Quote:
Originally Posted by Orange_Juice  The theory is sound. Your numbers, or lack of, are not though. Cutting back can save massive amounts of oil that can never be replaced. Drilling will only bring so much oil to the surface to be used. We possess 3% of the world's known reserves yet use 25% of the oil. You do the math. Where is there more room for improvement, the supply or demand side?
On top of that, with China's economy growing by 10% a year there is no way the world can even think of meeting that demand without serious conservation efforts |
So let me get this straight. My "lack" of numbers are not sound? That's like saying "The statement you did not state is not true." I wasn't crunching any numbers or discrediting your OP genius.
If you'd read the post...I said some liberals will claim that by increasing supply, the price will do nothing...which is a fallacy in regards to Keynesian Ecnomic Theory. They only do this, presuming, that if supply increases, demand will increase. Which is retarded, because consumers have no frickin clue what supply is, and would not therefore increase their purchasing of it based on something that is not contempated on when they decide if they'll buy gasoline or not. In the same breath, they'll say that the demand has decreased, so the price is falling. No matter which way you look at it--in the end, supply is increasing and is more than the demand. I'm not disagreeing with you, but asking why liberals or conservatives for that matter, cherry-pick information.
At the end of the day, conserving or drilling increases the supply over the demand. But, now it's ok because it fits a liberal agenda and/or talking point.