Redstate

and understand how the world works. The other 25% are socialists who took economics so they could come up with new and twisted ways to support their evil doctrine.*

*Mostly tongue in cheek, though I do wonder about a few of the more leftists economists...

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

The other 25% were people who dabbled in Political Science or Public Finance, or are otherwise invested in the government machinery.

As for where that places me, as an economist who also has a B.A. in Political Science and still emerged an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I blame the fact that my attendance of Political Science classes was limited to assignment submission and test taking a lot of the time.

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

The other 25% were raised in households where you are taught to believe in managed economies. They became economists precisely to learn how to manage an economy as a living and look forward to doing so in an Obama administration.

They are the ones that believe socialism not only still looks good on paper but will work with the right support and the right people. They believe they can suceed where everyone else has failed.

Side note Brian, even on paper socialism is still slavery.

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

I agree about socialism being slavery even on paper if you bother to work out the logical outcome. My signature was based on a standard answer I gave to people who would post socialist utopian ideas without actually thinking them through. For a while I was repeating it often enough that I just decided it would be more efficient to use it as my sig.

I haven't been arguing with enough socialists lately. Maybe I'll start cruising the communist sites again. 8*)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

As I recall, once the sustained price of oil exceeds $40/barrel, it becomes cost efficient to refine oil shale into crude oil. We've been at that level for long enough, and the trends are solid enough that someone should be doing this. Except of course that the Surrender Now! democrats in congress won't let anybody do that. And once you add oil shale to the oil reserves, then the US has as much oil as Saudi Arabia, and Canada has more. Granted, that price is still double what we were paying a year ago, but a $45 floor is a heck of a lot better than a $90 floor on crude. That way WE could become a major exporter to India and China and undermine the financing of the terrorist through OPEC.

People keep acting like this is a whole new scenario. It isn't. Carter faced the exact same problem in the late 70s. Since his party supported the same tree worshippers the Dems are beholden to now, he was unable to stem the rising price of oil. Reagan came in, said drill where we can and bring new sources online, and the intractable problem went away in less than a month. If Congress authorized drilling in ANWAR, the price of oil would drop $10 on the day it was announced. OPEC would immediately get the message that we were no longer going to be held hostage to their production policies, and they'd know that selling us some oil at a reduced price is better than selling is no oil at all, plus losing their export markets in India and China.

Can you proved some evidence on the amount of Oil Shale we have in the US?

Also, I think peak oil is a big problem. I know new sources will help and we should be drilling more but the fact that india and china are consuming so much more is a big problem. If it is true that a lot of middle eastern countries are at or getting close to peak oil production means that it is going to be very hard to keep up with demand.

but since I'm a conservative and expect you to carry your load in the debate, I'll simply say that Google is your friend. I will help you out a bit: "oil shale in US" should be your search parameters. Second selection down is a PDF from a non-conservative institution.

But thanks. Now that I've checked the numbers and found them to be even better than my foggy memory provided (mmm, TRIPLE the resource of Saudi Arabia!), I'll be better positioned to correct you and the rest of your "peak oil" fixated friends.