![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Monday Thoughts
May. 19th, 2008 12:06 pmOver on Rand Simberg's blog there were a couple of posts I found interesting. The first one was about free market health care. It linked to an FAQ about free-market health care, and suggested that the Democrats should read it but wouldn't.
I found the free market health care FAQ to be factually correct. I think the policy debate isn't about how free market healthcare works, but rather if the US would be better or worse off with a different health care system. Depending on your values for "better" or "worse" you could get wildly different answers.
The second post of note was about peak oil. Rand notes that most "peak oil" predictions are 30 years from the date of prediction. I suspect this has a lot to do with how good you think oil extraction technology will get, and 30 years worth of improvement is probably as far out as one can get.
But again, I think this misses the larger point. On the one hand, oil is a finite resource, and therefore something that can run out. On the other hand, there are alternative sources of oil in particular (coal gasification) and energy in general.
The policy question shouldn't be "peak oil" but "clearing cost of energy." If market forces drive energy costs higher, we'll use less of it. Again from a policy point of view, if higher energy prices are very likely, then planning to use less energy would seen to be a good idea
I found the free market health care FAQ to be factually correct. I think the policy debate isn't about how free market healthcare works, but rather if the US would be better or worse off with a different health care system. Depending on your values for "better" or "worse" you could get wildly different answers.
The second post of note was about peak oil. Rand notes that most "peak oil" predictions are 30 years from the date of prediction. I suspect this has a lot to do with how good you think oil extraction technology will get, and 30 years worth of improvement is probably as far out as one can get.
But again, I think this misses the larger point. On the one hand, oil is a finite resource, and therefore something that can run out. On the other hand, there are alternative sources of oil in particular (coal gasification) and energy in general.
The policy question shouldn't be "peak oil" but "clearing cost of energy." If market forces drive energy costs higher, we'll use less of it. Again from a policy point of view, if higher energy prices are very likely, then planning to use less energy would seen to be a good idea
