Re: finite world/resource depletion

["John B. O'Donnell" <jackodonnell@xxxxxxxx>]

Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
>
> John B. O'Donnell wrote:
>
> > Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
> > >
> > > ...<snip>...
> > >
> > > In *The Heat Is On*, published earlier this year, Ross
> > > Gelbspan argues just the opposite has taken place:
> > > continuing subsidies for fossile fuels have artificially
> > > limited the breakout of fuel alternatives from niche
> > > markets into broad competetive superiority.
> >
> > Any chance of identifying just what these subsidies are.
> > Would they be somehow related to the fact that U.S. state
> > and federal taxes on motor fuels, while exorbitant, are less
> > than imposed in a good part of the rest of the world?

> Those taxes are pretty much devoted to auto-related public
> expenses. Of course, they don't pay anything close to the true
> costs of auto-parking and rights-of-way.  Neither would a
> direct change-over to another fuel, of course.  That's a whole
> other topic.

Because money is fungible any accounting of government "trust fund"
spending is nothing more or less than obfuscation. The simple reality is
that fuel taxes reduce effective demand for this use of petroleum,
nothing more, nothing less.

> But then there's the cost of military patrols and preparedness
> in the Middle East -- something that's NEVER connected in these
> kinds of accounting.

On this point I think we agree even if not for the same reasons.
Fighting wars to maintain access to oil is not my idea of a good
application of military force to protect our freedom.

>  And there are various kinds of corporate subsidies.  There
> have been enormous subsidies to nuclear as well, as there
> continue to be.

Would this be a suggestion that nuclear power substitution for fossil
fuels contributes to the greenhouse gasses that supposedly cause global
warming? Or, is it just another example that this is just a ruse to
discourage economic growth?

For an alternative view of global warming see:
<http://www.carnell.com/global_warming/index.html>

[Please don't respond to the above questions on PKT. As noted by James
R. Olsen, jr. in an off list e-mail, this is getting a bit off subject.
Which is also why, in addition to a bad taste of foot in mouth, I'll
stop the global warming subject here.]

<<SNIP>>

> > Economists do, however, seem to hold as true some beliefs that any
> > fool can see are tautologically impossible.
>
> I might well agree with you, if only I had the faintest idea what
> you're talking about.

For a start you can try the essay "Supply and Demand, Again" on my web
page.

			-- jbod
___________________________________________________
Come visit and see a new economic perspective --
       http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1067
           Comments/arguments welcome.
..