Applied on the demand side it doesn't make sense. The "give" you suggest in gasoline consumption doesn't come rapidly (as od points out) - - it takes people time to buy new cars, move closer to work, coordinate carpools. In a volatile market, people will wait even longer to begin to do those things because they will think the price might be about to come back down (as you suggest). No one is going to run out and buy a new fuel efficient car when the price goes up $.01, but if the price rises $5 per gallon, the increased efficiency would be worth it, and if the price rose $10 per gallon trading up would be even more worth it. In that sense, an increasing price increases the "returns" on the "give" - exactly backwards from what you suggest. Unless of course I mistook your point.

Well you have to some degree. I'm speaking to effort invested, and money, vs the returns had in smaller energy and money demand.

The effect of price increases vs efficiencies gains is a less than exact science, of course, but in my view we're already well past the stage where compartively large decreases in oil consumed is a reasonable thing to obtain.

(And yes, I know "reasonable" is likely the most maliable word in the English language)

That situation, (and thereby our definition or 'reasobable') will undoubtly change.. up and down... as technology improves. Over time, I suppose our ability to get more efficiency will improve. Then too will our ability to find and produce oil product improve, so we'll be under less pressure to bring that consumption down, and the two tend to balacne each other.

But without the technology imprvements... which alas!, in both cases, will not come with governmental ivolvement, but a removal of it... we remain where we are...

But again, all this assumes that having people not able to use energy, or having it's use limited by government, is a good thing. Which, of course is sheer nonsense.

The bottom line is there wasn't a whole bunch of 'give' to be had on the demand side, particularly in the short term, if ever. We are already so far into diminishing returns, as to make the point moot.

Bit, I always understood diminishing returns to be a production law - - i.e. if $1 of resources produces one ton of grain there is a point at which $1 of additional resources will produce less than one ton of additional grain.

Applied on the demand side it doesn't make sense. The "give" you suggest in gasoline consumption doesn't come rapidly (as od points out) - - it takes people time to buy new cars, move closer to work, coordinate carpools. In a volatile market, people will wait even longer to begin to do those things because they will think the price might be about to come back down (as you suggest). No one is going to run out and buy a new fuel efficient car when the price goes up $.01, but if the price rises $5 per gallon, the increased efficiency would be worth it, and if the price rose $10 per gallon trading up would be even more worth it. In that sense, an increasing price increases the "returns" on the "give" - exactly backwards from what you suggest. Unless of course I mistook your point.

It will also cause people to rethink politically neglected avenues such as nuclear power.

feel free to and to my poem, maybe we can win a contest.

(nobody ever asks the obvious question: "at what price").

True, although a 4.3 percent decrease in demand in response to something like a 33 percent increase in price isn't exactly massive elasticity.

Correct.

Or better, consider it from the stand point of the $2.00/gallon we were getting when the Democrat Party took over Congress. Since the Democrat party took over Congress, Gas prices have doubled, and the overall drop in consumption to my memory, is only slightly larger than your 33% price increase figure suggests.

The bottom line is there wasn't a whole bunch of 'give' to be had on the demand side, particularly in the short term, if ever. We are already so far into diminishing returns, as to make the point moot.

But as I mentioned yesterday, the price/bbl numbers have started back down, very near to the time I predicted they would. Which, of course changes the entire dynamic.

It also calls into question the long-held belief that the demand for gasoline was relatively inelastic with respect to price.

True, although a 4.3 percent decrease in demand in response to something like a 33 percent increase in price isn't exactly massive elasticity.