it in my car if it's not there. Then why the drilling restriction if it's not there? Seems to me, at least drilling holes in the ocean floor would help mitigate rising sea levels.

I would argue one big thing that is stopping me/us from energy independence is the fossil fuel industries grip on and control of our government.

Did you watch the recent battle over the energy bill which would have ended the current $15 billion dollar subsidies to the oil industry just to continue present subsidies for solar and other renewables? Are you watching the current bogus debate on "Drill here, drill now"? The oil companies are not bringing their product to the market in a competitive free market way. They are completely dependent on other peoples property and the government.

I'm confident that my vision IS going to happen but don't call me a hypocrite for pushing government advocacy and backing at least on par with what the fossil fuel industry receives.

Over the present situation and uneven playing field for renewables I'd rather have the system as you might prefer with no subsidies for either side as the current system that favors the monopolies already in charge. Do you all really think we have a "competitive" energy market?

Truly equalizing the playing field and ending all subsidies would be strongly opposed by those in the fossil fuel industry. Can you imagine the price of oil if they had to get it on their own from THEIR own private property or from governments like Iraq or Iran that wanted to nationalize their oil industries. And this would have been the case except for soldiers on the ground in the Middle East at a huge cost to American taxpayers.

So please don't pretend that I'm anymore a socialist then those that run the oil companies. If they can steal from the treasury, privatize their profits and socialize their cost and their externalizes then I'm all for the people of America trying to do the same. We The People, not We The Corporations.

Me personally? I'm close to buying an electric car and home solar panels. Close meaning I suspect I'll have them with in 10 years or less. Unfortunately the oil company is prevailing in the battle for subsidies and the current rebates for solar panels are fading away. My personal economy like most others is holding the line against massive losses incurred from fraud perpetuated on all of society from Wall Street, the banking industry and even the exploitations of companies like Enron. Personal investment dollars are scare and made more so because of a relative dependency on the oil companies products. But at least it's sweet to put only $45 bucks into my 45mpg turbo diesel beetle will watching the SUV drivers next to me cringe as the pump stops pumping at it's upper limit of $75 and needing to re-swipe their credit cards to add another $25 dollars to complete the fill up.

So what is stopping you? Solar panels, wind generators, and the rest are all available right now. Heck, I can remember plenty of articles 30 years ago in Mother Earth News describing how to achieve personal energy independence. I am sure there are a few hardy souls living in the woods right now who are energy independent.

To do it as you describe is still largely possible. All it would take is a significant part of your income and maybe all of your savings and a large loan. The movement could use a few early adopters to get things rolling. So what is stopping you?

Once you add it all up, perhaps the idea of opportunity cost would start to sink in. I suspect you are looking for someone else to do the heavy lifting.