On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:28:05 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

Econ 101 says that if there is only 65 million barrels available, then
that is the supply. Demand will determine the price of that oil. Demand
cannot be for 115 million barrels when there is only 65 million barrels
available, that's nonsense.

Study more, boi-economist. Demand is not determined by available
supplies.

My first decision was to ignore you, as you're gibbering in ignorance.
But then I thought, Esk is so damned stupid, let's see if he admits his
error.

Econ 101 says there is a law of supply and demand, where for a given
"supply", there is a "demand" or price. They are functions of one another.
Fix one, and you specify the other. For supply S, there is a price people
are willing to pay, P. It's called the "law of supply and demand".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

So, oil will be more expensive. Big deal.
Your understanding of this topic is margial, at best, but that doesn't
stop you from making wild-assed claims, eh?


As the price goes up,
alternative sources of oil will become economically viable.
Via magic?

No.

It cost $1 to pick wild berries. You can grow the berries for $2. When the
demand for berries exceeds $2, then it becomes economically viable to grow
the berries.

I guess they don't teach economics in commie school, huh eski?

Sue wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Thank you Ms. Sue. You know exactly what I meant. Do you also nitpick
spelling to gloss over content?

No, I did not know what you meant and I freely admit that I have no
understanding of the general content of this thread so there was no
attempt on my part to gloss over content. I read your sentence and
honestly did not know what you were saying. So, I asked. Sorry if
you can't/won't answer. <shrug

After considerable deliberation it seems he meant "how can we keep growth
intact".

Dan is normally brusque / rude btw.

Graham

Stuart Grey wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:20:42 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Stuart Grey wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:29:21 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I have a book on ecology dating from 1971 in which the authors make dire
predictions about the dangers of unchecked population growth. Well, nobody did
ever check it and we're still here.

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......
(no cite noted)

The relevance of the OBJECTIVE FACT that authorities made false
predictions in the past is that appeal to authority is a fallacy.

That is irrelevant. How about just sticking to the numbers...

It is not irrelevant, it shows that arguments must stand on their own and
you can't just point to some "scientist".

Well, you can point to some scientist that has a supporting hypothesis.

One major problem. At this time, without available energy alternatives
suitable for transporation, the demand for oil is inelastic, meaning
that if the price goes up, the demand will not drop very much.

True if the price of oil goes high enough, alternative energy sources
will become more attractive for companies to develop. The problem here
is the long lead times required to develop and deploy the alternatives.

Gasoline and diesel fuel can be made from coal. The Nazis did that during
WW II.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:04:20 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Thank you Ms. Sue. You know exactly what I meant. Do you also nitpick
spelling to gloss over content?

No, I did not know what you meant and I freely admit that I have no
understanding of the general content of this thread so there was no
attempt on my part to gloss over content...

I read your sentence and
honestly did not know what you were saying.

So, I asked. Sorry if
you can't/won't answer. <shrug

Ta ta.
Sue

Sue wrote:


Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Thank you Ms. Sue. You know exactly what I meant. Do you also nitpick
spelling to gloss over content?

No, I did not know what you meant and I freely admit that I have no
understanding of the general content of this thread so there was no
attempt on my part to gloss over content. I read your sentence and
honestly did not know what you were saying. So, I asked. Sorry if
you can't/won't answer. <shrug


After considerable deliberation it seems he meant "how can we keep growth
intact".

Dan is normally brusque / rude btw.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:23:48 GMT, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Sue wrote:


Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Thank you Ms. Sue. You know exactly what I meant. Do you also nitpick
spelling to gloss over content?

No, I did not know what you meant and I freely admit that I have no
understanding of the general content of this thread so there was no
attempt on my part to gloss over content. I read your sentence and
honestly did not know what you were saying. So, I asked. Sorry if
you can't/won't answer. <shrug

After considerable deliberation it seems he meant "how can we keep growth
intact".

Dan is normally brusque / rude btw.

Graham


Thanks. From reading other people's posts this was made clear.
Sue

One obscure prediction is wrong, therefor, you are right......


Lol! In other words, you need someone else to tell you what to think.

Gasoline and diesel fuel can be made from coal.

Stuart Grey wrote:


Gasoline and diesel fuel can be made from coal. The Nazis did that during
WW II.


The South Africans still do it.

Stuart Grey wrote:


Gasoline and diesel fuel can be made from coal.

Sure they can. Show use the plan........

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:51:24 -0400, BR wrote:

One major problem. At this time, without available energy alternatives
suitable for transporation, the demand for oil is inelastic, meaning
that if the price goes up, the demand will not drop very much.

True if the price of oil goes high enough, alternative energy sources
will become more attractive for companies to develop. The problem here
is the long lead times required to develop and deploy the alternatives.

Gasoline and diesel fuel can be made from coal. The Nazis did that during
WW II. One such process is called the Fischer-Tropsch process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

We have plenty of energy resources in the form of coal and nuclear fuels.

We need to
disengage from these foreign entanglements; we've made the terrorist too
rich as it is.

We need to become
energy independent, using domestic coal and nuclear power,