Dan Minette wrote:
> I saw that, and it was more than I expected. I read it carefully, and saw
> that the actual decrease was 8%. With a 50% price increase and a drop in
> the dot.com ecconomy (is California in a recession now?), I would have
> expected at least a 5% drop. Still, I must admit that it is better than I
> expected.
>
California isn't really in a recession, unemployment is still around 4% in the
bay area. Real estate is experiencing a downturn, but it was artificially
high anyway.
> > I'm in the Bay area, >500 miles North of L.A.
> >
>
> Right, and I couldn't get numbers for the bay area. But, LA is the largest
> metro area in calf, right?
>
Well, it's the largest metro in the country, isn't it? But the bay area
S.F./Oakland/San Jose is also one of the largest in the country, so severe
weather here could definitely influence state consumption.
> Yea, I can guess. But, I would argue that it is not based in reality. If
> it were then scientists who's jobs depended on commercial fusion would have
> to had falsified data under pressure from big oil. Plasmoid friends of mine
> would have to had lied to me over beers under pressure from big oil.
I don't think anyone is falsifying data, I think that there are probably more
subtle ways to influence R&D. And I think that Oil interests outside of the
U.S. probably have a hand in all of this too.
> If the influence of the leaders of the oil industry were that powerful, why in the
> world did they let busts that gutted the industry to happen?
I don't think that they can control the economy, though I might note that the
two major energy crisis in my lifetime ('73 and '79) have been orchestrated by
OPEC. And I'd bet that the downturns didn't hurt the big fish in the industry
anyway.
Look, you're right, my hunches that there are dark forces at work here aren't
based on evidence. They are based on observation of what has happened in the
past (in and out of the industry), and judgments of human nature. If nuclear
power (fission or fusion) threatens their turf, oil interests should be
expected to do what they can to intervene, legal, ethical, or not. The extent
to which it is happening is unknown, but I think it would be naive to assume
that they are sitting on their hands. Now part of that might be keeping
prices artificially low, I don't know, just speculating.
> The coal industry has seen a 20 year depression too, its hasn't been just
> oil that's been down. And, remember, with the glut of energy, consumption
> will continue to rise. Gasoline and electricity had been in short supply
> because the profit margins weren't worth the risk of building new plants.
> But, energy itself had been in oversupply for almost 20 years.
I wish we could turn around the rise of consumption. Even in cases where
resources are unlikely to be in short supply. It's a trend based on
wastefulness and disrespect for the resources our planet has provided us. IMO.
If there is a choice between wasteful consumption and preserving the natural
beauty of the earth, I hope we choose preservation in as much as it is
possible and practical.
Doug
