anything, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, more widespread nuclear use, whatever. maybe cold fusion will finally be figured out. we will not be using oil forever, just like we didnt use coal or steam forever. if they can figure out how to get more efficient with hydrogen, oil might be totally obsolete. the brazilians are using sugar cane: http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1648504,00.html and that sort of thing might not be feasible now for everyone, but technology improves fast when it needs to. why does it matter who invests? if it becomes profitable, billions will be poured into alternatives immediately. but we dont need to, because oil is cheap. and people are trying to **** up the free market to keep it that way and impede progress. oh yeah the article i mentioned earlier has finally come online, wired waits a while, then puts up their articles from the magazine. when i got this magazine last week i was amazed, because this is exactly what i had been saying all along: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.12/gas.html and why would they want to build more refineries if you are gonna want congress to step in any time they make profits that you deem excessive? and nobody has noticed my point that exxon only made 10% profit in the last quarter. 10% shouldnt make you cry.
As I suspected, you provided no examples of the profits being made by the oil companies being invested in new energy sources or additional refining capacity . . . because they are not. Sure everybody is hoping for a new energy source before the oil runs out. But the oil companies aren't the ones doing the R & D. And did you also notice that they made 10 billion dollars in the last quarter, the largest profit in corporate history? And that their profits are up 75% from last year? Exxon was the 2nd largest campaign contributor to Bush's first presidential campaign (2nd only to Enron...). Exxon in the last election gave 80% of their campaign contributions to Republican candidates. Do I need to mention that Exxon received $2.6 BILLION in SUBSIDIES from the Bush administration? In other words: we as taxpayers gave Exxon $2.6 BILLION so that they could go on to have record earnings and record profits. These subsidies were a part of the energy bill that the oil industry helped write, along with Dick Cheney (the former CEO of Halliburton, an energy company). Where is your usual anti-government rhetoric when it comes to subsidizing hugely profitable corporations with our tax dollars?
i dont understand why this matters or why you are asking me. i never said oil companies would have to develop the alternatives to oil. what does that have to do with anything? my whole argument is that if we allow oil prices to rise, people will put money into things besides oil and oil companies. ??? so what? chewing gum companies are not doing R&D either. whats the relevance? why do you keep saying that? you do not understand what i am saying. i am not saying that oil companies will take money and invest in alternatives to oil (althought they might). i am saying that if oil prices rise, everyone else will want to find alternatives. investment will go into new things, not oil companies. yes, i have mentioned it twice already. and they made that profit on 100 billion in revenue, for 10% profit. a profit margin i find completely acceptable, not that is any of our business to care about. in a free market system, i encourage everyone to make profit. so what. right, that is terrible. i think the entire department of energy should be abolished and no money should ever go from taxpayers to oil comapnies. i think we should neither help nor restrict oil companies. wake up man, this entire thread has been nothing but me arguing that the government should stay out of the industry. i dunno what you have been reading. you guys are the ones arguing that the government should be part of the equation.
