| Oil in the ground is useless to most nations. Most nations want to sell you their oil, especially poor ones with unruly populations. US policy with regard to the sale of oil is mostly on the prevention side. (eg. Iran, Libya, Iraq). At $100 bbl there is no shortage of oil outside the middle east. Did you happen to notice that once the US got involved in Libya the price of oil went up? See also wars in Iraq / Afganistan, now lets say you owned an oil field in Saudi Arabia, if it costs $2 bbl to extract and $1 to the Saudi's in royalties would you prefer to sell your oil at $30 bbl or $100 bbl? The idea that the US has the military industrial complex to provide cheap oil to the suburbs is a fantasy dreamed up by environmentalists designed to appeal to urban pseudo-intellectuals (who are their primary base of support after the coal industry stopped funding them after they took care of the nuclear industry in the 70s). As a side benefit it makes suburban people think their gov't gives a shit about them. If you're a republican it's a win-win situation. This is like thinking that the protestant reformation was allowed to happen because the King of Prussia? was a liberty lover and not because it massively undermined the power of the catholic church. Dick Cheney was not thinking about how to provide cheap oil to the suburbs, he was thinking how to make the energy industry rich. Starting wars on top of oil fields does not make oil cheap, it makes it expensive. If environmentalists think it makes it cheaper then all the better. The US has a friendly neighbor to the north which has more oil than Saudi Arabia (especially at $100 bbl prices) Even if what you were saying was true (it may be, I personally doubt it) all increased oil prices would do is fuel the conversion to coal powered cars (via the electric grid). Don't fight the future embrace it. Regarding suburban sprawl in flood plains well, if your stupid enough to buy a house there you pretty much got what's coming to you. Why do we need central banking to rebuild suburbs in flood plains? It sounded like a bad idea in the first place, lets not do it again. If the revenue generated from building in a flood plain is sufficient to recover the costs it should be easy to secure loans from the private sector. How about we just let the Mississippi take its natural course now that the area it flows through is filled with silt and will continually cause flooding because of this. |