https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2011/11/interview-with-alex-epstein-founder-of-center-for-industrial-progress/

JL: What are the primary obstacles to industrial progress?

AE: There are two key obstacles to industrial progress: one is a lack of a positive and the other is a negative, in large part made possible by the lack of the positive.

The lack of a positive is the lack of a clearly fleshed-out pro-industrial philosophy that embraces the progressive transformation of nature through energy and technology. Such a philosophy, among other things, would define the proper political policies under which that transformation should take place—namely policies based on individual rights—and it would morally embrace industrialization.

Without the right industrial philosophy, people don’t value industrial progress sufficiently, and don’t know what policies will nourish that value.

Being clear on the positive is indispensable. For instance in oil, you can see throughout history that it is really important that property rights should be based on the principle that the creator of the value in the resource should own it.…

“Falling commodity prices in general are a good thing in a free market because, as economist Ludwig von Mises emphasized, the sole end of production is consumption. Consumption first, production second. Also the US is a net importer of both oil and natural gas, which means we consume more than we produce. So provincially speaking, the US gains more than it loses from well-to-pump or well-to-burner-tip price drops.”

Business consultant Carlos Lara and I produce a monthly financial publication, the Lara-Murphy Report, which highlights the Austrian School of economics in both academia and the financial markets. The January 2016 issue interviewed Rob Bradley of Houston, Texas, who was trained in Austrian-school economics and is a longtime historian of oil markets. This interview is reproduced below.

Robert L. Bradley Jr. is the founder and chief executive officer of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a 501(c)3 educational foundation with offices in Houston, Texas, and Washington, D.C.…

“I wish Senator Whitehouse were here. Because what he is doing to the free speech of those companies and anyone associated with it is unconstitutional. And I think he should apologize or resign.”

“You violate the constitution, you resign. I thought that was the policy in the United States.”

– Alex Epstein. Testimony before the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. April 13, 2016.

“I’ll never forget this hearing. We have a philosopher who wants Senator Whitehouse to resign. Senator Whitehouse, who is working every day to stop carbon pollution and save lives.”

– Sen. Barbara Boxer [3]

I remember encountering Alex Epstein back in 2011. He was working at the Ayn Rand Institute–and full time on energy. Wow, I thought. Here was someone who could add a philosophical voice to the political economists arguing the macro issues of depletion, pollution, and climate change, and the micro issues of price controls, trade restrictions, access restrictions, etc.…

“Price controls cause shortages, and government allocation exacerbates it. This was learned the hard way during the 1970s, particularly with oil, thanks to Republican President Richard Nixon.”

George Melloan’s review of Jane Mayer’s Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2016) criticized her foray into energy and energy policy:

Ms. Mayer might herself benefit from an economics course. She writes that Richard Nixon imposed economic controls on oil and gas in 1971 to “address the energy crisis.” The Nixon price controls helped to cause the energy crisis.

Intrigued, I bought Dark Money to see exactly what she said.  Here is the passage from Mayer (p. 91) referenced by Melloan:

The fossil fuel industry’s fondest wishes were also fulfilled.