Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#30 – Allow me to destroy your post.
Drilling in Alaska allows for the perception that America controls a greater percentage of the global market. That perception will lead to less fluctuation (panic) by speculators, because global investors bank on stability.
Further, there’s no reason that the marketing can’t be limited to just investors who can actually fulfill contracts. That would solve a lot of problems.
I accept your apology.
#2 – Rick Cain,
I think worker salaries should be tied to executive salaries, which have shot up 8000%.
I’d also suggest tying government salaries to some multiple (and not a very large one) of the median household income. Let’s put congress on commission.
Want a raise? Do something to increase median household income.
Oh, and of course, outlaw lobbying. That’ll cut their salaries to about a third of today’s right off the bat. Of course, getting congress to vote themselves a pay cut seems just a tad unlikely.
#8 – jbenson2,
One would think the facts that support the chart would wake up Pelosi, Reid and the Democratic congress to permit drilling and exploration in the USA.
No. Drilling will only make matters worse, not better. We need to get off fossil fuels. 1,700 scientists and economists are now recommending taking action on climate change for economic reasons. Apparently, spending to fight climate change relative to the costs associated with not doing so, are estimated at around a 10:1 return on investment. I don’t know where to do better than that. Do you?
http://tinyurl.com/6qamem
#15 – Jägermeister,
Funny!! Another benefit of high fuel prices. Thanks for sharing.
#29 – HMeyers,
Wouldn’t it be nice if you were wrong? Unfortunately, you have the situation pegged beautifully, with the exception of nuclear power. Until we can get a sustained fusion reactor going, nukes will not solve our problems. They create as many problems as they solve, as detailed at length in one of my blog posts, Nukes are not the Answer, which has many links about the problems, so you won’t have to take my word for it (I wouldn’t).
Additionally, nuclear power is more expensive than any other power source today. The only reason power companies like it is because of externalized expenses. Typically, the government funds the building of the plant and then gives it to the power company, ka-ching!! Of course they love that. Then, no one bothers to think about the costs of decommissioning the plant safely at the end of its useful life.
Don’t worry though, better cheaper sources exist. We just have to get off our asses and do something about it instead of tearing down more mountains to burn.
Rick Cain, James Hill,
Drilling in Alaska really is not the answer to anything. How could it possibly help the long term situation to get another 6-12 months of oil?
We can get far more oil, or oil equivalent, just by being more fuel efficient. And, that lasts. Every gallon we don’t burn is equivalent to pumping another gallon.
So, instead of asking why we don’t drill ANWR, why not ask why U.S. cars average abour 27 MPG or less when Europe averages 44 MPG and Japan averages 45? Seems like a much more valid option to me.
And, with 70-130,000 U.S. residents dying of air pollution every year, I think we might be a bit better off with more efficiency there too. Or, do you value your SUV more than your neighbors, friends, and relatives?