[clue-talk] oil...

[Nate Duehr]

On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Brian Gibson wrote:

> Yes I understand those things.  That still doesn't rebut my  
> statement.  That our dependence on oil is our greatest national  
> security threat.  Our foreign policy has been, let's secure more of  
> it (making enemies along the way) rather than let's use less of it  
> and let's use more of something else.

We end up securing it for our allies who don't have enough of it also,  
but they don't reciprocate much in kind.  That's one of our failings  
as a "superpower", that we don't demand they provide equal resources  
and truly act like "coalitions"... sink or swim together, but the  
world hates "America" in some respects because our allies like to  
suckle from our military teat instead of building their own...

And of course, I'm just talking about how the game is played today,  
and you documented above.  I'm not saying we have to play this game of  
taking over countries and securing oil deposits, or making any  
argument for/against that strategy.  I'm just saying our allies are  
pretty damn wimpy when they show up to play too.

(Additionally, I think we should send a bill for the land, the  
building and whatever other costs we incur for hosting the home of the  
UN to the member countries too, but that's a whole different topic.   
Talking about people not pulling their weight made me think of it.   
Pro-rate it on a GDP per capita basis, if you must... but we pay for a  
whole lot of crap in order to host the UN building, which generally is  
a pain in the ass to be a member of, but probably the right thing to  
do.  Let's just send 'em an Invoice for the security detail, perhaps?   
In both the military and UN issues, I wonder why are we always the guy  
who picks up the tab at the bar?)

> Economics certainly plays a part, but then you start getting into  
> the influence of money over government.  For the same reason, people  
> advocate drilling now (even though it will not meet our needs), we  
> should diversify now.  Yes it'll be 10 years out, but it will always  
> be 10 years out until the day you start.

We should do both.  We've not stopped making babies.  When you're  
flush with cash from saving some bucks on the imported stuff, it's  
easier economically to build the alternatives.  Doing it at the bottom  
of the cycle is painful and asking more than doing it at the top.  The  
market knows this and bets against speculative alternative energy  
companies when oil prices are low.

--
Nate Duehr
nate at natetech.com