PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

However, because the price of oil is over $100 a barrel (compared to $10 a barrel in the late ’90s), one region’s gain is another region’s loss. It’s a net loss for the country, because more resources need to be expended for the same barrel of oil. Nonetheless, it was inevitable, because of Peak Oil.

****

Ron, the “best possible course of action” is to produce enough oil to meet demand, and given there’s a constraint on oil production, prices need to rise, to avoid shortages.

Moreover, the summation of all individuals in a country is the aggregate. Some will gain more in producer surplus than lose in consumer surplus (i.e. a net gain), and some will lose consumer surplus (a loss).

****

Or some regions will gain in real income and some regions will lose in real income.

The map not only implies upward mobility, in some regions, it implies downward mobility, in some regions, too.

****

The same people who want to legalize drugs disagree with things I didn’t say.

And, they believe the U.S. economy is better off with oil at $100 a barrel than at $10 a barrel.

****

Losing a barrel of “cheap” oil, through depletion, and gaining a barrel of “expensive” oil is not a net gain, at least over the past five years.

****

Methinks-Morganovich-Ron-Ken, you should be selling health care plans on exchanges.

Just tell everyone raising the cost of production and raising prices for the same services will be a net gain for everyone.

Tell them you won’t “lose” anything.

If they disagree with you, give them a drug.

****

It’s pathetic how you, and the other members of your circus, attempt to twist my statements into entire different meanings rather than actually responding to them. Obviously, economics is beyond your capacity to understand.

****

Duelles, it looks like the four clowns, I mentioned, fooled you. I guess, it’s true, about a sucker born every minute.

The supply of oil is almost fixed, i.e. inelastic, because of Peak Oil. So, a small increase in demand raises price more than quantity. So? What’s your point?

Also, perhaps, you didn’t notice downward income mobility of the “middle class.” Higher oil prices is like a regressive tax. Moreover, there’s a negative effect on oil or fuel intensive industries.

****

Morganovich, even after you say you don’t twist my statements, you twist them again.

If you want to believe Peak Oil, over the past five or 10 years, has been a net positive for this country, that’s your problem (you’ll learn about supply shocks when you take econ 101, and I don’t want to hear about your partial understanding of a partial equilibrium model again, since you don’t have a clue about general equilibrium models.)

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/add-the-highest-level-of-income-mobility-in-the-country-to-the-long-list-of-benefits-resulting-from-shale-oil-in-the-bakken/#comments

--

PeakTrader:

The U.S. should be trading high-tech goods (e.g. with market power) for Saudi oil.

Unfortunately, the Saudis are running low.

---