[quote=masser;136320]The conclusion I have taken from Cheesehead's arguments is this:
a. a Democratic plan will effect market psychology and bring down oil prices.
b. a Republican plan will not effect market psychology and not bring down oil prices.[/quote]After Prime95 posts his definition of the Democratic plan or "line", I will show how what I have posted differs from that, and clarify where necessary. I regret that I have written in such a way as to allow misinterpretations such as those conclusions.

[quote]So even though these changes will take a certain time to implement (say 10 years) a "large-scale energy conservation and renewable energy program" will have a psychological effect on the oil market....[/quote]There exist many solar energy product producers who can ramp up production very rapidly to supply a program of installing solar electric or water-heating panels on or near homes. Many conservation steps can be taken in less than a year.

[quote]...but committing to a program that will increase supply (say in 10 years) won't have any effect on the oil market?[/quote]The difference is that solar/wind energy and conservation can be rapidly ramped-up from present levels. The claims of 10-year delay in that path are being made out of ignorance.

The claim of 10-year delay in developing offshore oil to a significant amount -- say, 3% of U.S. demand -- is based on historical performance by the oil industry. There aren't a lot of new, unused offshore rigs sitting around just waiting to be towed into place -- and that's [I]after[/I] the limited number of deep-water drilling ships have done their part. In relation to offshore oil equipment, solar/wind energy equipment is much smaller-scale and uncomplicated and its production more easily and quickly ramped-up. Conservation measures are even easier -- insulation batts, caulk, and labor are all that's needed to significantly reduce the energy usage of millions and millions of homes across the country. We just need to mount a full-court press and incentives to persuade homeowners to do that, and establish or expand programs to assist low-income households in that regard. Congress could do what is needed on that level in just one year.

I will comment further after we've clarified some terms like "Democratic line". Meanwhile, I'll also scan back to see how I can clarify some things I've posted.

[quote]I agree with Prime95 - why can't we both increase supply AND decrease demand?[/quote]Increase supply of oil, or increase supply of energy sources in general?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;136355][B] My comments on the 1973-74 oil crisis were [U]NOT[/U] a straw man! [/B][/QUOTE]

OK it was an not a straw man, but a close relative. I state position A. You ignore A and present position B. Prove B and conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect. In your honor, I propose we name this the cheese man. :lol:

[quote=Prime95;136295][I]Straw man, straw man, straw man!!![/I] A cheesehead favorite reply. Of course, your whole argument about running out of supply in 73-74 was a straw man too - but I suppose that one's OK. No where did I claim we were out of supply now. Your comment had no bearing on what I actually wrote - oil prices are subject to the laws of supply and demand[/quote]I got so riled that I completely forgot to point out why your claim of "straw man" is different from mine.

When you replied to the first sentence of my paragraph (which seems not to have survived the transition from the other thread, so I can't quote it) as though it expressed my argument, even though the rest of the paragraph described something quite different, you were creating a straw man by presenting your reply as though it were responding to an argument I did not make.

In contrast, your accusation that my "whole argument about running out of supply in 73-74 was a straw man too" is false because I never claimed or pretended that you [i]had[/i] said anything about the 1973-74 situation. Instead I was asking you to show an example of actual out-of-supply, as did actually occur in 1973-74 -- [I]which I cited as a reference fact, not as something you said or implied[/I].

You need to go look up the definition of "straw man" in a dictionary, then eat your straw crow here in public.

[quote=Prime95;136369]OK it was an not a straw man, but a close relative. I state position A. You ignore A and present position B. Prove B and conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect. In your honor, I propose we name this the cheese man. :lol:[/quote]You're still wrong, and now you've posted straw cheese that you'll need to consume also.

I asked you whether you could give a contemporary example of an oil supply problem. [I]I never claimed that you had written anything about oil supply other than your actual words.[/I]

If I ignored something you wrote, [U]that is not a "straw man"[/U]. You are misusing the term, and apparently need to go look it up in a dictionary.

Show us exactly where I supposedly "conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect". (Hint: if you admit that position A involved a supply problem, then you're admitting that my challenge to you to provide an example of contemporary supply problem was legitimate and thus not a straw man. If not, then what _was_ your position A to which you refer in the quote above, and _where do you see the words of mine_ that "conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect"?)

[quote=Prime95;136369]I state position A. You ignore A and present position B. Prove B and conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect.[/quote]Another point:

1) You say I ignore A,

2) then you say I conclude/imply that position A is flawed or incorrect.

So, tell us just how it's possible for me to conclude or imply anything about A if I actually ignored A. But if I didn't actually ignore A, why do you say I did? You can't have it both ways.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;136371]You need to go look up the definition of "straw man" in a dictionary, then eat your straw crow here in public.[/QUOTE]

Technically, I used the advanced technique of a "reverse cheese man". Don't try this at home. Let's go over it blow by blow.

I claimed (roughly): "we should drill because supply and demand laws say this will lower prices"

You applied the cheese man. Skillfully, you replied (roughly): "we don't have a supply problem, remember the 70s, that was a supply problem". All true, but irrelevant to my original claim.

Then I applied the reverse cheese man tying your cheese man back to the original claim. To expose the silliness of a cheese man argument, I used sarcasm and conceded that you had just convinced me that the law of supply and demand does not apply to oil.

[quote=Prime95;136376]Let's go over it blow by blow.

I claimed (roughly): "we should drill because supply and demand laws say this will lower prices"[/quote]And I never claimed or implied that you said anything different, so I presented no "straw man" at any time in this argument. Do you admit that? Will you apologize for falsely claiming ("Straw man, straw man, straw man!!!") that I had, and for causing this whole excursion that started with that line ("Straw man, straw man, straw man!!!") of yours?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;136377]I presented no "straw man" at any time in this argument. Do you admit that?[/quote]

I already have. I've labeled it the cheese man.

[quote]Will you apologize for falsely claiming ... that I had[/quote]

If it makes you feel better. I apologize for claiming you used a straw man.

[quote]and for causing this whole excursion that started with that line ("Straw man, straw man, straw man!!!") of yours?[/QUOTE]

No apologies for that. You and I use different rules here. I view straw men, cheese men, and reverse cheese men as all good fun - lively ways to have a debate.

You seem to view straw men as the ultimate sin. Whenever you see one, you loudly proclaim it. Reading between the lines, you seem to be saying "Look! I found a straw man! I just won the debate! It proves everything I've been saying.".

I regret that I escalated this mess at several points.

While I was away, my subconscious figured out that there was originally a simple simultaneous misunderstanding, and that I've made at least 51 percent of the trouble by throwing in demands for withdrawals and apologies.

George, I apologize for turning a simple misunderstanding into such a mess. You owe me no apology.

I apologize to the rest of forum participants for churning this up so much. I'll try to be calmer next time I don't understand why someone wrote something.


[SIZE=1](even if he's wrong about several things in post #107)[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;136274]And, do we really have a supply problem, anyway? I can't recall seeing any recent reports of service stations running out of gasoline [i]as they actually did in 1973-74[/i]. Can you cite current examples where the supply is actually too small rather than being considered "too expensive" by some folks?[/QUOTE]

I was going to comment on the problems caused by forgetting that "supply" is a function not a number nor a boolean variable. But then I got to wondering why it was that gas was "rationed" rather than skyrocketing in 1973-74. I remember that part of the problem wasn't a shortage of gasoline so much as a fear of shortage. People were topping off gas tanks at every opportunity - this resulted in more than usual amounts of gas in cars and long lines because people were spending three or four times as many minutes per week "at a pump" for the same total number of gallons. But I think another important factor must have been the recent memory of the Nixon wage and price controls.

[quote=wblipp;136391]But then I got to wondering why it was that gas was "rationed" rather than skyrocketing in 1973-74.[/quote]Price controls on gasoline (among other things) were instituted by President Nixon in 1973. Though most of Nixon's wage and price controls were phased out by President Ford, price controls remained on oil and gasoline for eight years. In particular, gasoline price controls were in place during the entire 1973-1974 Arab oil embargo.

[quote]But I think another important factor must have been the recent memory of the Nixon wage and price controls.[/quote]Not the memory, but the legal reality.

- - - - - - - -

Cautionary note to all:

At many places referring to the history of the 1970s, Presidents Nixon through Carter, the oil crisis, and/or wage and price contols, you may see statements along the lines of "Jimmy Carter imposed energy price controls". [U]This is the result of a very successful conservative misinformation campaign maligning President Carter, not historical fact![/U]

This lie has even made its way into the Wikipedia article on the 1979 energy crisis at [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis[/URL], in which the following false statement appears (it's there now, but may have been corrected by the time you follow the link): "In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls." (An example of the unreliability of Wikipedia's political-history-related statements.) This lie's influence can be seen at [URL]http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/10/response_on_pri.html[/URL], for example, where the writer cites that Wikipedia article as (erroneously) supporting his claim about Carter:

[quote]Two of the comments questioned my assertion that President Carter introduced price controls on gasoline that produced long lines. I am right, as shown by the following entry from Wikepedia on the 1979 energy crisis: "In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls. ...[/quote]Carter did no such thing; he [I]ended[/I] wage and price controls in all areas other than oil and gasoline, and began the phaseout of those remaining controls. His plan for that phaseout had them finally disappearing in what would have been his second term if he had been reelected. (Reagan got to celebrate the end of the last vestiges, instead.) However, certain conservatives have been (successfully) intent on distorting this part of history, giving Reagan credit for this and other achievements (e.g., taming inflation) that were actually the result of Carter's actions.

From "Carter and crude: setting the record straight" at [URL]http://www.powermag.com/ExportedSite/BlogArticles/27.htm[/URL]:

[quote][[I]Washington Times[/I] conservative columnist Bruce] Bartlett, in a memory lapse shared by many conservatives, blamed Jimmy Carter for imposing energy price controls. That’s an entirely bum rap. Whatever one has to say about Jimmy Carter and energy policy – and there is plenty to come in this article – he didn’t impose oil price controls.[/quote]

Carter did do some loopy things -- his synfuels program was a bust, for instance. But he certainly wasn't as terrible as many conservatives would like you believe.

(Yes, Carter-slander is one of my hot buttons. I think history has many valuable lessons for us, but only if that history is factually accurate.)