3 ms·

> But for the US, there's no question like that. It produces a lot lot more than it consumes anyway. There can't be a shortage. It's a global commodity. The re

> But for the US, there's no question like that. It produces a lot lot more than it consumes anyway. There can't be a shortage. It's a global commodity. The reason there likely won't be a shortage in the U.S. has little to do with our production volumes, and has more to do with the fact that we're rich enough to be able to afford the higher prices when many other countries will have to forgeo using oil. But if we weren't a rich country and we couldn't afford to pay a higher price for oil than many other nations on earth, we would produce and export oil to people that can pay more. Ireland during the famine produced enough food to feed every person. But much of it was exported to other places, that could afford to pay a higher dollar amount to survive.

oblio 19d ago
You're 90% of the way there. The US is also sovereign and if things would become really bad the government would just ban exports. Ireland wasn't sovereign and it turns out, as much as other countries act brotherly (not that the UK really did), nobody really cares about you like you care.
- WarmWash 19d ago
  Banning exports would be legitimately catastrophic geopolitically. Tariffs are mostly just politics and pretty heavily partisan. Banning oil exports would be objectively evil.
  - AgentOrange1234 19d ago
    I think banning oil exports would never happen since oil shareholders would scream, but why would it be evil?
    - orwin 19d ago
      Some countries rely on oil imports to produce agricultural products, and suddenly cutting them off the global market would kill hundreds of millions from hunger over the next year. Look at what happened in Cuba. Without china giving them old solar panels and used batteries, they would have revolted already. They still have a huge food insecurity issue for next year, especially if the huricane season gets bad.
    - WarmWash 19d ago
      Because the US started this mess, and it would essentially shift all the cost onto other countries who had no part in it.
  - anovikov 19d ago
    In US oil exports were banned till 2016 did you know?
- downrightmike 19d ago
  The UK parliament thought it a good moral lesson Irish should starve because they were the wrong religion
  - oblio 19d ago
    In modern times we have a special word for what they did, but I've noticed British people are <<extremely>> touchy when it's used.
    - tonyedgecombe 19d ago
      Britain was barely democratic at the time of the famine. It’s silly to blame the current generation for something their ancestors did. Even if the people you are complaining about were alive then they were unlikely to have any influence over the situation.
      - oblio 19d ago
        Ouch, I found the touchy Brit. > It’s silly to blame the current generation for something their ancestors did. As silly as it is, it's a widespread practice around the world.
- tmnvix 19d ago
  Depends what 'sovereign' implies. The will of the people? Or maybe the will of those that lobby government the hardest (e.g. oil companies)? If the latter, then export bans might not arrive anytime soon.
  - cryptonector 19d ago
    'Sovereign' here means that the US govt is able to impose export restrictions, not that the People's will or special interests' desires are relevant. Of course 'can' != 'will'.
    - tmnvix 19d ago
      Interestingly, my dictionary gives the following (amongst other definitions of course): > possessing supreme or ultimate power: in modern democracies the people's will is in theory sovereign.
      - cryptonector 19d ago
        Your dictionary is wrong. For example, in the UK Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That's effectively how it is in representative democracies or republics where there is no fast representative recall mechanism. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that Congress is sovereign, but the effect is the same. For that matter, the U.S. President has a great deal of power.
  - oblio 19d ago
    Sovereign doesn't mean any of those in this context. It means that the US can set its foreign and domestic policies as it pleases. How it decides those policies is another matter.
anovikov 19d ago
Thing is, if there is a worldwide shortage, US wins. To the benefit of those on the political left, an oil shortage shows itself almost exclusively in poor countries (because they actually don't have money to pay), and these tend to not have automotive industries of their own, thus have no reservations about switching to electric cars, which means that any oil consumption decline these days tends to be sticky - when the oil flow resumes, these people won't need it anymore. No one is going to get back to driving an ICE car once they tried electric, even if they initially did it under duress.
citrin_ru 19d ago
It’s a global commodity unless there are export restrictions. Russia maintains petrol/diesel prices way below world level thanks to export ban among other things. China did impose temporary export restrictions too. I would not be surprised if Trump will eventually impose export restrictions on refined products to maintain low domestic prices.

oblio 19d ago

You're 90% of the way there. The US is also sovereign and if things would become really bad the government would just ban exports. Ireland wasn't sovereign and it turns out, as much as other countries act brotherly (not that the UK really did), nobody really cares about you like you care.

WarmWash 19d ago
Banning exports would be legitimately catastrophic geopolitically. Tariffs are mostly just politics and pretty heavily partisan. Banning oil exports would be objectively evil.
- AgentOrange1234 19d ago
  I think banning oil exports would never happen since oil shareholders would scream, but why would it be evil?
  - orwin 19d ago
    Some countries rely on oil imports to produce agricultural products, and suddenly cutting them off the global market would kill hundreds of millions from hunger over the next year. Look at what happened in Cuba. Without china giving them old solar panels and used batteries, they would have revolted already. They still have a huge food insecurity issue for next year, especially if the huricane season gets bad.
  - WarmWash 19d ago
    Because the US started this mess, and it would essentially shift all the cost onto other countries who had no part in it.
- anovikov 19d ago
  In US oil exports were banned till 2016 did you know?
downrightmike 19d ago
The UK parliament thought it a good moral lesson Irish should starve because they were the wrong religion
- oblio 19d ago
  In modern times we have a special word for what they did, but I've noticed British people are <<extremely>> touchy when it's used.
  - tonyedgecombe 19d ago
    Britain was barely democratic at the time of the famine. It’s silly to blame the current generation for something their ancestors did. Even if the people you are complaining about were alive then they were unlikely to have any influence over the situation.
    - oblio 19d ago
      Ouch, I found the touchy Brit. > It’s silly to blame the current generation for something their ancestors did. As silly as it is, it's a widespread practice around the world.
tmnvix 19d ago
Depends what 'sovereign' implies. The will of the people? Or maybe the will of those that lobby government the hardest (e.g. oil companies)? If the latter, then export bans might not arrive anytime soon.
- cryptonector 19d ago
  'Sovereign' here means that the US govt is able to impose export restrictions, not that the People's will or special interests' desires are relevant. Of course 'can' != 'will'.
  - tmnvix 19d ago
    Interestingly, my dictionary gives the following (amongst other definitions of course): > possessing supreme or ultimate power: in modern democracies the people's will is in theory sovereign.
    - cryptonector 19d ago
      Your dictionary is wrong. For example, in the UK Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That's effectively how it is in representative democracies or republics where there is no fast representative recall mechanism. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that Congress is sovereign, but the effect is the same. For that matter, the U.S. President has a great deal of power.
- oblio 19d ago
  Sovereign doesn't mean any of those in this context. It means that the US can set its foreign and domestic policies as it pleases. How it decides those policies is another matter.

anovikov 19d ago

Thing is, if there is a worldwide shortage, US wins. To the benefit of those on the political left, an oil shortage shows itself almost exclusively in poor countries (because they actually don't have money to pay), and these tend to not have automotive industries of their own, thus have no reservations about switching to electric cars, which means that any oil consumption decline these days tends to be sticky - when the oil flow resumes, these people won't need it anymore. No one is going to get back to driving an ICE car once they tried electric, even if they initially did it under duress.

citrin_ru 19d ago

It’s a global commodity unless there are export restrictions. Russia maintains petrol/diesel prices way below world level thanks to export ban among other things. China did impose temporary export restrictions too. I would not be surprised if Trump will eventually impose export restrictions on refined products to maintain low domestic prices.