<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt">On Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:15 AM Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> After all, the financial return on most activities that<br>> constitute our economy is on the order of 1 - 10% (not<br>> the much larger return implied by your calculation for<br>> oil production), and yet we don't see this as a problem.<br>> Why should energy production be singled out to be treated<br>> differently than other branches of the economy?<br><br>Because people don't understand economics and are, for the most part, unable to think at a very abstract level. Thus, people come to think that economic laws don't apply in some areas that they might accept in others. Energy happens to be one of those areas. Others are money, banking, protection, schooling, healthcare, and food production. It seems like one can either
produce some horror scenario that will scare people into adopting fallacious economics with regard to something in many fields. And there are also people who seem to have a vested interest in making sure people don't think too well in these areas. If you're involved in, say, agribusiness and depend on subsidies and protections, you certainly have a strong incentive to not have people think that the agricultural markets are no different than, say, the market in general. They might come to see price supports, import quotas, and the like really only hamper activities in these areas for the benefit of a tiny elite.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Dan<br> <div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </div> </div></body></html>