2006-11-27 09:38:42 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
say water is the replacement
2006-11-27 09:55:53 · update #1
"Dependency" in and of itself means nothing to the economy. The only question is, would the oil replacement make for a more productive use of resources or not? If not more productive, that would tend to harm the economy as end-user products formerly made with oil would now be more expensive and tie up more resources in their production.
If the replacement was MORE productive than oil, then end-user products would be cheaper, and that would be good for the economy.
Actually this is possible today, and we are not truly "dependent" on oil even now. For every application of oil, there is a substitute available today. The problem is, those substitutes are all currently less productive than oil -- which is why we use oil.
2006-11-27 16:04:36 · answer #1 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question. I am not certain of the impact on the economy, but on the outset I would assume it would be positive since not depending on oil would mean a new affordable energy source was discovered. There are too many assumptions however that need to be made to really answer, such as would the new energy source potentially be worse for the planet?
One thing that could certainly be said however, is that it would completely remove any bargaining power the middle east has which would be a HUGE gain for the rest of the planet. Once we are not effected economically by what happens in the middle east, the middle east has to stand on its own merit, and that might force the the whole area to get its act together, or it might isolate them further from the free world; either way, good for the west.
2006-11-27 09:55:16 · answer #2 · answered by Megan S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whatever is going to be the replacement of oil; the alternate fuel will not be free, in fact for now the prediction is that the cost will be very close to equal with the price of oil. Therefore the economy will keep going around much as it does now.
2006-11-27 09:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by pooterilgatto 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I'm no economist, but it seems to me we'd sure have a lot more to spend on things like education, health care, the environment, and lots of other things that affect us all.
2006-11-27 09:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ask my professor Ameen. I would say humans would suffer a huge drop but all of that would not last as we, being in desparate straights would find our creative juices flowing to fix the problem.
2006-11-27 09:50:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
crumble, crunch
2006-11-27 09:42:52 · answer #6 · answered by mxzptlk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋