> But for the US, there's no question like that. It produces a lot lot more than it consumes anyway. There can't be a shortage.

It's a global commodity. The reason there likely won't be a shortage in the U.S. has little to do with our production volumes, and has more to do with the fact that we're rich enough to be able to afford the higher prices when many other countries will have to forgeo using oil.

But if we weren't a rich country and we couldn't afford to pay a higher price for oil than many other nations on earth, we would produce and export oil to people that can pay more.

Ireland during the famine produced enough food to feed every person. But much of it was exported to other places, that could afford to pay a higher dollar amount to survive.

▲

oblio 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You're 90% of the way there.

The US is also sovereign and if things would become really bad the government would just ban exports.

Ireland wasn't sovereign and it turns out, as much as other countries act brotherly (not that the UK really did), nobody really cares about you like you care.

▲

tmnvix 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Depends what 'sovereign' implies. The will of the people? Or maybe the will of those that lobby government the hardest (e.g. oil companies)? If the latter, then export bans might not arrive anytime soon.

▲

cryptonector 5 hours ago | parent [-]

'Sovereign' here means that the US govt is able to impose export restrictions, not that the People's will or special interests' desires are relevant. Of course 'can' != 'will'.

▲

tmnvix 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Interestingly, my dictionary gives the following (amongst other definitions of course):

> possessing supreme or ultimate power: in modern democracies the people's will is in theory sovereign.

	▲	cryptonector 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your dictionary is wrong. For example, in the UK Parliament is sovereign, not the people. That's effectively how it is in representative democracies or republics where there is no fast representative recall mechanism. The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that Congress is sovereign, but the effect is the same. For that matter, the U.S. President has a great deal of power.

▲

WarmWash 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Banning exports would be legitimately catastrophic geopolitically.

Tariffs are mostly just politics and pretty heavily partisan. Banning oil exports would be objectively evil.

▲

AgentOrange1234 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I think banning oil exports would never happen since oil shareholders would scream, but why would it be evil?

	▲	orwin 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Some countries rely on oil imports to produce agricultural products, and suddenly cutting them off the global market would kill hundreds of millions from hunger over the next year. Look at what happened in Cuba. Without china giving them old solar panels and used batteries, they would have revolted already. They still have a huge food insecurity issue for next year, especially if the huricane season gets bad.
	▲	WarmWash 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because the US started this mess, and it would essentially shift all the cost onto other countries who had no part in it.

▲

downrightmike 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The UK parliament thought it a good moral lesson Irish should starve because they were the wrong religion

	▲	oblio 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		In modern times we have a special word for what they did, but I've noticed British people are <<extremely>> touchy when it's used.