Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowwrestler | Hacker News Reader

Energy independence does not mean “only uses domestically produced energy.” It means “energy is not a significant lever that other nations have over us.”

And that is true for the U.S. today. We could meet our domestic fossil fuel energy needs, but we find economic advantage in trading energy anyway. But when we want to use energy as a tool of policy, we have the option.

This happens in personal finance too. I can pay off my mortgage: I have enough capital to do so. So I don’t fear the bank. But with mortgage interest rates so low, I’ve found comparative advantage by keeping my mortgage and investing my capital elsewhere.

View on HN

Exactly, trade tends to build trust and good relations (or at least respectful relations) so it's a good Net-Net thing. However, if in stressful times like war the government can pretty easily enact tariffs and even dictates that all domestic production stays here. That is of course for only emergency conditions.

Correct, with exception of arms trade, which finds a way to generate conflict to keep the demand going.

I know I shouldn’t respond to comments like this, they’re uninformed and conspiracy ridden so not HN material, but “arms companies” have no need to “generate conflict.” People are fairly efficient at doing that regardless.

Given the objectively and publicly known huge part of the US destabilizing other countries overtly and covertly, and similar stories from innumerable other powers throughout history, I would say it takes damn much energy from third parties to generate a conflict between people I would love to see a comment defending US actions, in a way that makes sense, using only its official public narrative. Every damn official point made for justification is full of holes and counter examples.

Money is fungible. When you buy oil from a country, that country can buy arms or materials to manufacture arms with that money.

Do they (serious question)? Do you mean like actively lobbying for the US to enter into wars? Or is this more like "I have a tank so I might as well invade".

My running theory is that US does these endless wars for this reason.

Tax payer money -> defense companies -> 'political contributions'

This is why it's probably fine to not win wars because the war is not being fought to be won.

> We could meet our domestic fossil fuel energy needs, but we find economic advantage in trading energy anyway.

I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “we”? You and I benefit nothing from the current status quo. A small group of people get rich off resources below our collective feet and we all pay more for practically everything.

No need to be pedantic. "We" as in the American people, as represented by their democratically elected representatives.

If you find fault with it, you have you voice (albeit a very quiet one) via your right to a vote.

If you have free time to read and post on hn, you may be benefiting from the status quo.

“Yet you participate in society” is a very low-effort retort to the very real concern of Big Oil and its corruption and warmongering.

I can see how you might interpret my post that way, but it was not the point I was making.

Anyone in the country who buys gas benefits from lower gas prices. That includes a lot of poor people.

My mom lives in upstate New York, in a low income area. People there are very negatively impacted by the increase gas prices right now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com