[fiedag]

In the long lead up to Peak Oil, annual increases in the aggregate consumption of oil allowed for ever-greater economies of scale and a declining unit cost.

In this period of abundance, it could be said that wasteful use of oil by over-consumers helped the poor by making petroleum more affordable.

Now that Crude Oil is supply-constrained, the reverse is true. Over-consumers of oil are now contributing to aggregate demand in a way which only ever increases prices.

Suddenly it is no longer valid to say "It's none of your business how much petrol I use as long as I can afford it".

Any consumer of a supply-constrained resource who consumes more than the average, can be said to be disproportionately driving up the price of that resource for everyone else. Discuss.

[dinopello]

Any consumer of a supply-constrained resource who consumes more than the average, can be said to be disproportionately driving up the price of that resource for everyone else. Discuss.

I'd say, of course this can be said. It's true, the question is - is there anything wrong with that and what to do about it? It does get to one of the more fundamental philosophical issues that eventually distills to what your response is to the overcrowded lifeboat scenario.

[Cog]

If you don't like the price of fuel then I suggest you walk, bicycle, use public transit or just don't go anywhere. Gasoline is a commodity like any other. Increased demand for any commodity will raise the price of that commodity. That works whether you are talking free market capitalism or a black market. Are you going to tell the Chinese they can't import more oil next year than they did this year? Going to drop nuclear weapons on their cities if they don't comply?

Just another attempt by the progressives to redistribute wealth. I'm sorry poor people can't live like rich people. It pains me greatly. But get used to it.

But back to the topic at hand. The only way to enforce such a scheme with those who "over-consume" is to put a meter on the car somehow that will only let you fill it up so many times in a month or issue the entire country fuel ration cards. I'm sure progressives would absolutely love this sort of thing but if you want to see shortages and a booming black market, go right ahead with that sort of scheme.

[Pops]

This is the whole Jevons Paradox bit, just inverted: the more you save, the lower the price, so the more everyone else uses.

Or the higher the MPG the more M/Y driven and the higher the total usage.


We'll use just as much as we can, as fast as we can and let the devil take the hindmost, because that's what monkeys do.

[fiedag]

If you don't like the price of fuel then I suggest you walk, bicycle, use public transit or just don't go anywhere. Gasoline is a commodity like any other. Increased demand for any commodity will raise the price of that commodity. That works whether you are talking free market capitalism or a black market. Are you going to tell the Chinese they can't import more oil next year than they did this year? Going to drop nuclear weapons on their cities if they don't comply?

Just another attempt by the progressives to redistribute wealth. I'm sorry poor people can't live like rich people. It pains me greatly. But get used to it.

But back to the topic at hand. The only way to enforce such a scheme with those who "over-consume" is to put a meter on the car somehow that will only let you fill it up so many times in a month or issue the entire country fuel ration cards. I'm sure progressives would absolutely love this sort of thing but if you want to see shortages and a booming black market, go right ahead with that sort of scheme.

Cog with respect I think you've missed my point. I am not advocating a State-controlled scheme to somehow punish or discourage the over-consumers. I wanted to frame this as a matter of personal morality. A way of saying to those people who would claim their consumption preferences are entirely their own business : No in fact your behaviour impacts poor people and makes them poorer.

They are still welcome to not care a bean about poor people. They just need to remember that their plea for moral impunity (immunity?) is not sound. The poor know this of course. Not that they can always make the argument on classical economic grounds like I did. Under-consumers and the over-consumers are groups which will always be in conflict. Finally I wanted to make the point that this only manifests for commodities which are supply-constrained. The universe is vast but only this solar system is available to us, so these constraints apply to every commodity even sunlight.

[dinopello]

Cog with respect I think you've missed my point. I am not advocating a State-controlled scheme to somehow punish or discourage the over-consumers. I wanted to frame this as a matter of personal morality. A way of saying to those people who would claim their consumption preferences are entirely their own business : No in fact your behaviour impacts poor people and makes them poorer.

The societal problem is that the "price at the pump" has become such a determinant of life and death. The moral issue would be more clear if the commodity was water. In a drought, the wealthy washing their cars and watering their lawns while families die of thirst would be pretty clear. Gasoline is almost as critical as water to most people's survival. That's a problem, IMO.

[Pretorian]

Cog with respect I think you've missed my point. I am not advocating a State-controlled scheme to somehow punish or discourage the over-consumers. I wanted to frame this as a matter of personal morality. A way of saying to those people who would claim their consumption preferences are entirely their own business : No in fact your behaviour impacts poor people and makes them poorer.

The societal problem is that the "price at the pump" has become such a determinant of life and death. The moral issue would be more clear if the commodity was water. In a drought, the wealthy washing their cars and watering their lawns while families die of thirst would be pretty clear. Gasoline is almost as critical as water to most people's survival. That's a problem, IMO.

I thought the world was overpopulated anyway? Is it?

[Loki]

The societal problem is that the "price at the pump" has become such a determinant of life and death. The moral issue would be more clear if the commodity was water. In a drought, the wealthy washing their cars and watering their lawns while families die of thirst would be pretty clear. Gasoline is almost as critical as water to most people's survival. That's a problem, IMO.

Well put. Problem is too many folks like Cog are straight out Social Darwinists, they frankly don't give a rat's ass about other people. Very useful idiots for the aristocracy, who are barely even aware non-rich people exist.

The OP poses a great question, though. As Pops has said, there will plenty of gasoline for sale in the years to come, you just won't be able to afford it. I agree that hyperconsumers will likely exacerbate this problem. Yet another indication of the social problems that such obscene levels of wealth inequality produces.

[Cog]

I'm sorry I can not make the world fair.

[Loki]

I'm sorry I can not make the world fair.

It's not about "fair" or any other socialist egalitarian strawman. I'm fine with unequal results and moderate disparities in wealth produced from fair competition. The problem is the lack of opportunity that extreme concentration of wealth produces. And if wealth wasn't so concentrated, we average Americans could weather the Long Emergency a hell of a lot better.

I have no respect for a philosophy that worships the rich as the ubermensch. I also find the sneering contempt for those lower on the economic ladder indicative of sociopathic tendencies. My guess about you is that you are a not-so-quiet sufferer of Ayn Randism, a moderately severe psychological disorder than can be successfully treated with generous doses of Thomas Jefferson. Have hope my friend, you CAN get better!

[fiedag]

I'm sorry I can not make the world fair.

It's not about "fair" or any other socialist egalitarian strawman. I'm fine with unequal results and moderate disparities in wealth produced from fair competition. The problem is the lack of opportunity that extreme concentration of wealth produces. And if wealth wasn't so concentrated, we average Americans could weather the Long Emergency a hell of a lot better.

I have no respect for a philosophy that worships the rich as the ubermensch. I also find the sneering contempt for those lower on the economic ladder indicative of sociopathic tendencies. My guess about you is that you are a not-so-quiet sufferer of Ayn Randism, a moderately severe psychological disorder than can be successfully treated with generous doses of Thomas Jefferson. Have hope my friend, you CAN get better!

In summary I want to step back and get a broader perspective. You know what? Cog is entitled to assert that he is not his "brother's keeper" and if he does not feel any moral obligation towards those less fortunate then that is a matter for him and him alone.

We have satisfactorily established I think, that it is a zero-sum game for water, oil, land - whatever. We have established that the unfairness consists of the fact that the overconsumption over and above what is necessary, is raising the price of a commodity for everyone.

This suggests that the group on the left-hand-side of the consumption bell curve as it were, form a group which is antagonistic of the group on the right-hand-side. In fact everyone on your left (bell curve wise!) is ultimately suffering at the hands of your extravagance. But to a diminishing degree. If you are on the very right, then you are antagonising the entire rest of the consumer population because you are raising their prices - if only to a small degree.

So having said first corrected Cog by saying that it was a matter of personal morality, and having found that he doesn't perceive it so, I can still claim that there is a systemic problem which sets consumers against one another depending on their extravagance. Moreover in a way which is makes the morality of the situation quite irrelevant.