Seeking Alpha

matthutch » Comments » USO

  • Drilling in ANWR: What's Not to Like? [View article]
    i didn't say they all like us (in fact i admitted many don't). i simply said that there's a lot of difference between dislike and wanting them destroyed (and actually going through with the destroying). do you like your boss? a lot of us don't. that doesn't keep us from working for him or her, because we value the economic exchange. It doesn't matter whether or not you like the person on the other side of the exchange. in fact, greater economic integration actually goes a long way toward peace and international stability.
    Jun 13 12:42 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • Drilling in ANWR: What's Not to Like? [View article]
    sorry: THEIR economic livelihood depends on us buying oil from them.
    Jun 13 11:29 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • Drilling in ANWR: What's Not to Like? [View article]
    quick question: if the saudis want us destroyed, why don't they stop selling us oil right now? surely they know that not producing oil would cripple us beyond belief.

    another question: if they destroyed us (as well as our allies), who would buy their oil? the truth is, they may not like us terribly, but they know our economic livelihood depends on us buying oil from them. i think that the less we depend on them, the more likely it is that they try to do something to us - the costs are less.
    Jun 13 11:16 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • Drilling in ANWR: What's Not to Like? [View article]
    a few points...

    why do we keep talking about our "addition to oil"? as far as i can tell, using the same logic, i'm addicted to all kinds of things: air, milk and bread, concrete and steel (looking out my office window at several buildings 30 stories +), etc. rather, I choose to use oil b/c its cheap.

    as far as the effect of drilling on the environment? first of all, we shown that with recent technology, the impact is minimal. second, we effect the environment every time we turn around. so what? so do animals. so does falling water. as far as science tells us, dinosaurs died by some crazy natural phenomenon. beavers build dams - cute; humans build dams - disgusting. why are humans less natural than anything else?

    so what if we run out of oil? as we run out, the price of oil will skyrocket. that, and that alone, is all the incentive we need to go to other options. the more expensive oil is, the better other option will be. so why, in the meantime, should we limit the use of our resources? we can see what hoarding of food has done for other countries. we don't need artificially higher priced energy.

    as for who benefits when we drill for oil in anwr? how about tax payers? the oil companies don't own the land right now. the land will be leased. and maybe we charge by the barrel for extraction. any money the treasury receives from selling the rights to extract is less money taxpayers will have to pay. (that of course assumes you think government will lower taxes; i personally think they'll simply spend more.)

    why so we need some kind of "race to the moon" type government-funded program? why are we as a society better off because we went to the moon? no one lives there. no one's close to living there. we don't vacation there. the government decided we needed to go there, so we spent a lot of money doing it. i'm sure there was some rocket or satelite technologies that were discovered in the process, but was it worth the cost? i'm skeptical that it was. i can't think of many (any?) technological directions the government has chosen for us that have been better at the process than the market.

    and to make a short list of our future energy sources and say "that's it" is ludicrous and shortsighted. how in the world can any of us predict the direction of energy? we can't predict what the market will do next week. energy innovation in 20 yrs? forget about it. didn't you see "back to the future"? using banana peels and beer cans was imaginary, but you can count on innovation. which speaks to one persons comments about t. boone pickens thoughts about the efficiency of wind. my belief is that you can't base the efficiency of an energy source right now on someone's investment. he's betting, just like al gore and others, that we will either 1) be mandated by government to use at energy (you don't think they aren't funding the green lobby, do you?) or 2) seriously run out of other energy sources at which time the relative efficiency of these energy sources will increase dramatically.

    sorry for the long post.
    Jun 13 11:00 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • Windfall Profits for Big Food: Where's The Outrage? [View article]
    Answer: constituencies.
    Jun 02 11:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
More on USO by matthutch
Comments by Ticker
matthutch's
Comments Stats
19 comments
Rating: 4 (9 - 5 )