I'm with chipseal. Rationing is not a good idea, let the free market sort out out who gets the remaining few drops. It's as good a resource distribution mechanism as any and its already in place.

Rationing will simply distort distribution patterns and create a whole lot of problems already mentioned and will do nothing about the inevitable decline in availability except maybe delay it a little while. Scarcity will be its own rationing system, eventually everyone will be able to afford the exact same ammount of gas - zero.

Bear in mind that this is not the same situation as back in the '70. Back then we knew that the oil would start flowing again and it was just a matter of getting beyond a temporary shortage, rationing was the right strategy then. This is different, it's not temporary.

On a related note, there is a program this evening at 11PM EST on the History Channel (Mega-Distasters):

The oil that our world runs on won't last forever. The gap between supply and demand is ever increasing. Will alternative energy save us or is it already too late? What would happen to the world as we know it when our oil dependent industries come to a grinding halt? A worldwide depression is a certainty but a power struggle for the basic necessities of life would be complete chaos.
I have no idea whether the program is of any use or whether it is just scaremongering. But it is relevant...

I am suprised that no one even mentioned the end of oil also means an end to all the miracle fibers and other such things being made of petrol. What about all those spandex, polyester (where do you think bicycle wear comes from?) and other man made fibers derived from petroleum? It is not just cars and other motorized vehicles in danger of being extinct.

I am suprised that no one even mentioned the end of oil also means an end to all the miracle fibers and other such things being made of petrol. What about all those spandex, polyester (where do you think bicycle wear comes from?) and other man made fibers derived from petroleum? It is not just cars and other motorized vehicles in danger of being extinct.

My miracle fibres of choice are cotton and wool. The fancy fabrics such as those used for bicycle wear are nice but they're not essential.

I am suprised that no one even mentioned the end of oil also means an end to all the miracle fibers and other such things being made of petrol. What about all those spandex, polyester (where do you think bicycle wear comes from?) and other man made fibers derived from petroleum? It is not just cars and other motorized vehicles in danger of being extinct.

Man made fibers derived from petroleum can be replaced with fibers from corn, such as fabrics made by the company called Ingeo (http://www.ingeofibers.com/ingeo/home.asp). It's more expensive to produce at the mean time, but when petroleum prices shoot to maybe $300-400 a barrel, these fibers are a much more attractive option.

More companies producing petroleum-heavy clothing will eventually turn to use recycling and sustainable resources to manufacture clothes.

Here's one company that has already implemented such philosophy.

http://outside.away.com/outside/gear/200702/nau-1.html

My miracle fibres of choice are cotton and wool. The fancy fabrics such as those used for bicycle wear are nice but they're not essential.

Ditto...need to ge me some of them high tech sheep:D:p ....got plenty of room for them and a friend that knows how to shear, card, spin AND weave;) I honestly believe that as oil gets more expensive and items start to drop off the market we as consumers may actually learn to do with a lot less than we have today, if we can even afford it. FWIW I am very selective about my clothes purchases, I only chose things that are going to last and usually are made from natural, sustainable materials. Keeps the closet to a very manageable level. Outside of too many pairs of work pants (the uniform company screwed up and I have 35 pairs:eek:) I have about 4 basic outfits...2 winter and 2 for the rest of the year. All of my other stuff fits in 2 drawers on the dresser.

Aaron:)

There is no person or committee wise enough, trusted enough or selfless enough to do it as well as a free market.

I agree in principle. People should pay full price for oil and not be encouraged to buy and squander it through the action of many hidden subsidies; and if that were the case, even before the market pressures created by an oil shortage began to impact us, this would direct society to evolve towards a more energy efficient structure.

Unfortunately there is no truly free market. All markets are always subject to a variety of deliberate and inadvertent distortions and corruptions, such as the effect of various externalities, the existence of "natural" and contrived monopolies, manipulation of information available to consumers, insider trading, cronyism etc. etc. So the rich will rig the game to their benefit and the poor will pay more than their share.

Furthermore, relying purely on market forces during times of crisis and resource shortages (which in this case may quite possibly include widespread food shortages) will also mean that people may starve to death - the ultimate market correction for poverty. If you can still afford to buy ethanol for your car, and as a result I can't afford to buy corn for food at the higher prices ethanol producers will be paying, don't count on me to agree on the benefits of a free market. Rationing of food and oil during the early stages of transition from a totally oil based economy to some new economy would help ensure the survival of citizens and of civil society.

We just need to blast iran back into the stone age and oil will drop back to $40/ bbl. :D

That and give hugo chavez an atomic wedgie!

We just need to blast iran back into the stone age and oil will drop back to $40/ bbl. :D

That and give hugo chavez an atomic wedgie!

Yeah, that'll do it.

I agree in principle. People should pay full price for oil and not be encouraged to buy and squander it through the action of many hidden subsidies; and if that were the case, even before the market pressures created by an oil shortage began to impact us, this would direct society to evolve toward a more energy efficient structure.

Unfortunately there is no truly free market. All markets are always subject to a variety of deliberate and inadvertent distortions and corruptions, such as the effect of various externalities, the existence of "natural" and contrived monopolies, manipulation of information available to consumers, insider trading, cronyism etc. etc. So the rich will rig the game to their benefit and the poor will pay more than their share.

Furthermore, relying purely on market forces during times of crisis and resource shortages (which in this case may quite possibly include widespread food shortages) will also mean that people may starve to death - the ultimate market correction for poverty. If you can still afford to buy ethanol for your car, and as a result I can't afford to buy corn for food at the higher prices ethanol producers will be paying, don't count on me to agree on the benefits of a free market. Rationing of food and oil during the early stages of transition from a totally oil based economy to some new economy would help ensure the survival of citizens and of civil society.

You agree- but only if there could be a truly free market! But since there is no free market, let's remove any freedom that is left! You may not realize it, but that is not agreeing at all, in principal or any other way!;)

Free markets can be distorted! Oh my! But their distortions are quickly corrected. Any natural "distortion" is quickly seized upon by competitors and exploited for the benefit of the consumer. Self-interest works faster than any overseeing body in correcting organic market manipulations.

Your solution to this "terrible" problem is to impose distortions (this is, the seizing of all domestic oil and food production to be distributed is some rationing scheme) on the market to prevent some imagined (but not realized) danger!:rolleyes: I guess it is better to trust your preferred distortions then those of others. After all, you are distorting them for the benefit of the poor!:p

I remember when a government protected monopoly was de-regulated. "The poor will be shut out"; the opponents shouted; "Our high prices in long-distance service are to allow phones to be affordable to the poor."

From today's perspective, it is hard to believe that a continued telephone monopoly would've served the interests of the poor better than what has transpired. I am sure you have many examples of rationing programs that have had similar successes, but I can't think of any just now.

Right now, some people in poor countries are dying because they cannot afford prescription drugs (that is a simplification). Right now, food prices are going up in some cases (tortilla riots), because cars are now competing for corn. In the future, we are very likely to have our food prices go up as companies tool up for biofuel production. The free market is great in most cases, but there will be a problem when a rich guy can make a poor guy starve by driving his SUV. The free market is efficient, but not always the right way forward.

And what happens when all of the oil revenues stop flowing into the Middle East?

The western world thinks it's bad now. Wait until there is no wealth and people start starving and progress stops....

How about Russia? When oil revenues stop boosting their economy back to modern levels, where are they going to turn to make some extra dough? Will they sell some of their nuclear arsenal to rogue states or the newly impoverished Middle East?

They could take a step in the right direction and help in the progress of a hydrogen system and then have that much of a lock on whatever market that would bring, but it's easier to think short term and enjoy the daily dollar, so that won't happen.

You agree- but only if there could be a truly free market! But since there is no free market, let's remove any freedom that is left! You may not realize it, but that is not agreeing at all, in principal or any other way!;)

Free markets can be distorted! Oh my! But their distortions are quickly corrected. Any natural "distortion" is quickly seized upon by competitors and exploited for the benefit of the consumer. Self-interest works faster than any overseeing body in correcting organic market manipulations.

Your solution to this "terrible" problem is to impose distortions (this is, the seizing of all domestic oil and food production to be distributed is some rationing scheme) on the market to prevent some imagined (but not realized) danger!:rolleyes: I guess it is better to trust your preferred distortions then those of others. After all, you are distorting them for the benefit of the poor!:p

I remember when a government protected monopoly was de-regulated. "The poor will be shut out"; the opponents shouted; "Our high prices in long-distance service are to allow phones to be affordable to the poor."

From today's perspective, it is hard to believe that a continued telephone monopoly would've served the interests of the poor better than what has transpired. I am sure you have many examples of rationing programs that have had similar successes, but I can't think of any just now.

How do you figure the oil market is free? It's conducted in only one currency, the US$. New markets are prohibited by international law and the might of the US military. A few producers control supply, and they're banded together in a cartel that rigs prices by adjusting supply. The producers sell their product to only a few megahuge oil companies, who then control distribution and resale. The end consumers are so hooked on the product that they're willing to pay almost any price. And alternatives to the product have been killed off by cutthroat tactics of suppliers, middlemen and the various governments.

I too favor a “free” market approach but there are some problems. Namely that there really is not a "free market".

1) Entrenched companies and technologies influence the laws to strengthen their financial position. So they can get things like the super size SUV tax break, where you could write off a high gross vehicle weight SUV in 2 years rather than 5. This hurts the consumer and possibly the industry by creating a false value that runs contrary to the needs of the citizens.
2) Companies that are sitting on scarce resources are routinely regulated so that they do not price gouge. In a free market they should be able to sell a bottle of water for what the market will bare. SO the government steps in to help the people.
3) In a free market there would be no government incentives to invest in researching technologies that won’t be feasible for years. So you have to wait until you need the hydrogen car before you started to do research. The tax system is structured to encourage research.
4) Prices are set by the local stations but supply is set by the producer. So you can be punished by getting less gas if you don’t “go along” with the price strategy. This is much like the diamond industry. A gem dealer or only gets one packet from DeBeers per year. The dealer must take what they get. And you must sell only those that year. If you hoard particular cuts, (because next year they be worth more, when that cut is not included), then DeBeers will cut your packet next year and you'll have less to sell.

People often don’t even look at all of the costs of the "free market". For example, what percentage of my $20,000 tax payment for war efforts is needed to secure that gas? What if I do not drive—I still have to pay “tax” to facilitate and perpetuate petroleum dependence. I know, I know the war is not over oil, but some part of it is.

What if the OIL countries’ decided enough is enough, lets cut the production by 25%? Then we would be virtually compelled to apply Market controls.

I found this (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5456.html) today.
It's mostly about a possible cancer treatment, I actually find the other possibilities more interesting.
We've discussed the "burning salt water" already somewhere on BF. It's not a viable energy source since the radio waves needed to create it require more energy than you get out of it. As a cancer treatment it sounds interesting, but stories like this are a dime a dozen, and 99.99% of amazing cancer cure ideas turn out to be dead ends.

PS and I should add that the general principle of trying to send a potentially harmful molecule selectively to a tumour, and then activating it from a distance using an energy source, is already in practice, see eg. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070808132019.htm

hmmm
I think another article about it said this guy has some big meeting with the dept. of defense and the dept. of energy coming up.
Maybe they know something we don't?
Or maybe they're that desperate for new energy sources. (just thinking that scares me)
Then again maybe it's just a slow news day.

Too bad the DOD is preoccupied with a pointless war. They should be foucusing on issues that are truly vital to our security, like finding alternative energy sources and planning for global climate change. I give them credit that they do spend some time on these real issues, even though they're burdened with pisspoor civilian leadership.