When gas hits $10 / gallon, we're totally [censored]

[Big Bend]

[ QUOTE ]
We'll never see $10/gal gas (not considering inflation). Synthetic fuels cost a little over $5/gal

[/ QUOTE ]

No way synth fuels will keep us from hitting massive gas price hikes when the sh*t hits the fan. The Dems/greens will fight forever to keep new facilities from being built - of any type (synth, nuclear, etc). Without a MASSIVE IMMEDIATE buildup of energy production capacity, we won't be able to stop the huge inflation in gas prices soon to come. I still think terrorists will blow up our current facilities, or an international incident will bring shipping to a crawl and we won't be able to import much oil. By then it'll be too late to ramp up synth fuel production. Our economy, which TOTALLY depends on cheap gas, will be quickly destroyed. Airplanes won't fly.. farmers won't farm, truckers won't deliver goods. Its really gona suck.

I hope I'm wrong of course, but I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.. including all the discussions in this thread. Electing Dems will only make the situation worse of course.

BB

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with us Americans is that we are spoiled. There are over 100 different type vehicles that get 40mpg and only two of them are available in the U.S. and they cost over 20k, compared to a Rio that costs 11k but only gets 30mpg.

[/ QUOTE ] The difference between a car that gets 30MPG and a car that gets 40MPG is very small. It's the difference between 15MPG and 25MPG that really matters. Do some calculations and you'll see why.

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.. including all the discussions in this thread

[/ QUOTE ] How about the fact that if you're right there is a massive opportunity for rational pricing arbitrage given today's market rates? In other words, the common consensus of just about everybody who has money in oil is that you're wrong, and they're far and away the best informed people on this issue.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One could accuse Borodog of many things, but failure to understand neoclassical economics is not one of them. Understanding why they aren't necessarily good models doesn't count as not understanding them at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why would he ask for the definition of market failure and linking it to personal subjective thinking which has nothing to do with the mainstream concept of market failure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the "mainstream" concepts are fully understood and rejected by Austrian economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is a reason that "mainstrean" concepts are mainstream.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does that reason apply to the "mainstream" (among scientists) view that man is contributing to global warming...?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was mainstream to think the earth was flat a few hundred years ago.... it has been mainstream thought that the sun orbited the earth, it was also mainstream that earth was the center of the universe.

Mainstream and concensus do not = correct

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any ideas on how to deal with this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no solutions...

[/ QUOTE ]


?


If you're looking for some solutions I would recommend www.mises.org .

[/ QUOTE ]

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[/ QUOTE ]

When all the problems are caused by government, all you need is less of it.

I find your one liner doubly ironic, because the only tool government has in its toolbox is a hammer (a blunt instrument for delivering force).

[/ QUOTE ]

Blind faith in markets is no more a solution than blind faith in government.

[/ QUOTE ]

By using a perjorative term like "blind faith", you demonstrate how little you understand the market. Reading quotes like this is like reading creationists complain about "blind faith" in evolution. There is no blind faith; I just understand how it works. It creates staggering spontaneous order out of self-interested action and the logic of mutual acoomodation and by taking advantage of distributed decision making about destributed means and distributed ends using distributed information. Whereas central planning can only produce a colossal clusterfuck because the information required for planning cannot be centralized, or is in fact never even generated in the first place, decisions are political rather than economic, artificial legal intervention in the market cannot supercede economic law, and an innumerable host of reasons. It is you have have blind faith in government to cheerfully violate the laws of reality without consequence.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that markets in general should be trusted more, but markets also occasionally fail. They are not infalable. As someone once commented, in long the long run, the markets is always correct, but in the long run, we're also all dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define market failure. Let me guess: the market doesn't provide enough of something that you personally subjectively think that it should, or provides too much of something that you personally subjectively think that it shouldn't. Fantastic definition of "failure" you statists have.

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my original comment was directed to the fact that my confidence in 95% of the participants in this forum to truly comprehend the papers at mises.org are about what your confidence would be in their ability to truly comprehend the papers at physicstoday.org.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should we have any confidence in your confidence, given that you are clearly in the 95%?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

Now, responding to your screed, I actually took the time to look up various papers on market failure, including at your beloved mises.org. Now, there's a buch of crap out there from the left, about how any inequality is a market failure, I'll give you that. But what struck me as interesting was the Austrian School's take on it. I see where you're coming from now. The Austrian School starts with the assumption that the free market is perfect. That's orthodoxy, there is NO questioning it. All who question it are heretics. It's also not science, it's religion. So whenever we discuss the free market (genuflect, genuflect, genuflect), no wonder you act like your god is under attack - it is. So my use of the term "blind faith" really was closer to the mark than I thought.

I was actually going to continue our discussion of market failure (Oops, I said that word again. Forgive me Hayek, for I have sinned...) but I wouldn't want to offend any religious sensibilities.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No way synth fuels will keep us from hitting massive gas price hikes when the sh*t hits the fan. The Dems/greens will fight forever to keep new facilities from being built - of any type (synth, nuclear, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]
As dumb as I think the Dems are on economic issues, they're not dumb enough to be seen as standing in the way of cheaper fuel if gas got to $6.00/gal. It's pure self-interest to allow methods for cheaper gas at that point.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad hominem, standard.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, responding to your screed, I actually took the time to look up various papers on market failure, including at your beloved mises.org. Now, there's a buch of crap out there from the left, about how any inequality is a market failure, I'll give you that. But what struck me as interesting was the Austrian School's take on it. I see where you're coming from now. The Austrian School starts with the assumption that the free market is perfect. That's orthodoxy, there is NO questioning it. All who question it are heretics. It's also not science, it's religion. So whenever we discuss the free market (genuflect, genuflect, genuflect), no wonder you act like your god is under attack - it is. So my use of the term "blind faith" really was closer to the mark than I thought.

I was actually going to continue our discussion of market failure (Oops, I said that word again. Forgive me Hayek, for I have sinned...) but I wouldn't want to offend any religious sensibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you enlighten us with *your* "assumption" and expain from there what a "market failure" is?

[van_exel_fan]

If this happens soon we will be forced to adjust.

Alt Energy
Move closer to work
Work closer to home
More mass public transportation...

Just hope WW3 doesn't happen over this/religious fundamentalism [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, double standards. If you are going to critize Boro for an aspect of his behaviour then you cannot act in the exact same way. That would be hypocritical and projection and also it means that you are not actually interested in showing him a better way because this type of hypocrisy is totally clear to everyone.

So tell me, what is the real purpose of such a posting?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, double standards. If you are going to critize Boro for an aspect of his behaviour then you cannot act in the exact same way. That would be hypocritical and projection and also it means that you are not actually interested in showing him a better way because this type of hypocrisy is totally clear to everyone.

So tell me, what is the real purpose of such a posting?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not acting like a pompous a$$, which would be the "Same way". He is also pointing out the erroneous conclusions that can be reached when your initial assumptions are wrong and self fulfilling

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You must be one hell of a teacher. Do you routinely belittle your students when they get something wrong, or question something? You act like a nun who's had a student who dared question Section 2, Paragraph 5, Subsection 3d, Part 4 of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll bet you're a peach in the classroom. Maybe I'll get ambitious and look up your student's rating of you. That might be a hoot.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow, double standards. If you are going to critize Boro for an aspect of his behaviour then you cannot act in the exact same way. That would be hypocritical and projection and also it means that you are not actually interested in showing him a better way because this type of hypocrisy is totally clear to everyone.

So tell me, what is the real purpose of such a posting?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not acting like a pompous a$$, which would be the "Same way". He is also pointing out the erroneous conclusions that can be reached when your initial assumptions are wrong and self fulfilling

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. A pompus ass would never issue a string of ad hominem like that ("I'll bet you're a peach" and "That might be a hoot" and "you act like a nun" etc) with no real content.

Considering that the quoted passage has absolutely ZERO analysis or argument and is just an extended insult, I'm wondering how it "points out" any "erroneous conclusions" or says anything at all about "initial assumptions."