Well, I ordered the book based on the less than enthusiastic (first)
review on the Amazon site. The economic ideas seems rather logical, but
perhaps too idealist and remote for use in actual decision making, as
opposed to practical solutions to present problems.
Speaking of practicality - has any economist ever done a computer model
of whether - and most of all - at what price the USA would be better
off, as a last resort to eliminate out reliance on Arab oil, by
converting our massive coal supplies to methanol ?
Let's say we can supply 30% of our needs in the USA with domestic oil.
We definitely have the coal resources, and the technology to supply the
other 70% with coal-based methanol, but it would be at a higher cost.
How high a cost is doable? Can we factor in the cost of being less
dependent on our sworn-enemies as part of the formula ?
If oil is at $80-100 per barrel, and and the equivalent energy from coal
based methanol costs $150 - then by the time we could build 20-50 large
conversion plants in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska etc. the
price of OPEC crude would be even more.
But Catch-22 - in so doing, the increased supply of oil on the world
market would force the price of that crude back down. So our economic
competitors (China) become prime beneficiaries.
Nevertheless - this is such an attractive proposition from a number of
different perspectives (eliminating the temptation of Oil-Wars) that it
is surprising that one of the Candidates has not jumped on it.
Jones
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Eric Beinhocker examines a new model for economics in THE ORIGIN OF
WEALTH: The Radical Remaking of Economics and What It Means for Business
and Society. Pretty provocative and it may answer Richard’s criterion.
Good weekend, all.
