Tapping the strategic oil reserve = dumb idea, Obama

[TheShiznit]

good god.

 

supply and demand are "curves". that means they are not absolute numbers, they fluctuate depending on price. lower price, higher demand. higher price, lower demand. higher price, higher supply. lower price, lower supply. if you increase supply, you change where the two "curves" intersect.

 

Ummm...this is not like selling a shovel in california Azz....this is gasoline that everyone needs. It is very easy to gauge supply needs and therefore refiners will produce enough supply to meet current demand. Look at oil prices....the have come down over 30 bucks a barrel and gas prices have only come down 30 to 35 cents off their highs? Why....because it isn't about supply...or demand...but it is about the worry that there may in the future be a supply problem...it has nothing to do with the right here and right now.

 

If gas prices are directly tied to the price of a barrel of oil, then gas prices should be priced at roughly 3.22 per gallon.....Are they? No...because no matter how much oil is...it only matter what refiners will refine...and they will not refine to where we have excess....and as long as this worrisome era of global speculation continues...then the true law of supply and demand really doesn't matter....because it is all a matter of perception versus reality.

[billay]

good god.

 

supply and demand are "curves". that means they are not absolute numbers, they fluctuate depending on price. lower price, higher demand. higher price, lower demand. higher price, higher supply. lower price, lower supply. if you increase supply, you change where the two "curves" intersect.

This is not a theoretical argument. Current prices of oil are based on large projected increases in global demand and uncertainty in regards to the longterm supply of oil. You are working on the assumption that there is an infinite supply of crude in the world and all we need to do is pump more to bring prices down.

[Clubfoothead]

And why do we need to lower gas prices?

 

Gas prices have doubled int he past few years, and you know what? It's having a good effect. People are buying fewer wasteful vehicles, and consumption is going down.

 

High gas prices are a good thing. Don't tap the reserves, don't subsidize exploration, and don't drill more. This is having a positive long-term effect.

 

+1

 

If the story I heard over the weekend about increased shipping/transportation costs returning manufacturing jobs to America because the shipping costs offset the cheap labor. If that's true, there's another benefit of current fuel costs.

 

I've never had a problem with high fuel prices. I have a problem with high fuel prices while Exxon sets profit records. But if you are going to impose a windfall tax on those profits to promote and invest in renewable energy then I'm all for that.

 

Can anyone explain what Obama means by swaping light and heave crude as part of releasing some of the strategic reserve?

 

BTW, until we leave Iraq, isn't that whole country at least unofficially, part of our strategic oil reserve?

[DemonKnight]

And why do we need to lower gas prices?

 

Gas prices have doubled int he past few years, and you know what? It's having a good effect. People are buying fewer wasteful vehicles, and consumption is going down.

 

High gas prices are a good thing. Don't tap the reserves, don't subsidize exploration, and don't drill more. This is having a positive long-term effect.

 

Why are we the only ones on this boardwho get this?

[Azazello1313]

Ummm...this is not like selling a shovel in california Azz....this is gasoline that everyone needs. It is very easy to gauge supply needs and therefore refiners will produce enough supply to meet current demand. Look at oil prices....the have come down over 30 bucks a barrel and gas prices have only come down 30 to 35 cents off their highs? Why....because it isn't about supply...or demand...but it is about the worry that there may in the future be a supply problem...it has nothing to do with the right here and right now.

 

If gas prices are directly tied to the price of a barrel of oil, then gas prices should be priced at roughly 3.22 per gallon.....Are they? No...because no matter how much oil is...it only matter what refiners will refine...and they will not refine to where we have excess....and as long as this worrisome era of global speculation continues...then the true law of supply and demand really doesn't matter....because it is all a matter of perception versus reality.

 

and all of that would just provide a very good rationale for lifting regulations against increasing domestic production NOW. if price fluctuations now are driven mostly by worries about future supply, then maybe it would be smart to take actions now that will affect future supply, and maybe it's not so outlandish to suggest that taking those actions now would affect price now, even if it didn't affect actual supply in the market for a number of years.

 

and of course, everything we're talking about here, speculation and whatnot, is totally within the basic operations of the laws of supply and demand, not beyond them. more supply still means lower prices, any way you try and slice it.

[yo mama]

1. Can anyone explain what Obama means by swaping light and heave crude as part of releasing some of the strategic reserve?

 

BTW, until we leave Iraq, isn't that whole country at least unofficially, part of our strategic oil reserve?

1. Many refineries aren't well-equipped to refine heavy crude. So by releasing light, sweet crude out of our reserves we can get more gasoline into circulation faster and cheaper. The refiners would then "repay" the strategic reserve with heavy crude at a later date, which is more costly to refine, on the assumption that we'll deal with refining that heavy crude at a later date. That would also have the effect of keeping more light, sweet crude in the refining process later on down the line. Basically, we move the better stuff into circulation now and downgrade the quality of our reserves, even though the total volume of reserves would be refilled.

 

2. Agreed. Last time I checked, we were still at war. This isn't exactly the best time to give away finite, strategic government resources to corporate America.

Edited August 4, 2008 by yo mama

[DemonKnight]

Right and if you quit smoking, the first few days you feel like crap. In the end, you're healthier.

Buying a carton of Chesterfields is a quick fix and you feel good, but in the end you're still in a crappy position.

 

Right now the economy is depressed because we're still a gas-based society... as it becomes unprofitable to do that... people will find more economical ways to handle their problems and we'll stop relying on the middle east to give us our lunch.

 

The market is controlling our energy policy, just like a free-market society should do. Subsidizing oil use through tapping the reserves, opening up our coasts and our national parks for drilling, or subsidizing exploration is communism, plain and simple.

 

 

Isnt that what all the free market people have been saying for the last 5 years ,every time I bring up that it is in our best interests to ween ourselves from oil? "Market forces wll make other alternatives available when oil becomes prohibitavely expensive". Now that is exactly what is hapening and all you conservative ninnys are crying for a government bail out. Shoulda prepared beforehand huh? I feel no remorse for all of the people suffering from high gas prices right now. A song for the grasshoppers

Edited August 4, 2008 by DemonKnight

[Azazello1313]

This is not a theoretical argument. Current prices of oil are based on large projected increases in global demand and uncertainty in regards to the longterm supply of oil. You are working on the assumption that there is an infinite supply of crude in the world and all we need to do is pump more to bring prices down.

 

I am working on the assumption that the current price of oil is affected by supply and demand (both current and predicted). of course, that's exactly what you said as well, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. has nothing to do with infinite anything. if more is produced, or expected to be produced, price goes down. just like, as you say, prices went up in response to higher demand and projected demand along with uncertainty in regards to supply.

[billay]

increased supply leads to lower prices.

My point was, if we are approaching the point of having consumed most of the oil the planet has to offer, or by increased global consumption, able to put a timetable on it's exhaustion, then there is no such thing as increased supply.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

UPDATE: From Obama's speech in Lansing:

 

You won’t hear me say this too often, but I couldn’t agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, “Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.”

 

What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it’s important to remember that he’s been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he’s really promoting is more offshore drilling – a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide “psychological” relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world’s oil reserves. Three percent for a country that uses 25% of the world's oil. Even Texas oilman Boone Pickens, who’s calling for major new investments in alternative energy, has said, “this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of.”

 

Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy. But it is not the solution. It is a political answer of the sort Washington has given us for three decades.

 

There are genuine ways in which we can provide some short-term relief from high gas prices – relief to the mother who’s cutting down on groceries because of gas prices, or the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and can’t even afford to drive around and look for a new one. I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now.

 

I also believe that in the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven’t touched. And if they don’t, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will. We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico. We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.

 

But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away.

[Azazello1313]

My point was, if we are approaching the point of having consumed most of the oil the planet has to offer, or by increased global consumption, able to put a timetable on it's exhaustion, then there is no such thing as increased supply.

 

except that, as long as there is still oil in the groud that can easily be gotten at, there IS such a thing as increased supply.

 

all the information I see says that there is plenty of oil to meet global demand for at least a few more decades, and that in a few more decades at most oil will be obsolete as a major fuel source anyway. if that is true, then the "finiteness" is not an issue either way.

[Clubfoothead]

except that, as long as there is still oil in the groud that can easily be gotten at, there IS such a thing as increased supply.

 

all the information I see says that there is plenty of oil to meet global demand for at least a few more decades, and that in a few more decades at most oil will be obsolete as a major fuel source anyway. if that is true, then the "finiteness" is not an issue either way.

 

In general, what would be your ideal energy policy for our next president?

Edited August 4, 2008 by Clubfoothead

[billay]

except that, as long as there is still oil in the groud that can easily be gotten at, there IS such a thing as increased supply.

 

all the information I see says that there is plenty of oil to meet global demand for at least a few more decades, and that in a few more decades at most oil will be obsolete as a major fuel source anyway. if that is true, then the "finiteness" is not an issue either way.

It's an issue because it's driving the price.

[TheShiznit]

And...just to dig a little deeper....this was not a total release of oil from the light sweet crude 70million barrels....and it is to be replaced with heavy crude....so it would be a swap....that I can live with.

 

ETA: I really do not see how doing this will lower prices at all of gasoline....but whatever.

Edited August 4, 2008 by TheShiznit

[dmarc117]

And why do we need to lower gas prices?

 

Gas prices have doubled int he past few years, and you know what? It's having a good effect. People are buying fewer wasteful vehicles, and consumption is going down.

 

High gas prices are a good thing. Don't tap the reserves, don't subsidize exploration, and don't drill more. This is having a positive long-term effect.

 

 

high gas prices make oil ceos hundreds of millions of dollars. i thought you commies had your panties in a bunch over this?? so you want poor people to starve and ceos to get richer???

[Azazello1313]

In general, what would be your ideal energy policy for our next president?

 

1) lift regulation against domestic drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWR and off the coasts, but end oil exploration subsidies -- I think the market for oil provides incentive enough.

2) build nuclear power plants, by far the most bang for the buck (ok maybe not the best cliche to use there )

3) provide subsidies for cleaner, more efficient and renewable energy, but tie them to actual performance. don't just funnel a bunch of corporate welfare to friendly industries, make more tax credits for people who buy a device that meets a particular efficiency standard, or for companies that use more wind power, as examples.

4) if you're going to spend government money, spend it on infrastructure. roads, trains, bridges, etc. one of the best ways to reduce oil consumption and carbon emmissions is to reduce the amount of time people spend dicking around in traffic. you don't JUST do this by getting them out of their cars completely. and besides, we're always going to have cars of some sort, so we're always going to need roads.

5) get rid of protectionist trade policies and domestic farm subsidies that keep viable biofuels like cellulosic, sugar-cane based ethanol from other countries out of our markets in order to protect big agra corn peddlers who are selling a product that is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (creating an artificial market and driving up food prices).

 

bottom line is the economy is in the process of changing from fossil fuels to other fuels. the government's role is important, but ultimately is secondary to the role of industry and markets, where all real innovation takes place. best thing the government can do is try and steer the process with goal-based incentives, to be prepared for different scenarios, and to keep the economy as strong as possible through the transition, so that it all works to our competitive advantage as a nation, rather than our competitive disadvantage. worst thing the government can do is try and micromanage every aspect of the economy, with more taxes, more regulation, and more corporate welfare to "good" corporations.

Edited August 4, 2008 by Azazello1313

[TheShiznit]

1) lift regulation against domestic drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWR and off the coasts, but end oil exploration subsidies -- I think the market for oil provides incentive enough.

2) build nuclear power plants, by far the most bang for the buck (ok maybe not the best cliche to use there )

3) provide subsidies for cleaner, more efficient and renewable energy, but tie them to actual performance. don't just funnel a bunch of corporate welfare to friendly industries, make more tax credits for people who buy a device that meets a particular efficiency standard, or for companies that use more wind power, as examples.

4) if you're going to spend government money, spend it on infrastructure. roads, trains, bridges, etc. one of the best ways to reduce oil consumption and carbon emmissions is to reduce the amount of time people spend dicking around in traffic. you don't JUST do this by getting them out of their cars completely.

5) get rid of protectionist trade policies and domestic farm subsidies that keep viable biofuels like cellulosic, sugar-cane based ethanol from other countries out of our markets in order to protect big agra corn peddlers who are selling a product that is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (creating an artificial market and driving up food prices).

 

bottom line is the economy is in the process of changing from fossil fuels to other fuels. the government's role is important, but ultimately is secondary to the role of industry and markets, where all real innovation takes place. best thing the government can do is try and steer the process with goal-based incentives, to be prepared for different scenarios, and to keep the economy as strong as possible through the transition, so that it all works to our competitive advantage as a nation, rather than our competitive disadvantage. worst thing the government can do is try and micromanage every aspect of the economy, with more taxes, more regulation, and more corporate welfare to "good" corporations.

 

wow...I could agree with most everything you post here.....kudos!!

[Skippy]

If the story I heard over the weekend about increased shipping/transportation costs returning manufacturing jobs to America because the shipping costs offset the cheap labor. If that's true, there's another benefit of current fuel costs.

Where did you hear this story? I would love to hear, read, watch or whatever. This is the sort of news that I would love to get behind. Something needs to get jobs back in America.

[tonorator]

just the news that we were intending to drill here would drive lower costs much sooner than 7-10 years because it would quell long term supply fears that exist today. the price reduction would not wait until the oil shipped but would happen on the news. we love news. news about everything.

 

and all you people who think high oil prices are a good thing for us are way, way off base. higher commodities are forcing all corporations, all over the world, to raise their prices for everything, since everything requires energy. these higher costs force companies to cut longer term developments and expansions that create future jobs and force companies to cut jobs in the short term to cover immediate rising costs. in addition, higher costs means lower profits which means our stock market stagnates or declines, which is definitely not good for all our retirement plans. so you have less expansion, less jobs, and declining investments. not good. bad, very bad.

 

and without all the great profits from our corporations, they won't have the profit and capital needed to even pursue alternative forms of energy. of course, you can tax the hell out of them as a penalty or to fund the government getting involved, but then you are killing the job-producing, investment-generating engine of our country. not smart.

 

bottom line is that alternative forms of energy need to be cheaper and make more sense for companies to convert. to convert, they need to be as healthy as possible in terms of capital and profits. no matter how green or altruistic the cause, you can't do jack without jack.

 

we need government policies that partner with our corporations to help bring about the change we need through the right kind of support and incentives. that is, of course, if you buy into the idea that we need to change to go more green, which is a massive debate vs. a given.

[Ursa Majoris]

1) lift regulation against domestic drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWR and off the coasts, but end oil exploration subsidies -- I think the market for oil provides incentive enough.

2) build nuclear power plants, by far the most bang for the buck (ok maybe not the best cliche to use there )

3) provide subsidies for cleaner, more efficient and renewable energy, but tie them to actual performance. don't just funnel a bunch of corporate welfare to friendly industries, make more tax credits for people who buy a device that meets a particular efficiency standard, or for companies that use more wind power, as examples.

4) if you're going to spend government money, spend it on infrastructure. roads, trains, bridges, etc. one of the best ways to reduce oil consumption and carbon emmissions is to reduce the amount of time people spend dicking around in traffic. you don't JUST do this by getting them out of their cars completely. and besides, we're always going to have cars of some sort, so we're always going to need roads.

5) get rid of protectionist trade policies and domestic farm subsidies that keep viable biofuels like cellulosic, sugar-cane based ethanol from other countries out of our markets in order to protect big agra corn peddlers who are selling a product that is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (creating an artificial market and driving up food prices).

 

bottom line is the economy is in the process of changing from fossil fuels to other fuels. the government's role is important, but ultimately is secondary to the role of industry and markets, where all real innovation takes place. best thing the government can do is try and steer the process with goal-based incentives, to be prepared for different scenarios, and to keep the economy as strong as possible through the transition, so that it all works to our competitive advantage as a nation, rather than our competitive disadvantage. worst thing the government can do is try and micromanage every aspect of the economy, with more taxes, more regulation, and more corporate welfare to "good" corporations.

I'd have a problem with the definition of deregulation in 1) but apart from that, I could live with this.

[Clubfoothead]

1) lift regulation against domestic drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWR and off the coasts, but end oil exploration subsidies -- I think the market for oil provides incentive enough.

2) build nuclear power plants, by far the most bang for the buck (ok maybe not the best cliche to use there )

3) provide subsidies for cleaner, more efficient and renewable energy, but tie them to actual performance. don't just funnel a bunch of corporate welfare to friendly industries, make more tax credits for people who buy a device that meets a particular efficiency standard, or for companies that use more wind power, as examples.

4) if you're going to spend government money, spend it on infrastructure. roads, trains, bridges, etc. one of the best ways to reduce oil consumption and carbon emmissions is to reduce the amount of time people spend dicking around in traffic. you don't JUST do this by getting them out of their cars completely. and besides, we're always going to have cars of some sort, so we're always going to need roads.

5) get rid of protectionist trade policies and domestic farm subsidies that keep viable biofuels like cellulosic, sugar-cane based ethanol from other countries out of our markets in order to protect big agra corn peddlers who are selling a product that is bad for the environment and bad for the economy (creating an artificial market and driving up food prices).

 

bottom line is the economy is in the process of changing from fossil fuels to other fuels. the government's role is important, but ultimately is secondary to the role of industry and markets, where all real innovation takes place. best thing the government can do is try and steer the process with goal-based incentives, to be prepared for different scenarios, and to keep the economy as strong as possible through the transition, so that it all works to our competitive advantage as a nation, rather than our competitive disadvantage. worst thing the government can do is try and micromanage every aspect of the economy, with more taxes, more regulation, and more corporate welfare to "good" corporations.

 

Not bad. I could nit pick, but I don't disagree with a lot of that. I certainly think we could use more nuclear power but we are woefully behind in waste recycling. I take it neither candidate really impresses you in this area?

 

I guess as usual, our difference of opinion comes down to the fact we disagree on who is best suited to steer us in the right direction the government or the free market. I'm not a total communist but I don't see the free market doing anything if it can't turn a buck and I'm not sure the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy can only take place if big corporations can't make millions or billions.

 

I wonder how much cheaper Solar Ray could sell his Mazda B2000 conversion kit with a little state or federal assistance. I think Solar Ray would be willing do operate on a lot smaller profit margin than Exxon. I'm sure if you asked him he'd tell you he would.

[Azazello1313]

Not bad. I could nit pick, but I don't disagree with a lot of that. I certainly think we could use more nuclear power but we are woefully behind in waste recycling. I take it neither candidate really impresses you in this area?

 

I guess as usual, our difference of opinion comes down to the fact we disagree on who is best suited to steer us in the right direction the government or the free market. I'm not a total communist but I don't see the free market doing anything if it can't turn a buck and I'm not sure the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy can only take place if big corporations can't make millions or billions.

 

I wonder how much cheaper Solar Ray could sell his Mazda B2000 conversion kit with a little state or federal assistance. I think Solar Ray would be willing do operate on a lot smaller profit margin than Exxon. I'm sure if you asked him he'd tell you he would.

 

exxon's profit margin is like 10%. I am willing to bet solar ray beats that.

[Clubfoothead]

exxon's profit margin is like 10%. I am willing to bet solar ray beats that.

 

Exxon says it's profit margin is like 10%. So they say. Their profit is $11,000,000,000.00 a quarter after expenses. I wonder how much of their profit margin is eaten up by corporate salaries.

 

I guarantee Solar Ray would work for a fraction of the $57,000,000.00 a year one makes as president of Exxon so I bet he does have a larger profit margin.

[DemonKnight]

just the news that we were intending to drill here would drive lower costs much sooner than 7-10 years because it would quell long term supply fears that exist today. the price reduction would not wait until the oil shipped but would happen on the news. we love news. news about everything.

 

and all you people who think high oil prices are a good thing for us are way, way off base. higher commodities are forcing all corporations, all over the world, to raise their prices for everything, since everything requires energy. these higher costs force companies to cut longer term developments and expansions that create future jobs and force companies to cut jobs in the short term to cover immediate rising costs. in addition, higher costs means lower profits which means our stock market stagnates or declines, which is definitely not good for all our retirement plans. so you have less expansion, less jobs, and declining investments. not good. bad, very bad.

 

and without all the great profits from our corporations, they won't have the profit and capital needed to even pursue alternative forms of energy. of course, you can tax the hell out of them as a penalty or to fund the government getting involved, but then you are killing the job-producing, investment-generating engine of our country. not smart.

 

bottom line is that alternative forms of energy need to be cheaper and make more sense for companies to convert. to convert, they need to be as healthy as possible in terms of capital and profits. no matter how green or altruistic the cause, you can't do jack without jack.

 

we need government policies that partner with our corporations to help bring about the change we need through the right kind of support and incentives. that is, of course, if you buy into the idea that we need to change to go more green, which is a massive debate vs. a given.

 

Could you please refrain from posting this sort of drivvle until the morning. I dont want to hurl my dinner all over my keyboard. TIA

[AtomicCEO]

all the information I see says that there is plenty of oil to meet global demand for at least a few more decades, and that in a few more decades at most oil will be obsolete as a major fuel source anyway. if that is true, then the "finiteness" is not an issue either way.

 

Oil won't be obsolete if people like you keep fighting to try to artificially keep it as the cheapest energy source. The people making it more expensive as it runs out are right to do so, and the market should react naturally to utilize other fuel sources. A couple decades is not so far away, and we don't want to get caught with our pants down because you want cheap gas now.

 

and all you people who think high oil prices are a good thing for us are way, way off base. higher commodities are forcing all corporations, all over the world, to raise their prices for everything, since everything requires energy.

 

A few decades left. We can make the change now with some minor discomfort... or we can make it in a panic with food riots and economic collapse in 20 years.

 

bottom line is that alternative forms of energy need to be cheaper and make more sense for companies to convert. to convert, they need to be as healthy as possible in terms of capital and profits. no matter how green or altruistic the cause, you can't do jack without jack.

 

Which is exactly why artificially lowering the price of gas is retarded! Let alternative fuels compete with oil on a level playing field! $4 gas, and we're already seeing increased investment in hybrids and alternative fuels. Imagine if we paid what the rest of the world is paying! Ford would be cranking out thousands of hybrids a month to meet demand, and we'd have economies of scale and more investment in R&D.

 

And the glorious part of my plan is that all it requires is for government to do absolutely nothing... which is something I know they are good at.

Edited August 5, 2008 by AtomicCEO