Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
That would not be necessary. For example, look at what Brazil has been doing with bio-fuels, dino oil alternatives can be viable. In Brazil they are using sugar cane which is much more efficient than our approach of using corn. Also oil exploration and drilling is simply more effecient now than 30 years ago. Each individual well can be much more productive today than in the past.
At some point oil will hit $200 in nominal terms, but a loaf of bread may cost $25. Everything is relative.
One reason billionaires may be avoiding investments in oil companies is because of people like Chavez in Venezuela (stealing oil company assets) or even the Democrats in Washington who want to penalize oil companies through wind-fall profit taxes and excessive regulation.
|
ace....you post crap you read in IBD and WSJ editorials as if it was gospel truth. I wish you would support the things you post with sources we can go to and consider....sources other than editorials.....here is a more fact filled and evenhanded piece on the recent history of oil corp. relationships with the government of Venezuela:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...4558_db016.htm
The folks in charge in Venezuela in the 90's presided over wealth inequity that should even make a conservative wince....as they were negotiating away the petroleum rights of all of the people of the country.... while the wealth flowed undeniably and exclusively to the wealthy. Has not nearly every third world nation with relationships with "big oil", done exactly as Venezuela has?
Democracy worked ace. The masses voted out wealth inequity, and the flow of wealth went away from the elite. This is the only non-violent recourse that an oppressed mass has, against a usurping elite. The people of Venezuela managed to stop the concentration of wealth in their country, peacefully, but you condemn them for it....