June 4, 2008, 9:25 am

We all know that the media is perfectly capable of ignoring even the most basic precepts of economics, but I thought Chris Plummer's article was especially heroic in doing so. Even more so, it is absolutely stunning in its arrogance. In his article, he writes on all the great ways that $8 a gallon gasoline will help make the world a better place. I will stay away from the global warming related issues -- I have a whole other blog dedicated to that -- but here are a couple of the most egregious parts:

They may contain computer chips, but the power source

for today's cars is little different than that which drove the first

Model T 100 years ago. That we're still harnessed to this antiquated

technology is testament to Big Oil's influence in Washington and

success in squelching advances in fuel efficiency and alternative

energy.

Given our achievement

in getting a giant mainframe's computing power into a handheld device

in just a few decades, we should be able to do likewise with these

dirty, little rolling power plants that served us well but are overdue

for the scrap heap of history.

OK, this first one is a science problem and not an engineering problem. Here is the problem: Gasoline contains more potential energy by weight and volume than any power storage source we have been able to invent (OK, its actually second, nuclear fuel is first, but I presume Plummer is not going there). That is the problem with electric cars, for example. Electric traction motors are demonstrably better sources of motive power than internal combustion engines. Even Diesel railroad engines are actually driven by electric traction motors. The problem is energy storage. Batteries store much less energy per pound and per cubit foot than gasoline. Ditto natural gas and hydrogen (except at very high pressures).

This claim that only the political power of oil companies keeps no-brainer alternative technologies at bay is absurd, though it is one that never dies in the lunatic fringes. Mr. Plummer is more than welcome to make himself a billion dollars by selling one of these mystery technologies he fails to disclose. I will be first in line to buy.

Necessity being the mother of invention, $8 gas would trigger all

manner of investment sure to lead to groundbreaking advances. Job

creation wouldn't be limited to research labs; it would rapidly spill

over into lucrative manufacturing jobs that could help restore

America's industrial base and make us a world leader in a critical

realm.

This is the broken window fallacy on steroids. I am a HUGE optimist about the limitless capabilities of the human mind, probably more so than Mr. Plummer (by the way, if he is such an optimist, he should read some Julian Simon). But the best that humanity can probably do any time soon is offset a goodly percentage of the damage from $8 gas. There is no net win here. If there were, he should also be advocating $10 bread, $2,000,000 starter home prices, and $200 a month internet service. Just think about all the innovation that would be required to react to these!

On a similar note, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad recently gained a platform on the world stage because of

their nations' sudden oil wealth. Without it, they would face the

difficult task of building fair and just economies and societies on

some other basis.

Yes sir. Chavez would be much worse off if he was getting $8 for his gas rather than $3. What is this guy thinking? Well, he says this:

In the near term, breaking our dependence on Middle Eastern oil may

well require the acceptance of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness

OK, but that can be done at $3 gas,and should have been allowed at $2 gas. This oil could have been developed in an environmentally friendly way years ago. Only Congressional stupidity stands in the way (probably with the past support of Mr. Plummer).

The recent housing boom sparked further development of

antiseptic, strip-mall communities in distant outlying areas. Making

100-mile-plus roundtrip commutes costlier will spur construction of

more space-efficient housing closer to city centers, including cluster

developments to accommodate the millions of baby boomers who will no

longer need their big empty-nest suburban homes.

Sure, there's plenty of

land left to develop across our fruited plains, but building more

housing around city and town centers will enhance the sense of

community lacking in cookie-cutter developments slapped up in the

hinterlands.