Illuminator

Just remember this principle of business: businesses pay for nothing because the customer pays for everything. You tax a business, you're really taxing the consumer because all costs get passed down.

Same type thing with government; nothing is provided free by the government, the taxpayer pays for everything. Will the removal of the gas tax for a "holiday" mean that suddenly nobody in government will fund highway maintenance? Or that the money will simply come from higher taxes (or borrowing: debt in our names) elsewhere?

I do have a side question: what percentage of the U.S. trade deficit is in the purchase of oil?

That project's goal was very specific and tangible, easy to quantify and budget for, unlike a lifelong desire like "reduce oil dependence" (similar to "ending poverty", another money vacuum).

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Krontak

Both of you are correct. The NYMEX trades oil in $$$. The value of the U.S. dollar has gone down steadily in the last 6 years. As the purchasing power of the dollar declines, the amount of oil it can purchase in barrels also declines.

Now, I'm no economist but from what I gather, the dollar can be loosely tied to the interest rates. Interest rates have remained low to encourage borrowing and growth. The low dollar is also one of the few factors keeping us in the green with the GDP. Low dollar means more people will buy our goods. Unfortunately, the amount of oil and its high price is offsetting this trade deficit quite a bit and negating all the high exports we have.

So, yes, one of the reason for high oil is the poor economy.

If I got this wrong maybe someone that knows more than me can set the record straight.

Illuminator

I wish more people would talk about the trillions of dollars the government has actually manufactured out of thin air to pay for budget deficits. It's technically all on ledgers somewhere but you know it'll never leave circulation.

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Krontak

I fully understand the argument many conservatives make for free market and it is not our governments responsibility to intervene. Here is why I don't think this mindset applies.

The free market ideology doesn't apply when our National Security is at stake. I don't think American industry can afford to, alone, transform all their products to consume renewable resources nor is there an existing infrastructure to support the distribution of these new alternative fuels. Only with tax incentives can industry afford the transformation being put forth by people such as Obama and other progressives.

Miroh

__________________

Widem

United States had a trade deficit of approx. $720 billion in 2007. Exact dollar amounts of imported oil isnt an easily calculated number b/c the price constantly changes by day, but what we do know is average price for a year and how many barrels imported. 2007 imported 3.66 billion barrels and the average price was $72 for a grand total of $264 billion. Fiscal year 2007 36.7%. Projections for 2008 3.49billion barrels at $127 is $445 billion. Which will be roughly 62% for fiscal year 2008.

EDIT - Fiscal Jan.-Dec. ////Wanted to clarify since feds fiscal starts Oct. 1.


A major trap is equating the value of ones currency to the value of their economy. Thats not true.

Another thing thats not true is the value of the dollar has been steadily declining over the past 6 years. When pegged against the Euro b/c thats what people like to use for some reason:
1/01/04: .795 1/01/05: .737 1/01/06: .845
1/01/07: .758 1/01/08: .68 7/18/08: .63

The major factor of the slide in the dollar has been the credit problem. Which what you touch on has made us artificially screw with rates which has cause severe amounts of inflation...prices go up, economy slows down...in that order for this situation.

Widem

You have no idea how incredible something like this could be. And if this is in retort to doing this instead of off shore yes definately a possibility.

My only question is why does it matter either way or the other?

If your answer is environmental concerns, then my retort is that the reason they don't go after shale in the rockies is the same reason. When they harvest shale they dig these deep holes and heat up the ground to separate the oil and natural gas from the rock. What keeps this oil and natural gas from just seeping everywhere?

They came up with a solution!!!

completely entrench the area in a coolant which will essentially make a giant pool of oil and gas to harvest. What coolant say you?

Water.

Have you ever been to colorado or talked to someone from there?

They have a saying in Colorado.

"We talk over whiskey, and fight over water."

Miroh

They have already tested it out. The only downfall to this is for every barrel of oil, it takes 3 barrels of water.

IMO if they wanted to go with this, they should just bring in water from elsewhere, where its not in such of a big demand. But also, this isn't the only place in the US that you can find shale.

It may not be a permanent fix to the oil problem but it would help us out and for however long, make us less dependent on other countries.

__________________

Illuminator

What kind of water, and where does that water end up eventually?

__________________


Bow down before the one you serve. You're going to get what you deserve.

Miroh

I would assume any fresh water and then evaporate. Just like how they do with a shuttle lift off to cool the area down.

Edit: I don't know if there would be a means of escape for the evaporated water or if it would just collect in the ground. Eventually it would find its way out I'm sure regardless. We'll just have to wait and see.

__________________