I recently saw Thomas Friedman’s “Addicted to Oil” documentary on YouTube. A few nits to pick. First, of course, he unquestioningly buys into the global warming hype as one of the reasons we need to “do something.” Second, he uncritically accepts all the golly-gee claims of the alternate energy/new technology crowds. He hammers on a carbon-composite car door from some California startup without asking how it would holdup in a crash with a Volvo. He gets impressed by the advocates of switchgrass as a biomass fuel without asking how much of America’s fuel could possibly be supplied by such sources (answer: not much). And worst of all: he never once asks about or mentions nuclear power as a possible solution to the world’s energy problems.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/7020/thomas-friedman-on-addicted-to-oil/
Thomas Friedman on Addicted to Oil
Previous post: Ultimate Bastiat
{ 33 comments }
Thomas Friedman is a left-wing, pro-war, pro-globalization propaganda commentator.
Let me say that I do agree with Austrian Economics. That being the case – dependence on oil for our nation is a really bad deal. First off much of our petroleum supply comes from polically unstable countries. Secondly, the protection of the sea lanes, so that oil tankers can get to the U.S, is not a trivial cost. In any real war attack submarines and probably surface raiders would devestate the oil tankers. It’s in the United States best interest to mitigate dependence on oil.
I would also like to point out that owning a car is a really *bad* investment.
1) If you have a car and have a valid drivers license, you too can be a pizza delivery guy. In short the ability to drive is a worthless skill.
2) Cars are a terrible investment. They lose value quickly.
3) An automobile, at least here in the U.S., does not help you to procure cheaper consumer goods. Nor will the increased mobility give you access to a wider selection of consummer goods. Stores like Target, WalMart, J.C. Penny, Dillards and Sears all carry the same undifferentiated junky stuff, that is made in China. To find things of value at a reasonable price, you have to shop on line.
4) AAA estimates that a car (used or new) costs approximately $500 USD per month to own and operate. Half of that amount invested every month for 4 years would add up to better than $12,500.00 USD. I’s not a great return but it sure beats being in debt. At this point the critical problem Americans face ( and they are the energy hogs) is not that they can’t get around but they are deeply in debt, with no way to contract their obligations.
5) If good health is an important economic benefit, then cycling or walking to work should be a high priority. No aerobic exercise == death. The problem with Americans is not that they lack mobility. It’s that they are fat slobs at risk for diabetes and heart disease.
I would also like to say that it’s a tedious but conceptually easy easy exercise to discover the CO2 output from burning just gasoline. The equation is:
2*C8H18 + 25*O2 –> 18*H2O + 16*CO2
One barrel of oil will yield about 19 gallons of gasoline. Google for the annual US crude consumption (in bbl). Convert the 19 gallon portion to Mols. Do the stoichiometry and the CO2 output is about 100,000,000 tons a year. That’s alot.
Another awful program about the world’s oil use is Frank Sesno’s We Were Warned by CNN.
These shows always like to flash images of people waiting in gas lines and “out of gas” signs caused by price controls. But they never say that they are caused by price controls. They like to give the assumption that that is what would happen naturally.
Friedman doesn’t like to mention nuclear power as an alternative energy source, huh? How does this warmonger feel about the US stockpile of nuclear weapons? I don’t know but am curious. I don’t pay enough attention to this guy to know.
I think much of the thinking behind the production of these programs is that energy consumption in itself is bad. (unless one is a well paid journalist or whatever one of these self righteous people is)
Too bad he can’t be more like D. Friedman…
Stephan_Kinsella: You forgot to call him a socialist. Just a “heads-up”.
[Person, you are warned to stop the smarmy comments. Ed.]
Don’t forget Bill Bonner’s excellent critique of Friedman; always worth a read:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner109.html
I wonder how Thomas is related to Milton… Are both related?
I doubt it. Many people have the surname. Unfortunately many of the vocal ones also lack the great man’s genius.
The word in the headline for this item should be ‘Addicted’ not ‘Addicated’.
a little OT- one of his books “Longtitudes and attitudes” is my least favorite title for a book of all time. I haven’t read the book itself, I’m sure it’s not bad.
I consider this discussion an indication that Mises readers may finally accept the possibility that extracting and burning oil does in fact deplete reserves, and that depletion of such a fabulously convenient and useful energy resource may leave us wanting for a replacement. That concept alone constitutes an astoundingly difficult admission for many. Notably absent in this discussion are the usual economic platitudes positing that man, if only freed from government coercion, will necessarily discover an energy source superior even to oil, with which to propel us to the stars.
Easter Islander,
So oil is just magically a “fabulously useful and convenient resource”? You speak of it as if one day in the past someone brushed back the desert sands and discovered billions of gasoline tanks ready to use.
The development of the oil and gas industry that we have today is the product of countless inventions and innovations. Before all of that knowledge was developed oil was just worthless stuff in nature, the vast majority of it completely inaccessible even if anyone had wanted to get at it. If ever a new energy source is needed why wouldn’t it develop in similar fashion?
Mike
working class guy: “That being the case – dependence on oil for our nation is a really bad deal.”
I object to the use of the words “addiction” and “dependence” where oil imports are concerned. Both are chosen in order to indicate some kind of weakness on the part of Americans. Addiction has an immoral connotation because of its association with illegal drugs. It implies a lack of self-control, no benefits and unhealthy consequences. Dependency connotes a lack of freedom, an almost slave-like relationship. Neither word accurately depicts our relationship with oil or oil-exporting countries. Americans choose to purchase oil from foreign countries because we use it to make our lives much better. With a $70 barrel of oil, we make jet fuel, diesel fuel, gasoline and all kinds of plastic products that make like much better than it would be without them. The value of the products we make from oil far exceed the cost of the raw product. Could we do without imported oil? Of course! But our standard of living would fall dramatically. Are Americans “addicted” or “dependent” on foreign oil. Not at all. We choose to buy it because we can afford to and because it makes life much nicer.
Working Class Guy: “First off much of our petroleum supply comes from polically unstable countries.”
This is the “national security” argument; bad governments like Iran may choose to stop selling oil and that would make life difficult for us. But this is not 1973. Back then, oil was concentrated in the Persian Gulf region and those countries were very backward. They didn’t know what to do with their oil revenues. Some “princes” actually stashed dollars under their mattresses. Since then, all oil-exporting countries have become very dependent upon oil sales in order to feed their people. Even Saudi Arabia can’t afford to quit selling oil. In Iran, one-third of the population lives on less than $3/day. The Iranian government must sell oil in order to feed its people and buy gasoline, 40% of wich it imports. As Venezuela becomes more socialist, it will depend even more on oil revenues. Oil-rich countries cannot refrain from selling oil. Their economies would collapse in a heart beat.
No they may refuse to sell to us, but that doesn’t matter either, because oil is fungible. If Iran refuses to sell oil to the US, it must find someone to sell to because Iranians can’t eat oil. So say Iran decides to sell to China. In that case, China will have to quit purchasing from someone else, say Norway, in order to buy Iran’s oil. We will be able to buy the Norway oil that China gives up.
Working Class Guy: “Secondly, the protection of the sea lanes, so that oil tankers can get to the U.S, is not a trivial cost. In any real war attack submarines and probably surface raiders would devestate the oil tankers.”
But we’re not at war with anyone that has the submarines and navy that could sink oil tankers. There is no need to protect those sea lanes. The only real threat would be Iran closing the straight in the Persian Gulf, but as we demonstrated in the first Gulf war, we can handle that threat easily. But that brings up an important issue: the US gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Almost no oil reaches us through the Persian Gulf. So why are we paying to defend it? The Europeans get their oil from that region; let them defend it. If they’re not worried, why should we?
Opposition to oil imports is nothing but old-fashioned mercantilism, which is the heart and soul of Marxism.
I am always amused by the “oil will be depleted, thus we should stop using it” argument.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, Easter Islander, to realize that State subsidization of oil has disproportionate effects in the market.
RogerM writes: “No they may refuse to sell to us, but that doesn’t matter either, because oil is fungible. If Iran refuses to sell oil to the US, it must find someone to sell to because Iranians can’t eat oil. So say Iran decides to sell to China. In that case, China will have to quit purchasing from someone else, say Norway, in order to buy Iran’s oil. We will be able to buy the Norway oil that China gives up.”
This is a naive argument. The point that the oil is in politically-unstable areas of the world is not that those areas will all of a sudden stop selling oil the US and therefore cause a disaster, but rather that wars or other economically-destabilizing extra-market events will cause the output to decline generally, drying up supply further on the world market and driving up prices even more.
I also disagree insofar as you argue that the US is not “addicted to” or “dependent on” oil. Indeed, millions of Americans have come to live in the suburbs and commute to work in the cities each day. Many have commutes of an hour or more. Cheap gasoline in the past motivated them, as consumers, to adopt this lifestyle. Now, their budgets are stretched to the limit, and many of them are teetering on the brink of insolvency. Moving house is an option not available to most on economic grounds. And consuming less gasoline is very disruptive to their lifestyles, to say the least. The demand for oil in America is, indeed, quite inelastic… and inelastic demand is a sure sign of chemical dependence.
What would happen, then, if the supply were to dry up? The price would increase, and cause SEVERE withdrawal pains in America. This is a sign of addiction.
Why would it dry up? For one thing, it is drying up as we speak. The North Sea will have no more oil to pump in about 30 years from now, and production is already diminishing today. The Gulf of Mexico is not much better off. Nearly everywhere you look, oilfields have peaked in production. Meanwhile, rising demand from Asia is projected to increase world demand for oil to 12 million barrels per day in 2025 from the current 8 million today. And then, of course, you have the political instabilities in major oil-producing regions, which threaten to dry up production for extra-economic reasons.
Result: America desperately needs to go to rehab.
Texan Friend
P.S. I recommend the Film “Oil Crash” if you want to comprehend this problem a bit better.
Texan Friend: “The point that the oil is in politically-unstable areas of the world is not that those areas will all of a sudden stop selling oil the US and therefore cause a disaster, but rather that wars or other economically-destabilizing extra-market events will cause the output to decline generally, drying up supply further on the world market and driving up prices even more.”
What you fear so greatly has already happened with the Iran-Iraq war. Yes, prices rose dramatically, but for a short period, then declined. Also, hurricane Katrina shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. We have already proven that we can endure brief interruptions in the supply of oil.
Texas: “I also disagree insofar as you argue that the US is not “addicted to” or “dependent on” oil.”
So what are the harmful effects of our oil addiction? Drug and alcohol addictions have disastrous effects. I can see only benefits to our so-called oil addiction.
Texas: “The demand for oil in America is, indeed, quite inelastic…”
That’s simply not true. Americans always reduce demand for oil when the price rises. What you interpret as inelasticity is nothing but the fact that we have very valuable uses for oil and the cost of oil doesn’t come close to the benefits we find for it. We gain far more financially from imported oil than do the producers.
Texas: “For one thing, it is drying up as we speak.”
That’s not true either. The search for oil died during the 1990′s because of the extremely low prices. High prices have started up the search again. As a result, we have seen new discoveries that break records. One was in Nevada just a year or two ago.
What’s so amusing about ‘oil will run out therefore we’d better stop using it’? Oil is ultimately a finite source, no? Similarly, what happens when peak oil becomes a reality? How fast could prices rise as everyone tries to outbid the other for fuel? How dependent are we really when it comes to oil? Can’t afford fuel? Not to worry dust off the bicycle and start pedalling? Yet what of the manufacture of plastics? What cost of food when the cost of transport is added to it? Is ‘waiting for signs that we’re definity reached the peak oil moment’ as dangerous as saying ‘I’ll wait for definite signs that I might have lung cancer and then I’ll stop smoking’?
Personally I’m far more interested hearing about improved battery technologies that could (will?) make electric vehicles an everyday reality than hearing about some folk who found an oil patch that could push back the peak oil date another five years.
Research is being carried out by corporations on alternate energy sources (some of it even extremely controversial, e.g. hydrogen cars), but oil is here to stay for now. And it is not going to dry up too soon.
TLWP Sam,
It’s amusing because it’s blatantly ridiculous yet people spout it off, much like “oil is a finite resource”, like they’ve come up with something profound. The first person that ever found a use for oil could have said the very same thing and been just as correct. Should they not have used oil either? If every generation used this kind of thinking no one would ever use anything (including batteries). Markets work. They allocate resources in both time and space. It’s quite amusing, or sad I’m not sure which.
Yancey: “I am always amused by the “oil will be depleted, thus we should stop using it” argument.”
I agree, but it hurts when I laugh because those who promote it are determined to get into my wallet with a huge tax increase. Have you heard about Harvard economist Greg Mankiw’s Pigou club? Apparently Pigou promoted the use of taxes to fine tune the behavior of citizens and Mankiw wants to increase taxes on oil in order to force us addicts to use less. In other words, Pigou’s advocate ruining the economy now with higher prices before the Arabs do it to us. How’s that for brilliant thinking coming from PhD’s? To me, that kind of reasoning is like fearing that someone might step on you foot in the future, so you decide to blast your knee caps so that you’ll be used to the pain if someone does step on you foot.
People have predicted the decline of oil for over a century. If they keep at it, they’ll eventually be right, in a century or two.
RogerM:
“So what are the harmful effects of our oil addiction? Drug and alcohol addictions have disastrous effects. I can see only benefits to our so-called oil addiction.”
Actually many drug addictions would be quite benign were it not for the high prices of drugs, which motivate otherwise-law-abiding citizens to turn to crime.
This same motivation is very much at play with America’s oil addition, and has arguably driven the US to crime, too. And if you would like to defend the US foreign policy (as anything other than criminal) may I suggest another forum might be more eager to hear it?
Furthermore, the fact that the US economy is so dependent on oil means that an increase in the price of oil has exponential effects on life within the economy. A rising price of oil does not simply make it more difficult to drive to work, it makes it more difficult to procure raw materials through farming and mining, more difficult to get those materials to the factories where they will be used, more difficult to import subassemblies from China and elsewhere, more difficult to run the machines that process our goods, more difficult to package those goods, and more difficult to distribute those goods to consumers. And I have left 99% of it out. If the price of oil increases, there will truly be pain.
“Americans always reduce demand for oil when the price rises.”
This has been true, somewhat, in the past… Yes, I’m willing to concede that it is not true to some extent… People can take buses to work, for example. But there is still going to be a LOT of suffering on the margin, and that is really the point.. much more than exactly how much consumption will drop in the face of rising prices.
“The search for oil died during the 1990′s because of the extremely low prices.”
Lifting costs of oil at a nice Saudi field are in the neighborhood of 3-5 USD per barrel, if memory serves. The lowest the price of cruse went in the 90s was about 10-11 USD per barrel. Believe me, there was still plenty of economic incentive to discover oil reserves.
The other thing you have to understand is how massive of a need there is. The world is consuming record quantities of the black stuff, and the consumption is only increasing. The world is now desperate to find the next big oil field, and if it does, it might stave off high prices for another few years, but the question remains if there is even another big field to be found.
“…we have seen new discoveries that break records. One was in Nevada just a year or two ago.”
Really? And how much will it contribute to the 8 million barrels per day consumed in the world? Or the 2 million consumed in the US alone? I’m not familiar with this discovery, but a quick Google search for “nevada oil find” didn’t turn up anything of substance in the top ten hits. In fact, the number one hit when I did it was from lasvegasvalley.com and included this text in the search engine summary: “Nevada’s twisted and fractured geology makes it very tough to find the oil that everyone believes is down there, and far more expensive than drilling …”
Don’t know what you read, but it doesn’t appear to be as promising as you would have our fellow forum readers believe.
The US is currently producing 2% of the world’s oil, and consuming 25% of it. And Asia is getting more thirsty, at a time when global reserves and production are diminishing. And the US economy is sustained on oil.
All I am saying is that there will be pain. I am not advocating a specific course of action because after all, there’s no remedy.
Good luck.
The statement “humans are addicted to oil” is a sophism suggesting that if only mankind resolved once and for all to rid himself of that great burden and self-destructive vice, he could finally flourish in a pollution-free Eden. Just as Keynes mirror-image economics convinces millions that consumption and debt, not production and thrift, pave the road to wealth, this genius phrase shapes the conclusions and behaviors of an utterly dependent population by simultaneously denying oil’s incredible utility and the dire implications of its depletion.
Texan: “Actually many drug addictions would be quite benign were it not for the high prices of drugs, which motivate otherwise-law-abiding citizens to turn to crime.”
What drug addictions would be benign? Drug and alcohol addiction kills people, and if it doesn’t kill them, it destroys their bodies and minds. Oil does neither. Drug and alcohol addictions impoverish people and increase crime. Oil enriches all of us, literally. There is no more of a relationship between oil and addiction than there is between food and addiction, or art and addiction, or money and addiction. Calling our transformation of oil into valuable products and services an addiction destroys communication by making the word “addiction” meaningless.
Texan: “This same motivation is very much at play with America’s oil addition, and has arguably driven the US to crime, too.”
So you’re one of those leftists who believe everything we do is motivated by oil. I remember when the top story in Europe was that the US invaded Afghanistan in order to build a natural gas pipeline through it. If we fought the Iraq war for oil, why don’t we have any of it at reduced prices? We’re stupid to fight a war and then pay the losers market prices for their oil when we could have bought the oil for the same price without going to war.
Texan: “Furthermore, the fact that the US economy is so dependent on oil means that an increase in the price of oil has exponential effects on life within the economy…If the price of oil increases, there will truly be pain.”
The price of oil just went from $10/bbl in the late 1990′s to over $70. Where are the catastrophes you predict?
Texan: “The lowest the price of crude went in the 90s was about 10-11 USD per barrel. Believe me, there was still plenty of economic incentive to discover oil reserves.”
Those were nominal prices. Adjusted for inflation, the real price was much lower. You should hang out your shingle to advice oil execs, because they are so stupid they actually quit drilling for oil in the 1990′s. Somehow, they didn’t realize they had enough incentive. The big story in the oil patch was the lack of skilled workers when oil companies decided to drill again in 2001. Oil companies had laid off so many skilled drillers in the 1990′s that they couldn’t man rigs. High oil prices have them scrambling to drill more, but it has taken a long time to recruit and train the needed people.
Texan: “The other thing you have to understand is how massive of a need there is.”
To a large degree that’s because of the monetary pumping of the world’s central banks. The next recession will temper that demand.
Texan: “I am not advocating a specific course of action because after all, there’s no remedy.”
Whether you like it or not, you are advocating a specific course of action, government action. “Oil as addiction” is an invention of socialists intended to frighten people into demanding greater control over the industry by the government, and you’re helping them. The result will be higher taxes, much higher gasoline prices, and an expanded, more powerful federal government.
Texan: “but it doesn’t appear to be as promising as you would have our fellow forum readers believe…”
I didn’t make up the story. An independent oil company discovered oil in Nevada about two years ago and the estimated reserves made it one of the largest finds in the continental US. That you can’t find an article about it only indicates that you have poor research skills.
For those convinced we’re about to run out of oil, consider that Canada has more oil in its tar sands than all of Saudi Arabia, and the Canadians have just begun to produce oil from them. Mexico’s state-owned oil company hasn’t drilled for new oil in decades. Iraq and Iran haven’t drilled for new oil in over 30 years. Iran has the second highest reserves behind Saudi Arabia, and Iraq is 3rd, but that’s based on 30-year old data. New drilling could discover huge new pools of oil
The Caspian sea promises to flood the world with oil. It just takes a long time to develop those fields and get the oil to port. A new pipeline connecting the Caspian to the mediterranian just opened last year. A personal friend in the industry has told me that Russia could flood the world with oil if their management wasn’t so backwards an paranoid. The Russian pipeline system has so many leaks that he estimates they spill more oil than we use.
I can’t find the original article on the oil discovery in Nevada, either. But here are a couple of links that offer a general view of huge potential for new oil discoveries in Nevada:
http://www.carbonet.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=105
http://www.oilandgasstocknews.com/OGSN/Articles/Nevada.asp
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/03/10/news/news03.txt
Why am I not surprised RogerM when I mentioned that oil will run out and there should be a change in technology you inevitably brought up government conspiracies? Did you presume I meant oil is going to run out in ten years and we better duck and cover? Or that governments must ban petrol vehicles now and replace them with electric golf carts to appease leftie-environmentalists? Similarly in times past people regularly used lead in their day-to-day lives should we have never given up lead just because some whingebags complain about that lead-use might be poisonous despite there’s plenty of lead to last for thousands of years? Similarly if there’s oil for another few hundred therefore all electric car research should be shelved because it’s all greenie-conspiracy against red-blooded, SUV driving Americans? Heaven forbid I might have actually meant people actually doing volutary R&D towards better technology? Nah! If it’s potentially environmentally-friendly it has to be a Green-Socialist conspiracy!
RogerM:
“Whether you like it or not, you are advocating a specific course of action, government action. “Oil as addiction” is an invention of socialists intended to frighten people into demanding greater control over the industry by the government, and you’re helping them. The result will be higher taxes, much higher gasoline prices, and an expanded, more powerful federal government.”
That is absurd. I am a libertarian and an Austrian, just like MOST people on this board. It is an abusive form of argumentation to call people names and assign to them positions that you think they should take, and then verbally harass them for having done so.
For the record, the pain to come is not merely the result of oil, but also (and mostly) the result of cheap, fiat money. That the oil addiction also plays a role merely compounds the effects. Unfortunately, the American government (and economy) is far more addicted to fiat money than it is to oil.
In any case, my motivation is simply to spread the news about what is really going on – about the truly dire nature of the situation with which we are confronted. The more people that know about this, the more likely that there will be entrepreneurs who arise and who skillfully mitigate these factors.
Again, I would recommend the film “Oil Crash” which you can read more about here: http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
Texan: “That is absurd. I am a libertarian and an Austrian, just like MOST people on this board.”
I apologize, then. Your attitude toward oil imports sounded very much like that of the left, and a few leftists have posted here on occasion.
Texan: “That is absurd. I am a libertarian and an Austrian, just like MOST people on this board.”
I apologize, then. Your attitude toward oil imports sounded very much like that of the left, and a few leftists have posted here on occasion.
Yes, oil shortages are painful. I hated to pay $4/gal for gasoline when I was used to paying $1 in the ’90′s. But we have to be careful about predicting disaster, because that is the left’s primary technique for expanding the reach and size of the government. The mainstream media, which is overwhelmingly socialist, regularly invent new crises for the government to solve. The oil industry is a favorite target because the main companies are big, and therefore evil by definition; it involves international trade, which they hate because it spreads capitalism; and Americans are unusually sensitive emotionally to the price of gasoline. The MSM deliberately tries to frighten Americans about the oil situation and persuade them that only the government can rescue them from greedy oil men and unscrupulous, terrorist Arabs. There’s always a hint of racism where Arabs are concerned.
RogerM: I think most of your comments are rather cogent. Basically there is no aspect of our oil production, use or consumption that government intervention has not made worse in some way. There may be some externalities, but trying to plug them generally compunds the problem.
Yes, world demand for petroluem will rise, and price signals will influence both consumption patterns and investments in additional petroleum resources and alternatives, including conservation.
The biggest problem I see is that the government has justified spending trillions on wars and overseas military involvement and other entanglements on the false belief/justification that we need to do so to obtain what is a rather fungible raw material for which there are excellent, highly developed international markets.
There are other issues of course, such as the government entanglement in oil and gas leases and development. Government declaration of ownership of submerged land offshore simply means more revenues to bloat government, and we would all be better off if the revenues had stayed entirely in the private economy. Once ownership by the government was accepted, then of course there is constant corrupting pressure by oil firms for better deals or to find ways to reduce rayalty payments. On land, we have needless rancor and continual rent-seeking about ANWAR and accelerated (and harmful) leasing on BLM lands that would be avoided if the government was not a landlord. The Audubon Society has developed natural gas on one of its wildlife sanctuaries, for example – even if the federal lands were simply given to environmental groups we would see development in ANWAR. And ranchers are downstream from BLM leases are finding their water resources trashed but their rights for damages restricted.
And while there are various environmental externalities relating to oil and gas use which make me sympathetic to Mankiw’s Pigou Club, there is certainly no “defense” justification for such taxes. Of course, if people were paying by the gallon for nonsensical military adventures, the effect might be very salutary in the level of attention people give to what our government is up to. “Pay as you go” certainly makes more sense than our current system, which is to foist such costs off onto future generations.
TT
TokyoTom: “…there is certainly no “defense” justification for such taxes.”
That’s the truth! I opposed the first Gulf war on the grounds that even if Saddam Hussein did take over Saudi Arabia, as the chicken littles claimed, he would still have to sell the oil to someone. He couldn’t eat it!
The Europeans and Japanese are far more dependent on oil in the Middle East than are we, but I never hear them crying about the security of their oil supplies. As much as it pains me to say it, at least in this area we could learn something from them.
But again, I don’t think the people who constantly scream about foreign oil threatening national security or the economy really care about either one. Socialists know how to play upon irrational fears of the public to increase the power of government.
Statists seem unable to comprehend the principle of trade, in general. Not owning a resource outright is too risky, thus it must be wrested from its rightful owners and brought under the State’s watchful eye.
Comments on this entry are closed.