Which really doesn't make much sense. It's not like the supply actually increased at all. The potential supply has increased, in theory, but it will be years, if not decades, before any of the oil offshore or in that area of Alaska are even touched.

Sigh.

Imagine a graph with supply as a curve going from the basement up, and demand as a curve going from the top towards the floor the farther right you go. The X axis is quantity demanded, and the Y axis is price. As the price goes up, the tendency of the market is to supply more and create more profit- but price also pushes the quantity demanded down. Conversely, as price goes down, quantity demanded rises, but there's less willingness to supply- there's less profit to be had. The natural tendency is to the intersection of the two curves, the Market Equilibrium. Suppliers maintain a slight stock, but are able to more or less unload their product. And everyone who is willing to pay the equilibrium price has the product available. If the price went up, demand would go down and supply would go up, and there'd be an overabundance, leading to inventory sales and reduced prices. If demand went up, there'd be a shortage, and the value of the item would rise, raising price and lowering demand.

It's important to note that changing demand is different from changes along the demand curve. A change in price moves the equilibrium along the demand curve, and vice versa, without changing the position of the curves on the graph- people are still generally only willing to pay the same amount at a set price, and suppliers will only supply the same amount at a set price.

However, changes to the nature of supply and demand can move either curve. Suppose that a massive forest fire wipes out some lumber yards and the price of paper rises. The cost of books will go up, but there's no incentive for demands to demand more books than before at any given price. The supply curve moves up and to the left; suppliers are willing to supply less at each price. Price goes up, and quantity demanded goes down.

In theory, a free market is free of manipulation of this trend because an excessively profitable industry will attract more suppliers and lower price. The problem with this theory is the cost of doing business- friction in market movement. Suppose that you're a big farm company. You have massive subsidies. A new competitor wants to move in. They have to pay full price for everything. Who can move their supply curve farther down on the price scale? You have the cost of establishing a new business, and they have government handouts. This is the reason that subsidized and regulated industries never see any competition, and why large corporations in those industries want to keep those subsidies around. And it is large corporations that get the subsidies, make no mistake about that. How do you think subsidies are distributed? They go to the biggest known parties even before corruption and favor-swapping comes into play, because that's who you know is in the business. If you were subsidizing sodas, would you send money to coca-cola and pepsi, or to same bumfuck company you've never heard of in Little Rock trying to make headway into the market- after, of course, you investigate it to make sure that it's even real, which you'd have to do.

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad (censored) from FOD Team

So this policy works for me.. Shame it took a slut to deliver it...

Suck my cock, faggot.

Not really. Her plan is almost identical to what McCain has been saying for weeks now.

McCain is even praising her saying that her plan is smarter then Obama's.


So the scary thought that I have in my head is this -------------

If you had to vote for either Obama or Hilton, who would be the better choice?

Oh, yeah, and his impressions of Billy are fucking spot on.

Here's the problem with drilling for new oil: its not a fix for the long term. It is a short term solution for a long term problem. Fact of the matter is we are gonna run out of oil, and as things stand we have no real viable alternative, save for something like hydrogen fuel cells, which ate at best 70-80 years away still. Great, so we now have a little more oil to draw from, lets use the extra time, and the oil companies' money(with their recent profits, I am sure they could spare a few billion) and start making something to go from fossil fuels to something a little more.... economical. Like methane(which is ass gas for those of you unware of bodily productions). Or hell, lets bring back turbine engines in cars. Chrysler tried it back in the 60's but it was too slow to go, which is something I am sure we could fix now. However the engine ran on any combustible liquid. Hell you could run your car on a 5th of everclear.
Anyways I just wanna know what good drilling is gonna do for us if we don't start developing alternatives now. Waiting is just gonna fuck us even more.

Why the fuck can't we do both? Hell Paris Hilton figured it out why cant the rest of the god damn world. Drill AND look for alternatives.

Actually thats not a fact, to this day no one knows exactly how much oil exists, or where it actually comes from. Some scientists believe it actually replenishes itself deep in the earths crust. Yeah we need alternative energy, but not drilling is a joke that Nobama and the Dims keep pushing because theyre afraid a couple of fucking polar bears will get upset. Fuck the polar bears.

Well either way you go, there is no solid proof. My point is that those who want to drill are coming off as saying thats the solution to the problem and its not, its a temporary fix. Sad part is that there are a few ways to reduce consumption now, all that is needed is better funded research to make it effective, such as diesel-electric semis, which hasn't been implimented yet because they don't have a way to make a small enough generator, with high enough power output, to haul the heavy ass loads. Of course it would also be very costly to retrofit older semis with the technology too. Anyways I am going a little of course here. I don't think new drilling is gonna help all that much, but I am not too worried about environmental impact, because if the rigs follow their environmental guidelines, no harm is really gonna be done. I know a lot of people who worked on oil rigs, on land and off shore, I have been around several myself, they have very strict rules and regs to follow. And animals tend to stay away from all the noise.

Yeah, wrong. ALl the best "research" these days tends to come from private industry, not government funded crapola. Reduction isn't always the best policy either, we just need more innovation and to use our own shit. Drilling is the answer, now. It may not be the answer in 2050, but its the answer in 2008-2009. If ridiculous alternative "green" energy was realistic then it would be developed hard core. The same problem pops the fuck up over and over again though, wind doesn't blow 24/7 clouds cover solar panels often, and liberals don't like nuclear power.

Wind power works, its all a question of placement, and its actually becoming more mainstream than what you think. Solar power can become more cost effective with advancement in capacitors. Combine the two and you have one massively effecient solar power source that can be tapped into on an as needed basis. The problem with nuclear is what to do with the leftover material. I for one thing with the right kind of research it can be put to use. As for cars I think there needs to be a big push for E85 hybrids, and start pumping money into research to retrofit older cars

Yes and all it takes is billions in oil powered technology to make all that technology work and keep working. Wind, Solar, Hydro are nice on paper but fail in reality. I was in maine all summer and I saw at least 10 windmills, I don't think I saw any of them turning at all the entire time i was there. And June, July and August are their peak energy consumption periods, and the fuckin wind don't blow in the summer there because its too hot and humid. Erego its bullshit. We need to drill, its the answer.

Some time around the growing windmill farms in the mountains can change that opinion. Wind doesn't really stop blowing over 6000ft. in elevation. Hoover seems to be doing just fine on hydro, and as I said solar is a great back up during peak hours, during the day, when the sun is out.

So a few oil rigs in alaska is destructive to the environment but millions of acres of windmill farms in the rockies is just fine? Ugh...

As for retrofitting cars to be hybrid, I will not ever be putting a hybrid system in my 67 Cougar. Death first. You start mandating that shit and you're taking away more liberties.

Windmill farms should not be put in mountains. Nothing but ski-lodges please

I was thinking we could put those wind farms all over Arizona. There is nothing there but ugly scrub desert anyways, they would not make it any uglier While we were at it we could cover a few thousand acres in Solar Panels as well

What if it was a hybrid fusion plant You could run your car on your McDonalds garbage

Hey now, I see that as much of a blasphemy as you do. And I never said it was to be mandated, I just said start researching how. Rare, antique and classic cars are always an exception. I sure as shit wouldn't do that to my dad's 68 Camero(which I get when he goes). Sides there's more useless land up there than what you think, with the main animal populations are too stupid to realize what they are. I also never said oil rigs were being destructive, I just said they have to follow EPA regs to be enviornmentally sound. A company does it right, all you will find after they tear down a right will be a round cement shaft where they filled in the well. Quit trying to twist my words goddamn it, unless you want to look like an ignorant ass in the end.
And kinda going along Dyshade's tangent, why not just make a car that runs on straight alcohol, of any kind, drinkable or not