|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/22/2007 : 23:14:20 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
Restricing the use does not reduce demand.
Drugs are restricted is demand down?
Booze was restricted was demand down?
|
Inappropriate analogy.
If you legally restrict the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned, you lower demand for fossil fuel, or in the case of a freeze on emissions you'd cap demand.
Neither of those circumstances would increase demand for fossil fuel or increase its price.
The reason your drug analogy fails is simple, and you should have been able to spot the flaw. Try thinking about things a bit.
Illegal drugs are restricted, yes. This restriction has not had ANY effect on the demand for these drugs. Law enforcement has "restricted" the (pay attention) supply, causing an increase in price.
Now, if we went and made it illegal to import oil into the US, then yes, we'd drive the price of oil sky high inside the US. The global market, however, would suddenly have to eat an excess, causing prices to plummet everywhere else.
Since there is no talk of making it illegal to mine or import fossil fuels, thus "restricting" the supply, your analogy fails miserably.
Honestly, you can't be this stupid. You are just trolling us, rather unskillfully.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/23/2007 : 00:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Dude---
If you legally restrict the amount of drugs that can be burned, you lower demand for drugs.
If you legally restrict the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned, you lower demand for fossil fuel.
Do you really think these statements are different?
Dude think about why would one of these statements be true and the other false? Hint: both false.
Take these two statements to all your friends and ask them how one is false and one is true.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 00:32:54 [Permalink]
|
There must exist a basic level of cognitive ability, below which almost any intelligent discussion is impossible. If anyone else thinks they can get through three inches of solid bone to Jerome's brain with an elucidation of the obvious, they are welcome to try. And try again. Me, I give up.
My advice: If they let you outside, Jerome, don't take that brain with you. It'll only get you in trouble.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 01:38:23 [Permalink]
|
If you legally restrict the amount of drugs that can be burned, you lower demand for drugs.
If you legally restrict the amount of fossil fuel that can be burned, you lower demand for fossil fuel.
Do you really think these statements are different?
Dude think about why would one of these statements be true and the other false? Hint: both false.
Take these two statements to all your friends and ask them how one is false and one is true.
|
You are either trolling, or you really are retarded.
In one case, drugs, you are limiting supply.
In the case of fossil fuels, you are not limiting the supply, you are limiting the demand by legislating it to a cap.
So patheticaly sad that you don't seem capable of comprehending that.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 05:13:12 [Permalink]
|
JdG: a cap on emissions does not mean limiting supply. It means that power plants will have to improve their equipment in order to limit pollution. If there is any increase in the cost of energy, it would come from that. However, there are already caps on sulfur dioxide-- the stuff that causes acid rain-- and no one to my knowledge has suggested that higher energy costs come from that. (Note also: people aren't complaining much about acid rain, either-- the caps seem to work!)
So again, to make it clear: you don't meet your cap by cutting down on production. You do it by using better technology. Supply DOES NOT CHANGE. Get it right. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 07:55:35 [Permalink]
|
Let me get this straight:
Capping emissions (end by-product) will result in lowering demand as newer cleaner technologies are used(capitol investment) or other(more expensive) forms of energies will be used.
Can you explain how demand for the less expensive product will decrease in the short term.
I do not understand why you all cannot see this is not a static situation.
You must look at the totality and evolution of the circumstance.
Capping emissions does; until better technology is designed, produced, and implemented, increase cost and does not reduce demand.
Its like you see trees all around and continue to deny you are in a forest.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 08:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Let me get this straight:
Capping emissions (end by-product) will result in lowering demand as newer cleaner technologies are used(capitol investment) or other(more expensive) forms of energies will be used.
Can you explain how demand for the less expensive product will decrease in the short term.
I do not understand why you all cannot see this is not a static situation.
You must look at the totality and evolution of the circumstance.
Capping emissions does; until better technology is designed, produced, and implemented, increase cost and does not reduce demand.
Its like you see trees all around and continue to deny you are in a forest. |
My argument is not that capping emissions reduces demand. My claim is that it does not reduce supply. And I see the you're quietly shifting your claim. You originally argued that caps will limit supply, but now you're saying that "until better technology is designed, produced, and implemented, [capping will] increase cost." But that wasn't your original argument. It was that it would limit supply and allow people to charge more for energy and make a bigger profit.
I noted that there could be some increase in energy costs as companies invest in newer technology, but that increase in cost isn't profit; it's to pay for the new technology. So the power companies (or people who invest in them) aren't getting rich from introducing caps.
I think at this point, you need to own up to your errors. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/23/2007 08:09:33 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 09:45:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Capping emissions does; until better technology is designed, produced, and implemented, increase cost and does not reduce demand. |
Capping emissions from a power plant will increase the cost of the power, but it won't increase the cost of coal. The demand for power won't increase any more than it would without the caps, so the caps themselves won't drive an increased demand for coal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 10:00:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Capping emissions does; until better technology is designed, produced, and implemented, increase cost and does not reduce demand. |
Capping emissions from a power plant will increase the cost of the power, but it won't increase the cost of coal. The demand for power won't increase any more than it would without the caps, so the caps themselves won't drive an increased demand for coal.
|
Right, Dave. But he's trying to weasel out of his original position-- that Gore is using global warming as a scam to have emissions caps put in place, thereby limiting supply and then getting rich via his investments in coal/oil companies. But as we've tried to say a million times, emissions caps don't do anything to the supply of coal or oil. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 12:57:06 [Permalink]
|
Jerome said:
Its like you see trees all around and continue to deny you are in a forest.
|
I have a better one:
Its like you are too stupid to understand the difference between supply and demand.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 12:58:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Right, Dave. But he's trying to weasel out of his original position-- that Gore is using global warming as a scam to have emissions caps put in place, thereby limiting supply and then getting rich via his investments in coal/oil companies. But as we've tried to say a million times, emissions caps don't do anything to the supply of coal or oil. |
Sure. JEROME originally said - in effect - that if we limit driving to 25 miles per person per week, the cost of gasoline will go up. Everyone knows that's ridiculous, but JEROME isn't going to admit it, so he moves the goalposts. But he's moved them to another failure of an argument. Just swat 'em like flies, since the J man isn't going to respond in any rational way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 18:32:43 [Permalink]
|
I have been making the same argument this entire time, your confusion comes from the fact that I explain it in different ways so as to try and help you all understand.
One more try.
A cap on emissions will result in lower fuel use as it will be necessary to either burn less fuel or use more efficient burning methods.
If fuel is burned at a lesser or more efficient rate, less fuel will be sold.
At least the cost of doing business must be earned to stay in business regardless how much product is sold.
If the quantity of product sold is lowered the business must raise price per unit to stay in business.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 19:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
At least the cost of doing business must be earned to stay in business regardless how much product is sold.
If the quantity of product sold is lowered the business must raise price per unit to stay in business. |
And boosting the price on a product fewer and fewer people want is a sure way to go out of business, since your lower-priced competitors will get all your sales instead of them being split.
The oil companies will be faced with the choice of going out of business or finding different products to sell. Raising the price of the same old product will only seal their doom, it won't save them, because some other oil company will keep selling at a reduced rate while making tons of money selling wind turbines and/or CO2 scrubbers.
Your scenario would only work if all the competing companies entered into a price-fixing arrangement, world wide. But to pull that off while avoiding the law would require an even grander conspiracy than the one you started with. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 20:39:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave oil is a commodity, the market sets the price not the individual companies.
Oil companies are in competition to find more product; this is the way they gain market share, not retail sales price which is set by the market.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 21:58:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave oil is a commodity, the market sets the price not the individual companies. |
Which, of course, means that nothing that an individual with stock in an oil company does regarding global warming would affect oil prices. You have therefore disproven your argument with regards to Richardson. Bravo!| Oil companies are in competition to find more product; this is the way they gain market share, not retail sales price which is set by the market. |
Nobody buys crude oil retail. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
