F... gas prices

You previously noted that the cost of developing and bringing cheap alternative fuel sources to market is exorbitant. If that's true, the government would presumably have to have shelled out hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in subsidies or tax breaks to fast-track the process. Right?

People are inherently short-sighted. Congressmen and women look to the problems facing the country now and that will emerger prior to the next election cycle. CEOs of public companies look to the next quarter's profits so they don't get their asses handed to them by their shareholders and boards. Your average Joes don't buy solar panels, even though it will save them money over the long haul and otherwise generally act in their short-term best interests. Our government acts the same way. It sucks, but that's the way I see it.
Thats the point when gas was 90 cents who was thinking about alternative fuels? No One. Now its is an issue everyone is. For example. Lets say the goverment came out with ethanol which cars could totaly run off but it cost $1.40 a gallon while gas was 90 cents a gallon. Who is going to get elected or run on a platform of switching to the E80. They could but they would loose in a land slide. We as consumers and voters could shoulder just as much blame as anyone but this problem is not just a US problem it is a world problem. As far as I know other countries have done the same thing and are in the same boat. I know that we drive bigger cars but we all depend on expensive gas.

About as much as your post contributed to this thread.

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.
That comment was part of a chain of posts discussing the government's role over the past 35 years. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue "let's be mad at the gov't" post.

And of course it serves a purpose - examining our historical approach to this problem should be the basis for choosing a path going forward. We have historically failed to provide oil companies with incentives to find alternative fuels, because they can achieve higher profits without them. Even now, at $4/gallon, consumers are still willing to pick up the tab.

How do you get the oil companies to spend the necessary money to develop alternatives when, as firstdown and SGG have pointed out, they are able to report record profits to Wall Street simply by maintaining the status quo?

Scientists have just genetically altered bacteria that produce renewable crude oil.

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece)

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

No, I was being serious and actually trying to contribute to the discussion. My whole point was that I see no purpose in faulting the government for what they've done over the last 35 years. It's kind of similar to faulting Danny for his free agency foray in 2000. It may be an accurate reprisal for all we know, but it serves no go-forward purpose.

The more relevant discussion should be: what can and should the government do to make the situation better for the United States?

I'd say invest in the development of alternative energy sources, while at the same time lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Nice, business as usual.

That comment was part of a chain of posts discussing the government's role over the past 35 years. It wasn't an out-of-the-blue "let's be mad at the gov't" post.

And of course it serves a purpose - examining our historical approach to this problem should be the basis for choosing a path going forward. We have historically failed to provide oil companies with incentives to find alternative fuels, because they can achieve higher profits without them. Even now, at $4/gallon, consumers are still willing to pick up the tab.

How do you get the oil companies to spend the necessary money to develop alternatives when, as firstdown and SGG have pointed out, they are able to report record profits to Wall Street simply by maintaining the status quo?

I think SGG has made the point abundantly clear. The incentive already exists for anybody, an oil company or a garage inventor, to develop an alternative fuel source or a mode of transport that does not depend on oil.

The amount of money said inventor stands to make is staggering. I'm not sure why you think we need to incent the oil companies?

I think SGG has made the point abundantly clear. The incentive already exists for anybody, an oil company or a garage inventor, to develop an alternative fuel source or a mode of transport that does not depend on oil.

The amount of money said inventor stands to make is staggering. I'm not sure why you think we need to incent the oil companies?

I agree with him that we need to incent oil companies. I believe responsible incentives that require real results is good policy. I am a staunch free marketer and generally want our gov't to stay the hell out of the markets but I think smartly structured incentives could reduce our time on foreign oil by a significant amount. I am willing to try at least.

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers eager to curb speculation in oil markets got support Monday from witnesses who told a House subcommittee that oil prices could fall sharply if Congress put strict limits on trading in energy futures by investment banks, pension funds and other financial investors.

link: Free Preview - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426978977398795.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers eager to curb speculation in oil markets got support Monday from witnesses who told a House subcommittee that oil prices could fall sharply if Congress put strict limits on trading in energy futures by investment banks, pension funds and other financial investors.

link: Free Preview - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426978977398795.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Oh sure Matty, cite some liberal rag like the Wall Street Journal. ;)

Interesting stuff. I've read elsewhere that speculators are driving the price up by $25-$50 p/b. I hadn't read that they're driving the price up by 60%. If they're right, Congress acts, and gas goes back to $2 p/g the economy would get a big boost.

I note that "the experts" are now calling on regulators to increase margin requirements.

I have been calling for this since at least May 16th:

"I think the government shoult make it illegal to trade oil on margin. I think you would see the price drop right away if some of these guys were risking their own hard cash. I think the margin is currently like 5% which is ridiculous."

Most "experts" are generally 1 to 2 months behind me, depending on their field of endeavor. Everything would be so much simpler if everyone would just do what I tell them.

More May 16 brilliance from me:

"I doubt that increased demand is soley to blame for oil quadrupling in price. I think speculation is driving the increase as well. Hedge fund managers are now into oil big time. Even individuals are getting in for the ride. A friend of mine justified it by saying he had to recoup the losses he was experiencing at the pump. Money chases money. As more and more people are seeing the possibility of making money in commodities rather than stocks and bonds, the price only increases. Imagine if a bunch of moneyed investors suddenly all decided that baseball cards were a sure thing. Their sudden entry into the market would necessarily force the price of a Clemente rookie card through the roof. The question is, is this a permanent thing or at some point will gravity have it's affect. We need a crash badly. As quickly as the money went in, it will run for the exits if the price falls fast enough.

I think there are a few simple steps that could be taken to at least discourage new money from forcing up the price any further. The Democrats may serve useful here as their penchant for regulation would surely be helpful. Maria Cantwell of Washington is making this a pet issue. She's kind of a butter face but she has nice hair and seems relatively bright. It would be worth a try at any rate."