Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Washington Post editorial in 1987 in support of drilling in ANWR (see picture above): 
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
13 Comments:
I can see that you have never had a real job in your life. Your academic degrees are listed as something that should win you respect. I find your comments about environmental and economic issues resemble that of a third grader, maybe I am being disrespectful to the third grader.
People like you led this country into sending jobs overseas and cutting down the economic engines. There is nothing wrong with the global economy if all capitalist play with same rule. China does not!
Shame on you and may your God have mercy on your soul before sending you to burn!
Dear Anon,
I too disagree with some of what Prof Perry has to say.
However, at least he has the fortitude and temerity to post and defend his ideas in a public sphere in such a manner that provokes conversation in a positive manner.
Not like little old chickenshit you, hiding under an anonymous pen name and insulting those who dare make their thoughts and opinions public. Where's your great ideas, and your suggestions? What credentials do you have, aside from some rudimentary grammatical skills? What have you added to the public discourse, other than trying to stifle discourse in general?
In other words, go fuck yourself.
Dear Anonymous
You're a typical far left loon. You have no facts but you're quick to attack those who dare to disagree with you. Professor Perry provides fascinating insights in a typically boring subject. You can't these that through your liberal tainted view of the world.
P.S. Teaching is a real job and apparently you didn't have many top teachers!
I would agree that the ANWR is one of the bleakest remote places. The thing that comes to mind is Spring Hill, TN. Spring Hill was a hole in the ground in Tennessee. Then GM decided to build the Saturn plant there. The whole area was completely changed.
In ANWR, we have the same situation. I think that we should drill in the ANWR. I do not buy into the idea that we won't alter the landscape. If we start drilling up there, we will change the entire area. People would move into the area, transportation infrastructure would need to be built. Complete systems to sustain human life (grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, etc) would not be far behind.
The Democrats say drilling would destroy the ANWR. The Republicans say that nothing would change. Both of these views are absolutely wrong. I would like to have realistic appraisals of what would change. Increasing the supply is the answer.
Change is difficult. Some straight, non-political answers as to what will be done would lessen fears of something going wrong.
I've been to Alaska back in the days when almost all my clothing was green. I got North of Fairbanks a few times but, never made it to the North slope. As the saying goes, there's no there, there.
My main memory of that time centers around how many good, hard working people live in Alaska. They are perfectly capable of managing their own lives and their own environment.
Well as someone who has worked in the ANWR doing survey work, the best thing that could happen to that marshy hell hole can only be the presence of the oil industry...
I spent four months in the coastal plain area (May, June, July, August of '78) mapping the coast line and doing topo work in a couple of sections...
Everyday it was waders and clothes hosed down liberally with deet to try to fend off the mosquitoes...
People whining about the pristine condition of the ANWR don't have a clue...
I've seen more scenic tire dumps than the coastal plain of the ANWR...
People would move into the area, transportation infrastructure would need to be built. Complete systems to sustain human life (grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, etc) would not be far behind.
Not so much.
We already have oil drilling on the North Slope. Prudhoe Bay.
According to the US Census, the population of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is 5.
Of course, there's more sprawl in nearby Deadhorse, Alaska.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deadhorse_Alaska_aerial_view.jpg
Rush hour must be a bitch.
Nobody goes to the North Slope who doesn't need to be there. It's a very inhospitable place.
OP, so you don't like China sending us money? I do. The more money they send us the better.
You are right about third graders though, they generally understand that if you don't have enough of something and there is more lying on the ground, you should pick it up instead of buying it from someone else. Well they should, since the scholastic industrial complex has only had a few years to try to indoctrinate them in anti-capitalism.
In short, I echo Matt's worthy sentiments.
As ANWAR was created by men drawing arbitrary lines on a map why can't we just offset the acres needed for drilling with another parcel of contiguous land of equal or greater size. That way Congress could introduce the "ANWAR expansion and drilling act".
> I can see that you have never had a real job in your life.
Somehow, I seriously doubt from your rhetoric, that you have, either.
> Shame on you and may your God have mercy on your soul before sending you to burn!
You know, I hate liberal twits, but there are very few collected groups (save the higher leaders of Teachers Unions, offhand, who have shown a uniformity of evil rarely associated with a single professional grouping) whom I'd wish Hell upon.
Myself, I think God'll know what they deserve. I'll thus leave that decision up to him.
Have a nice day.
> The Democrats say drilling would destroy the ANWR. The Republicans say that nothing would change.
1) Kind of hard to "destroy" desolation.
Desolation: the state of being decayed or destroyed
Destroy: To ruin completely; spoil
"Destroy Desolation" -- Sort of an oxymoron, isn't it? Hard to destroy something that has no value in the first place. And I think the universe already has enough places which meet that description that finding a use for such a place (hence rendering it valuable, rather than desolate) qualifies as a "good" thing.
2) I belive it's not unreasonable to take the GOP position as meaning "nothing of value will be changed negatively", to wit:
Clearly, the economy will change, presumably improve. The financial resources of Alaska will improve. The oil dividend for Alaska natives, that, too, is likely to improve. Oil prices nationwide would hopefully go down, as would the oil-based portion of the trade deficit.
So the notion that the GOP meant "nothing would change" in the strictest interpretation of the term is ludicrous. If "nothing would change", then why do it?
Do I guess the Dems were correct -- the GOP wants to destroy the desolation, to render it useful and valuable to life on earth.
...And that is a good thing.
> OP, so you don't like China sending us money? I do. The more money they send us the better.
Sending us wealth, yes. Sending us gold, yes. Sending us trade goods? Sure.
Money, eh, not so much. We have enough paper stock here as it is.
:o)
Does anyone know when the last respectable, professionally done opinion poll on ANWR drilling was done? Nothing done in 2008 that I can find. Wouldn't that be important for our leaders to know... they want to poll everything else! [And of course the phrasing of the question asked is so important: "In this day of $4 plus gasoline..." or "Since oil companies are making so much money...".
Post a Comment
<< Home