No, I don't. Without subsidies and policies aimed at increasing extraction, oil's historic price would be higher. The US's funding of the Alaska Pipeline and the UK's simultaneous funding of the North Sea would have required market prices around $25/barrel at that time; instead, those projects were massively subsidized so as to break OPEC's grip on the supply. It worked, too.
It's playing favorites in the market in a way that shows we, like you in your previous paragraph, failed to learn the lessons of the past.
*Eyeroll*
Who knows better what the market needswants: the government, or the market?
FTFY again. Needs are not wants.
Absolutely, so why on earth would you favor an economy that would be less resilient and more reliant on government largesse?
no subject
No, I don't. Without subsidies and policies aimed at increasing extraction, oil's historic price would be higher. The US's funding of the Alaska Pipeline and the UK's simultaneous funding of the North Sea would have required market prices around $25/barrel at that time; instead, those projects were massively subsidized so as to break OPEC's grip on the supply. It worked, too.
It's playing favorites in the market in a way that shows we, like you in your previous paragraph, failed to learn the lessons of the past.
*Eyeroll*
Who knows better what the market
needswants: the government, or the market?FTFY again. Needs are not wants.
Absolutely, so why on earth would you favor an economy that would be less resilient and more reliant on government largesse?
[See eyeroll above.]