Craig Haynie wrote:
I suggest we are seeing the the effects produced by a society and its
technical problems becoming too complex for the average person to
properly comprehend. The energy problem is one example of an issue
that is only properly understood by people having either technical
training or the intelligence and interest to understand the complex
relationships. ...
But please understand that there is also political disagreement. To
some of us who consider ourselves capitalists, it's not proper to try
to change market behavior through legislation. Also, I've spent a
great deal of time studying market economics, and it appears to me
that free markets are excellent at handling scarcity. As a resource
becomes more scarce, prices rise due to the economic law of supply and
demand. As prices rise, alternatives to the scarce resource become
more economically feasible. The market is self-correcting, and as
such, it doesn't look to me like any energy policy based on resource
scarcity can, or should be, modified through legislation. The only
exception to this rule that I can think of, would be an exception
based on national security. In other words, if we believe that other
nations can threaten our oil supply, and drastically change resource
scarcity in a short period of time, which would interfere with the
natural law of supply and demand, then legislation to reduce our
dependence on imported oil could be necessary, not because of market
failure, but because of market intervention by foreign, aggressive,
nations.
So I don't think it's fair to say: a) that there's an energy problem;
and b) that it's only properly understood through education. This
totally disregards the political disagreements which may exist.
Good point. However, what factors drive the political arguments? If
the political issue is one of allowing the market place to react and
define the solution, I agree this is good approach. However, if the
political argument is based on which solution gives the greatest
economic benefit to which industry, that is entirely different. The
recent situation appears to me to be influenced strongly by which
industry will benefit most, not by which solution will benefit society
in general. The result is legislation being enacted by "conservatives"
and "free market" ideologues that favor certain industries. The bottom
line is that the political arguments are based on greed, not on finding
the best solution. Perhaps, the fact that the solution is being
distorted by greed is not important to you. Nevertheless, I would hope
you would want to know what the best solution is as a way to decide if
society might be paying too high a price for this greed.
Ed
Sincerely,
Craig Haynie (Houston)
