Economics

[Biochemist]

Okay, let us take oil out of the economy and return to 1899, and see how our economy grows.

OK

What are we using for light? What are we using for transportation?

in 1899, it was (in order) coal, railroads and horses. Coal is still a large part of our energy supply, and it would be even greater were it not for environmental restrictions.

Do we have roads? Why? What are they made of? What is in the local grocery stores and how did it get there? Here is some information for determining what is in a grocery store.

I am not sure what point you are making now. There is little doubt that under any scenario, any productive economy needs an energy source. They will either produce it domestically (as most economies attempt) or they will buy it (like Japan). Oil just happened to be a relatively inexpensive energy source over the last 100 years.

And just for fun, what does the second world war look like without oil, and what is the position of the US at the end of this war, without oil?

I don't understand the first part of this question. But the second part is a little easier. There is little doubt that the US was advantaged (at least slightly) by domestic oil reserves, but that was not the major drive for the US economy. The US could have had no reserves at all, and it would not have materially altered the growth from 1950-2000. Oil was cheap (from any source) until the 70s. Then the volatility drove a lot of hand-wringing over the market position of OPEC. But if the price of oil per barrel rises above $120 and stays there, the US (and Canada) will again have domestic supply for fossil fuel through the next several hundred years.

[nutronjon]

OKin 1899, it was (in order) coal, railroads and horses. Coal is still a large part of our energy supply, and it would be even greater were it not for environmental restrictions. I am not sure what point you are making now. There is little doubt that under any scenario, any productive economy needs an energy source. They will either produce it domestically (as most economies attempt) or they will buy it (like Japan). Oil just happened to be a relatively inexpensive energy source over the last 100 years. I don't understand the first part of this question. But the second part is a little easier. There is little doubt that the US was advantaged (at least slightly) by domestic oil reserves, but that was not the major drive for the US economy. The US could have had no reserves at all, and it would not have materially altered the growth from 1950-2000. Oil was cheap (from any source) until the 70s. Then the volatility drove a lot of hand-wringing over the market position of OPEC. But if the price of oil per barrel rises above $120 and stays there, the US (and Canada) will again have domestic supply for fossil fuel through the next several hundred years.

 

 

You came the closest to answering the questions, and I can not tell how much I appreciate that. For the question of my intentions, if everyone would attempt to answer the questions I ask, the intention of them would become clear. Thank you Biochemist for your efforts.

 

Zythryn, you used a pretend reality to answer the questions, so your answers are invalid. Heck, may be Jesus is going to save us, or aliens might land with all the solutions to our problems, but, for the purpose of dealing with reality, please, avoid using your wish list for the answers to the questions.

 

Thinking of horses and steam engines that burn coal, if we never had oil, because let's pretend there is not such thing, what does our country look like? Where are the lines of transportation. Where are the centers of wealth? How is food produced and distributed (keeping in mind the lack of chemical fertilizers, pestisides and herbisides). And please, what do we use for making roads without oil? Focus as clearly as you can on these questions, okay. Kind of like if an economics professor is asking the questions and you need a good grade.

 

Let us really pay attention to WWII without oil. Come on, you all can do this.

Let us pretend oil was never discovered. Take out of WWII everything dependent on oil. What does that war look like now? What does lack of oil do to agriculture and military technology? Where is the power, and likely victory, going to go? How does the lack of oil change things?

 

If there had been no oil in the world, Japan would not have bombed the US. My questions about oil and war can generate very stimulating discussion, directly related to economics and our world view. To help develop the comprehension of this fact, here is part of a google page.

 

How Important Was Oil in World War II?How Important Was Oil in World War II? By Keith Miller ... Without it World War Two could never have been won. For oil, once processed or refined in various ...

hnn.us/articles/339.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

 

CHAPTER FOUR: Standard Oil Fuels World War IIDuring World War II Standard Oil of New Jersey was accused of treason .... and war would have been impossible without Farben's synthetic rubber production. ...

reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_04.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

 

The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II GermanyIt is interesting to note that without Austria, West Germany’s crude oil production ... finishing a manuscript on the German war economy of World War II. ...

The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany - 35k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

 

European Theatre of World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOne of the major problems faced by the Nazi war machine in World War II was a shortage of oil. For this reason, Germany decided to give up on Moscow for the ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Theatre_of_World_War_II - 135k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

 

Oil Strategy in World War II | Oil150.comWorld War II-by far the greatest, and probably the most sanguinary, conflict ever fought-dramatically emphasized the indispensability of oil to any strategy ...

Oil Strategy in World War II | Oil150.com - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

[Zythryn]

Zythryn, you used a pretend reality to answer the questions, so your answers are invalid.

 

Sorry nutronjon, perhaps I didn't understand your question. I was responding to this:

 

And just for fun, what does the second world war look like without oil, and what is the position of the US at the end of this war, without oil?

 

Now, since your question was phrased as a what if, then my answers were phrased as a what if.

So how is it they are invalid?

(Thank you for your patience)

 

Thinking of horses and steam engines that burn coal, if we never had oil, because let's pretend there is not such thing, what does our country look like? Where are the lines of transportation. Where are the centers of wealth? How is food produced and distributed (keeping in mind the lack of chemical fertilizers, pestisides and herbisides). And please, what do we use for making roads without oil?

 

To quote someone I am sure you will reguard as a valid poster:

you used a pretend reality to answer[pose] the questions, so your answers[questions] are invalid.

 

 

Let us pretend oil was never discovered. Take out of WWII everything dependent on oil. What does that war look like now? What does lack of oil do to agriculture and military technology? Where is the power, and likely victory, going to go? How does the lack of oil change things?

 

you used a pretend reality to answer[pose] the questions, so your answers[questions] are invalid.

 

If there had been no oil in the world, Japan would not have bombed the US.

 

you used a pretend reality to answer[pose] the questions, so your answers[questions] are invalid.

 

My questions about oil and war can generate very stimulating discussion, directly related to economics and our world view. To help develop the comprehension of this fact, here is part of a google page.

 

Here I agree with you completely. I personally think this is a fascinating subject. And I would love to discuss this more. However if I am not allowed to speculate, it is difficult to discuss someone using speculation:naughty:

[Biochemist]

Let us really pay attention to WWII without oil...

Let us pretend oil was never discovered. Take out of WWII everything dependent on oil. What does that war look like now?

I am still note really sure what you are driving toward on this, Nutro. Oil was a driver because it was a convenient, inexpensive source of fuel. There are others before and since (e.g., coal before, nuclear power since). In any war, advances in technology (including fuel technology) typically advantage all participants. WWII would indeed have had a different character without oil (particularly in terms of air power). But the political issues (German hegemony, Japaneses imperialism, etc) still existed and were driving toward a confrontation that the US was likely to engage.

If there had been no oil in the world, Japan would not have bombed the US.

Huh? The Japanese had already advanced on major portions of China, Southeast Asia, Korea and the South Pacific before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Are you suggesting that all of this was about their thirst for oil, or just their attack on the US?

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by nutronjon View Post

Let us really pay attention to WWII without oil...

Let us pretend oil was never discovered. Take out of WWII everything dependent on oil. What does that war look like now?

The Germans mainly used coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Borensen says somewhere else here that SA runs on this now.

Australia has masses of coal, so too has SA (?)

 

Making oil from Gopher Weed was supposed to be economic at $65 a barrel ( somewhere on these forums I learnt that)

What happened to that idea?

[Mike C]

To All

 

I would like to clarify what I said earlier on this topic.

 

With our involvement in the New World Order, our economy (US) is now sliding down into a depression.

Reason?

The billionaire population is exploding by the hundreds and will be increasing over time.

Our workers are being forced to accept reductions in healthcare benifits and pension and wage cuts that means reduced buying power.

 

So while the upper level incomes are inflating and the lower incomes shrinking, this reduced buying power means there will be less cars, houses and other such tangible goods to be sold.

 

So this spread of wealth is increasing to where our economy is now slowing down into a depression.

 

So, I think those billionaires ought to start paying higher taxes on their UNneeded surplus income and start buying cars and houses by the hundreds to create more jobs.

Those Chinese workers are not going to buy our cars and houses, thats for sure.

 

Mike C