OrionWorks wrote:
Continuing my own cynical rant I'd like to mention that the Kiplinger
Letter, a conservative think tank, recently commented on the fact that
most OPEC heads do not want their prices to skyrocket either.
This has been their policy from day one, as I said. It is common
knowledge. This is what they say publicly, and their prices have
always been a bargain. They could have raised the price oil much
higher any time after OPEC was formed in 1960, and especially after
U.S. oil resources peaked and began to decline rapidly in the 1970s.
But they have kept prices low because they are not fools. They charge
enough to make maximum profit without damaging the economies of their
principal customers. Of course the prices are high enough to starve
people in the third world, but that doesn't bother OPEC, or us.
OPEC, at least the smarter heads who are trying to run things behind closed
doors, are well aware of what the future holds for their way-of-life
if AE R&D picks up speed and begins to make inroads.
OPEC is highly secretive, but this is not a "closed-door" policy
decision. It is what they say publicly, and their prices prove they
mean it. First world nations cannot complain about OPEC pricing. My
only complaint about the price of oil is that it is far too low in
the U.S. Starting in 1975, we should have taxed gasoline at several
dollars per gallon, the way they do in Europe and Japan to discourage
consumption. We should have invested the revenue in plug-in hybrids
and alternative energy. That would have thwarted OPEC's low-cost
pricing scheme, which is intended to keep us from developing
alternatives. That, too, is not a closed-door policy. It is no
secret. They have said all along they want to discourage alternative
energy research. Nixon told the Saudis he would develop nuclear power
if they did not keep oil prices low. They didn't believe him, but
they didn't want to test his resolve, either. This is described in
"The Prize" along with much else.
- Jed
