Letters to the Editor
mike_labonte
Published Letters: 21
-
The collusion factor
[Read the article: The case for oil price speculation improves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In theory, supply/demand always sets the price. The ultimate buyers of crude are refineries. How is it different if they used to buy 100% from oil suppliers and now have to buy 70% from speculators? The buyers simply buy from whomever accepts the lowest price, right? And speculators have great pressure to let their selling price drop in a pinch, because what they can't do is take delivery of the crude.
Unless there is collusion. If the sellers are few, the chance of a renegade low-ball seller among them is reduced. Andrew addresses the question: have speculators reduced the number of sellers refineries have to buy from? If so, that drives up the price of oil. Even if there is no discussion of collusion among them, they all know that all of their oil will sell, and there are few enough speculators to maintain confidence that no one will break away.
-
Standing up to oil companies does not equal understanding energy
[Read the article: Sarah Palin's stiletto]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Standing up to oil companies to extract money from them does not mean Sarah Palin understands energy. Having a renewable energy program is a better indication. But Palin believes that renewable energy requires more research and is at least 10 years away. Apparently she does not feel that our adoption of renewable energy could be way ahead of where it is today, where it not for Washington lobbyists.
Anyway, I read her convention speech and was not surprised to find that she lies like a politician. She may disagree somewhat with her party, but she agrees with them that spreading lies about the opposition is simply required. And so the Washington insider indoctrination begins ...
-
The economics of keeping Alaska
[Read the article: The economics of Alaskan secession]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For the U.S., Alaska's number one purpose is to keep the Russian border that much further away from the mainland. Alaska is riddled with military bases, and my guess is without those bases the Alaskan population might eventually decline to 100,000 people. But Alaska also provides minerals, mostly petroleum, and fish.
The oil is of course temporary, and once it becomes uneconomical the Alaskan economy will not support anywhere near the approximately 1 million people it will have at that point. The exodus will take maybe 10 years ... unless an alternative economy can be found.
But living in Alaska is expensive. It is energy intensive all around, even down to the transportation system. So Alaska will not become the next hub for telemarketers or any other occupation that pays too little to live anywhere but an efficient urban setting. It might become a fishery state, but there are ecological limits to the number of fisherman that can be supported.
At some point we may find ourselves again questioning Seward's Folly. Currently Alaska takes in 89% more federal money than it pays out, according to the Tax Foundation. When that reaches 200% and more there's gonna be a lot of 'splaining to do. We may find ourselves comparing the cost of Alaska to the theoretical cost of wars and proxy wars with Russia, and who knows which will be cheaper?