$100 USD per Oil Barrel Scenario

Perhaps: Nationalization of oil companies assets in U.S. is a scenario
if this should happen, and there may well be WW II coupon-cards, black
markets, and cheatings ad hellum.

Oh yeah, well I hope we don't have to findout, but what is your
scenario?

Meanwhile, folks, as I've posted here previously: There is an explicit
incentivized car-pool means to adopt/adapt at least until other changes
are eventually made.

This is the Breitbart $100 USD a barrel scenario:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/0....5jqhfzft.html

This is how to temporarily solve the gosh-damned situation:



'If You Hate It, Why is This Concept Dumb?'
A solution to our public-transportation woes


By Randall Osborne


Sick of traffic jams on the ozone-shrouded freeway into Atlanta? Tired
of the
backed-up clog on Pike Street heading through Lawrenceville? Robert
Cohen has
an idea.
I like it.


Cohen's partial solution to traffic woes is "obvious (at least to me),"



he
writes in a memo to county planners. But it hasn't been obvious to
everyone
else. Cohen, of Lawrenceville, is getting the word out. "Encouragement
of
reproduction in whole or part," he adds, fragmentally, to the two-page
document. "Not copyrighted."


His plan has a few hitches. Cohen admits that much, right off the bat.
For
example, to make it work, insurance companies would have to
"reconfigure" the
way they write liability policies. What's more, Atlanta and Fulton
County --
which have monopolized the taxi and limo market -- would have to ease
up a bit,
and ...


You're probably starting to figure it out.


Anyway, once we bring the insurance companies in line and bust up the
sweet
deal held in place by chauffers in Fulton County, we can move on to
Cohen's
plan. Summed up, in his words, it's this: "Fare-payin' passengers."


Old-timers will recall a bumper sticker along these lines, favored by
ruffian
hippies. The sticker bore a little rhyme that dealt with an anatomy
part and
with hemp, using slang vernacular for each and concluding that "nobody
rides
for free."


In Cohen's world, few people would. "We need to reconceptualize," he
writes. In
the memo, Cohen reconceptualizes like all get out.


"A major problem with facilitating the private vehicles carrying of
paying
passengers also has to do with crime potential," he writes. "One
solution might
be that potential paying passengers could carry picture ID (cards) and
these ID
(cards) could be scanned or checked via the vehicles' cellular
telephones. Such
a screening process would seemingly be of some expense, but it is a
technological possibility to utilize."


Under Cohen's plan, the driver would not be obliged to take anybody
with a
valid card. "There would be no requirement that a vehicle would carry
just
anybody who is unknown to the driver," he writes, which is a relief.
"In the
typical situations where the drivers and passengers are co-workers
and/or
neighbors (thus known to each other), then no screening is needed
anyway."


No, but you could still charge them. That's the beauty of the plan. The



car-pool moocher would be a phenomenon of the past. Nobody rides for
free.


Exact amounts owed could be calculated. "Electronic taxi meters
themselves
should now hopefully be cheaper because of efficiencies in electronics.



Best
Buy, et. al., might sell and install the things. Or the vehicles'
odometers
could be utilized along with (the) wris****ch, and a simple formula
formulated."


Cohen's memo is more than practical advice. He throws in a few
opinions, too.
"The perimeter highway in DeKalb County is becoming increasingly
clogged," he
declares. "I currently favor an outer perimeter, possibly as a toll
road."


Mostly, though, Cohen wants to guide officials through the process of
clearing
up the roads. "The concept is to encourage more
semi-public/semi-private taxis,
so that not as many cars are needed. The incentive system could help to



solve
the transportation problem -- if institutions and laws could
appropriately be
reconfigured."


Ah, there's the rub. Cohen includes a series of questions in which he
rails at
conditions that he knows are bad. Very bad. "Is our society too
crime-prone for
this?" he asks, apparently in reference to the prospect of bogus ID
cards.
"Does the automotive industry want to sell less vehicles?" He seems to
know the
answer. "Isn't Gwinnett doomed to gridlock, no matter what? If you hate



it, why
is this concept dumb? Please critique."


I'm no traffic planner, so I'm hardly qualified to critique. Plus, the
memo
wasn't addressed to me. I only got a copy.


But, in the manner of a non-skeptic and optimist, I like Cohen's
solutions.
They suggest an earlier time of free enterprise, the pioneering spirit,



rugged
individualism and clean air -- not to mention ruffian hippies, who
(unlike
everyone else) were not altogether serious. It was a time when (unlike
today)
people didn't really mean it when they said: "Nobody rides for free."


| Gwinnett Loaf Home | Copyright 1997 by Creative Loafing | Published
Feb. 15,
1997 |

Robert Cohen wrote:
Perhaps: Nationalization of oil companies assets in U.S. is a scenario
if this should happen, and there may well be WW II coupon-cards, black
markets, and cheatings ad hellum.

Why would rationing be needed? There isn't a shortage.

"mrtravel" wrote ...
Robert Cohen wrote:
Perhaps: Nationalization of oil companies assets in U.S. is a scenario
if this should happen, and there may well be WW II coupon-cards, black
markets, and cheatings ad hellum.

Why would rationing be needed? There isn't a shortage.

....and unlike wartime with major military and industrial demands to
prioritize, there's a point to which prices rise at which demand begins to
fall (even when dealing with this sort of commodity). Natural gas prices
have already dropped well below their peaks, both in spot and futures
markets.

.....and when "West Texas Benchmark Sweet Crude" of which there's none in
West Texas reaches $100, you can rest assured that alot of producers with
$50 "sour" (High sulphur) crude will ramp up production (as its price also
creeps up a bit).

Robert's shared rides are a good idea, just as jitney cabs dominate a major
portion of the NYC market, but in real terms hardly amont to a molehill
beside the Mount Everest of overall consumption.

Of course we could charge more for airline tickets, and not let flights
depart until every seat was full....:-P

TMO

nationalization

why "nationalize" if no "shortage?"

a very fair point

Perhaps the words "prioritize" and "regimentizations" may help explain.

Trucks will need to deliver food & goods to Walmart.

Cars going to the beach for the weekend--nope.

Therefore, $100 a barrel oil COULD BE AN HELLE ON EARTH OF GOVT
REGULATION, the opposite of what our political-economy has been about
through "market forces."

Of course this is merely my scenario.

I'd ****en nuke & refine
the tar sands in Wyoming (or Alberta), or sumthin first.

I have feared the worst case scenario(s) since at least 1973, and it
hgas always puzzled me why others seem so oblivious the the obvious.


TOliver wrote:
"mrtravel" wrote ...
Robert Cohen wrote:
Perhaps: Nationalization of oil companies assets in U.S. is a scenario
if this should happen, and there may well be WW II coupon-cards, black
markets, and cheatings ad hellum.

Why would rationing be needed? There isn't a shortage.

...and unlike wartime with major military and industrial demands to
prioritize, there's a point to which prices rise at which demand begins to
fall (even when dealing with this sort of commodity). Natural gas prices
have already dropped well below their peaks, both in spot and futures
markets.

....and when "West Texas Benchmark Sweet Crude" of which there's none in
West Texas reaches $100, you can rest assured that alot of producers with
$50 "sour" (High sulphur) crude will ramp up production (as its price also
creeps up a bit).

Robert's shared rides are a good idea, just as jitney cabs dominate a major
portion of the NYC market, but in real terms hardly amont to a molehill
beside the Mount Everest of overall consumption.

Of course we could charge more for airline tickets, and not let flights
depart until every seat was full....:-P

TMO

On 7 Jun 2006 04:47:25 -0700, "Robert Cohen"
wrote:

nationalization

why "nationalize" if no "shortage?"

a very fair point

Perhaps the words "prioritize" and "regimentizations" may help explain.

Trucks will need to deliver food & goods to Walmart.

Cars going to the beach for the weekend--nope.

Therefore, $100 a barrel oil COULD BE AN HELLE ON EARTH OF GOVT
REGULATION, the opposite of what our political-economy has been about
through "market forces."

Of course this is merely my scenario.

I'd ****en nuke & refine
the tar sands in Wyoming (or Alberta), or sumthin first.

I have feared the worst case scenario(s) since at least 1973, and it
hgas always puzzled me why others seem so oblivious the the obvious.



snipped

Geez, Cohen, can't you learn to write a coherent message?

Are you sitting there in a drunken stupor just typing any words that
come into your mind?

Every hear of paragraphs?

Robert Cohen wrote:
nationalization

why "nationalize" if no "shortage?"

a very fair point

Perhaps the words "prioritize" and "regimentizations" may help explain.

Trucks will need to deliver food & goods to Walmart.

Cars going to the beach for the weekend--nope.

Therefore, $100 a barrel oil COULD BE AN HELLE ON EARTH OF GOVT
REGULATION, the opposite of what our political-economy has been about
through "market forces."


You are talking about a 35 percent increase in the price of oil.
It's not going to be a national emergency.
We will adjust our usage habits, perhaps, but it's not an emergency.
After all, that price will still be less what many Europeans pay.

I compose the way I compose.

This is my rebellion.

The HARBRACE HANDBOOK is not my Bible.

I enjoy how & what I post.

It is about me & my self-indulgence.

No editor nor grammarian nor English professor likes me.

No orthodox conservative nor stringent liberal leftist enjoys what I
assert.

This is the real me.

No other can say this.

F paragraphs.

F periods.

F commas.

F everything that I consider Mickey Mouse.

Hey, protocols & formalities & rules & conformities & civilizing & good
breeding & everything are for others.

Here is what haqppened approx 10 years ago when I first started:

I saw that seemingly idiotic lower case ****e, and it quickly made me
realize that RULES ARE SUBJECT TO ADAPTATIONS, or whatever the King
puter jockey says is reality.

So, I've decided to do my shtik/act.

If people openly object, I try to explain, and if they don't object, I
explain anyhow when I feel like doing so.

Hey, it could be worse & more confusing than I make it.

I like to do the Letterman ripoffs too.

I consider him my protegee: Someday he'll be infamous & people could
get a nightly laff at their absurdities.



John wrote:
On 7 Jun 2006 04:47:25 -0700, "Robert Cohen"
wrote:

nationalization

why "nationalize" if no "shortage?"

a very fair point

Perhaps the words "prioritize" and "regimentizations" may help explain.

Trucks will need to deliver food & goods to Walmart.

Cars going to the beach for the weekend--nope.

Therefore, $100 a barrel oil COULD BE AN HELLE ON EARTH OF GOVT
REGULATION, the opposite of what our political-economy has been about
through "market forces."

Of course this is merely my scenario.

I'd ****en nuke & refine
the tar sands in Wyoming (or Alberta), or sumthin first.

I have feared the worst case scenario(s) since at least 1973, and it
hgas always puzzled me why others seem so oblivious the the obvious.



snipped

Geez, Cohen, can't you learn to write a coherent message?

Are you sitting there in a drunken stupor just typing any words that
come into your mind?

Every hear of paragraphs?

At some point, $100, $105, $125, the financial equilibrium of the World
as we have known it shall probably collapse.

Market forces--such as they are--do indeed temporarily rationalize oil
consumption; BUT our culture is also seemingly almost entirely
dependent upon cheap petroleum.

Here is that Marx-Engels theory/observation/doomsday concept, I
suppose.

Exploitation inevitably goes too far... for all parties concerned.

We've now had since 1973 to think & prepare for plans B, C, D ... ..

The terrific $5 & $10 & $17 & $20 a barrel oil stiffled & corrupted our
tunnel vision.

It has never so fooled me, because commodities do inevitably dissipate
& prices do responde/fluctuate accordingly.

This oil phenomenon has been a question of when.

Oil investors patiently awaited the inevitable price rise.

Gore's fear/warning is being proven, and rightwingish dumb radio &
other bumper sticker thinkings are being empirically debunked.

mrtravel wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
nationalization

why "nationalize" if no "shortage?"

a very fair point

Perhaps the words "prioritize" and "regimentizations" may help explain.

Trucks will need to deliver food & goods to Walmart.

Cars going to the beach for the weekend--nope.

Therefore, $100 a barrel oil COULD BE AN HELLE ON EARTH OF GOVT
REGULATION, the opposite of what our political-economy has been about
through "market forces."


You are talking about a 35 percent increase in the price of oil.
It's not going to be a national emergency.
We will adjust our usage habits, perhaps, but it's not an emergency.
After all, that price will still be less what many Europeans pay.