Economic Hit Men

Economic Hit Manning is fiscally irresponsible, as well as unethical. Subverting foreign governments and people to gain their resources is less efficient than changing your own industries to feature maxmimum performance. A vehicle could potentially get 171mpg. European diesel vehicles routinely get ~45 or more mpg, and have stellar performance. they run on 15ppm of sulfur. American diesel contains 500ppm of sulfur, and is too filthy to be used massively for this reason.

Is it more cost-effective to run the world's oil production based on a 15[20]mpg car and hold back technical production to sell more oil, or to increase efficiency of industries and motorworks to 171mpg and produce more work with the same oil?

This depends on whether you rely on oil or work to make your bread, and from a total market standpoint, it is more efficient to have the better motor and do more with less. This could be a symptom of grand-scale protectionism, which could easily be replaced by a simple update of factories and attitudes. War is failure. Inefficiency, so much more, is a root of failure. Being knowledgeably led astray is failure.

What is the risk of free energy? Standalone energy devices could easily replace a majority of the world's work. The people who sell energy and oil would be removed from economic fortitude, but what kind of place would they find if they abandoned oil? Saudi Arabia and the Middle East could be massively westernized or northernized or southernized or centralized if they chose to adopt free energy instead of oil. They could build factories building anything they want for about no dollars, ad be flush with things and capacity to do work. The equally divided better lot is greater than the entire present lot on a person to person basis. It would be easy to support very high qualities of living for everyone on earth and billions more with such technology and social structure in place. By 'everyone' I mean all 6.2 billion humans living here.