7 ms·

> in a scenario where all companies are reduced in size What does all companies mean, are you proposing the entire world follow this approach or just the US. I

by sumedh 4y ago

> in a scenario where all companies are reduced in size What does all companies mean, are you proposing the entire world follow this approach or just the US. If its just the US then other refineries would just offer cheaper oil and US consumers would buy it from overseas while the US refining goes bankrupt.

rglullis 4y ago
Ok. Let's think it through. 1) The price of oil (and basically everything downstream of crude) has little to do with the cost to produce it, and a lot more to do with current market conditions. So even if their productions costs were (slightly) higher, I don't see why a local, smaller, refinery would have too much trouble to keep themselves profitable even if they had to have lower margins to stay competitive. 2) Smaller companies would mean that you'd be consuming a lot less primary resources and your business relationships would be on a much more local scale. You wouldn't be getting a networks of branded gas stations that receive their gas from the same mega-distributor, you'd be more likely than many different gas station owners, each of them too small to be interesting to a foreign refinery. 3) Even if that is not enough and "US refining goes bankrupt"... so what? Why do Americans need to have their own refining industry, if they can be served by others?
- sumedh 4y ago
  > Why do Americans need to have their own refining industry, if they can be served by others? Looks like you did not think it through. You need to have energy independence. When you depend on other countries, those countries can use your weakness to get better deals or control you. If there is a pandemic and all the supply chains breakdown your people can still survive.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    How "energy independent" is Switzerland? Singapore? The UK? You are too deep in "Big State" thinking. Forget about that. > If there is a pandemic and all the supply chains breakdown. Under a localist model, your people can still survive because they do not depend on global supply chain and can still have a functioning economy. What I am asking you is to imagine a less radical version of an Amish community. Less focus on economic output and more focus on resiliency. Try to keep your economy as local as possible and do not over-generalize. Do not think of industries as something that has "strategic value" and instead let them develop as much as it is required to fulfill the needs of your citizens. This way, your community will have plenty of redundancy and no one will be at the mercy of any other external entity.
    - sumedh 4y ago
      You are too deep in "Fantasyland" thinking. Forget about that. > How "energy independent" is Switzerland? Singapore? The UK? Exactly, atleast the UK depends on middle east and Russia which funds their murderous regimes. You should be supporting human rights not murdering innocents. > your people can still survive Tell that to the people who died from Covid because they could not get masks which were all manufactured in China. > Try to keep your economy as local as possible and do not over-generalize. I think you getting confused with your own talking points, in the previous comment you wanted want the US to be served by others and now you are saying keep the economy local. What I am asking you is to live in reality and not live in fantasy land, you sound exactly like a politician who declares war on drugs. The current globalized world cannot just cannot function with your fantasy 150 people limit. You getting confused with your own talking points is one the proof that your limit does not work.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        I misspoke. I meant to say "do not over-specialize". > in the previous comment you wanted want the US to be served by others No, read again with the whole context: what I said was that the focus should be on keeping the industry local, on a smaller scale and more worried about robustness than profitability. Then I said that "even if after that they are still being out-competed, it doesn't mean that they all is lost". The point was that plenty of countries can be successful even if they are not 100% self-sufficient about key resources. I am not advocating the end of trade. I am advocating for smaller/stronger communities and stronger/more explicit interfaces between them. > You should be supporting human rights not murdering innocents. Please stop with this absurd rhetoric. Not only is BS, it could easily be turned on you ("So, you buy things from China? This means that you support the genocide of Uyghurs!") > The current globalized world cannot just cannot function with your fantasy 150 people limit. First, this "current globalized world" is precisely the thing that is so full of systemic issues that we should be working to avoid. In a less-globalized and not hyperconnected world, Covid would not even be a thing, so the whole "people died of Covid because they didn't have masks" is complete rhetorical bullshit . Second, there is no limit on people. The only limit is about the size of a single corporation. I don't know what is so hard about it to understand. You keep mischaracterizing the argument to the point that it is making clear you are not interested in a good-faith conversation, which should be a signal that I am done here.

by sumedh 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

Ok. Let's think it through. 1) The price of oil (and basically everything downstream of crude) has little to do with the cost to produce it, and a lot more to do with current market conditions. So even if their productions costs were (slightly) higher, I don't see why a local, smaller, refinery would have too much trouble to keep themselves profitable even if they had to have lower margins to stay competitive. 2) Smaller companies would mean that you'd be consuming a lot less primary resources and your business relationships would be on a much more local scale. You wouldn't be getting a networks of branded gas stations that receive their gas from the same mega-distributor, you'd be more likely than many different gas station owners, each of them too small to be interesting to a foreign refinery. 3) Even if that is not enough and "US refining goes bankrupt"... so what? Why do Americans need to have their own refining industry, if they can be served by others?

sumedh 4y ago
> Why do Americans need to have their own refining industry, if they can be served by others? Looks like you did not think it through. You need to have energy independence. When you depend on other countries, those countries can use your weakness to get better deals or control you. If there is a pandemic and all the supply chains breakdown your people can still survive.
- rglullis 4y ago
  How "energy independent" is Switzerland? Singapore? The UK? You are too deep in "Big State" thinking. Forget about that. > If there is a pandemic and all the supply chains breakdown. Under a localist model, your people can still survive because they do not depend on global supply chain and can still have a functioning economy. What I am asking you is to imagine a less radical version of an Amish community. Less focus on economic output and more focus on resiliency. Try to keep your economy as local as possible and do not over-generalize. Do not think of industries as something that has "strategic value" and instead let them develop as much as it is required to fulfill the needs of your citizens. This way, your community will have plenty of redundancy and no one will be at the mercy of any other external entity.
  - sumedh 4y ago
    You are too deep in "Fantasyland" thinking. Forget about that. > How "energy independent" is Switzerland? Singapore? The UK? Exactly, atleast the UK depends on middle east and Russia which funds their murderous regimes. You should be supporting human rights not murdering innocents. > your people can still survive Tell that to the people who died from Covid because they could not get masks which were all manufactured in China. > Try to keep your economy as local as possible and do not over-generalize. I think you getting confused with your own talking points, in the previous comment you wanted want the US to be served by others and now you are saying keep the economy local. What I am asking you is to live in reality and not live in fantasy land, you sound exactly like a politician who declares war on drugs. The current globalized world cannot just cannot function with your fantasy 150 people limit. You getting confused with your own talking points is one the proof that your limit does not work.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      I misspoke. I meant to say "do not over-specialize". > in the previous comment you wanted want the US to be served by others No, read again with the whole context: what I said was that the focus should be on keeping the industry local, on a smaller scale and more worried about robustness than profitability. Then I said that "even if after that they are still being out-competed, it doesn't mean that they all is lost". The point was that plenty of countries can be successful even if they are not 100% self-sufficient about key resources. I am not advocating the end of trade. I am advocating for smaller/stronger communities and stronger/more explicit interfaces between them. > You should be supporting human rights not murdering innocents. Please stop with this absurd rhetoric. Not only is BS, it could easily be turned on you ("So, you buy things from China? This means that you support the genocide of Uyghurs!") > The current globalized world cannot just cannot function with your fantasy 150 people limit. First, this "current globalized world" is precisely the thing that is so full of systemic issues that we should be working to avoid. In a less-globalized and not hyperconnected world, Covid would not even be a thing, so the whole "people died of Covid because they didn't have masks" is complete rhetorical bullshit . Second, there is no limit on people. The only limit is about the size of a single corporation. I don't know what is so hard about it to understand. You keep mischaracterizing the argument to the point that it is making clear you are not interested in a good-faith conversation, which should be a signal that I am done here.