Why would they do that? Current production can keep up with demand with steady price increases. Only when price becomes too high for consumption would an increase in supply be necessary. This is simplistic and ignores the larger economic implications of an inability to procure oil, but the free-market philosophy (which is still not utilized by the way) provides a structure in which R&D come from necessity and not from a desire for comfort.

Like the critical-thinkers than ran the Soviet economy, or the pre-Dong PRC hacks to provided central planning that worked ever so well. I seem to recall China's market liberalization (though hardly liberal yet) yielding massive GDP gains when compared to the allegedly meritorious interventionist economic theories of socialism or Leninism (since we can both reasonably conclude that Marxism runs in the same realm of feasibility as anarcho-captialism).

At this point you'll attempt to point out EU economic expansion under the auspices of social welfare reforms and minimum wage requirements, and then cite nineteenth century Germany compared to the UK of the same time. Neither of these examples will help your case however because both denote periods of economic activity characterized by neo-liberal policy implementation and aggregate decreases in the scope of state economic interventionism.

When we find a trust, I'll be the first one there, hammer in hand. The oil industry is not oligopolous however (unless you use a VERY broad sense of the word), and so trust-busting would be premature.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".