Democrats Manufacture "Economic Crimes"
Bad economic legislation coupled with the beating of yet more war drums — directed this time at Iran — means that we are expending increasing amounts of money just to fill our gasoline tanks. In my criticism, I believe the Republicans are receiving what they deserve, especially since many Republicans like to tout themselves as adherents to free market principles. However, there also is another political party in Washington, one that is not short of "ideas" for energy policy prescriptions. Since I have raked Republicans over the coals — justifiably so — it is only fair to turn toward the Democrats. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (21)
It all seems like a page right out of "Atlas Shrugged."
Published: May 2, 2006 8:42 AM
Another win for the feel good/no personal responsibility/lazy crowd. My advice to those who think this corn or bio-diesel stuff or any other AFD, Alternative Fuel of the Day, is economical then prove it the hard way by starting your own company of 20 or 30 thousand folks to engineer the plants, harvest the plants, make the fuel, transport the fuel, sell the fuel and do all this for $2.85 a gallon, and lastly make hundreds of millions of gallons of the stuff.
The point is that it isn't easy and if it was then the real efficient energy companies would already be doing it.
This whole alternative fuel thing is one big ripoff of tax payers. Just like Global Warming, Petrol Addiction, Mass Transit, Amtrack, CAFE, and the other socialists transportation programs dreamed up by Washington.
Published: May 2, 2006 9:19 AM
The "New York Times" only makes sense if you look at it as a foreign country.
Published: May 2, 2006 10:04 AM
"Here is the "newspaper of record" telling people that their use of fuel oil is morally the same as smoking crack cocaine or mainlining heroin."
But, um, the use of fuel oil is morally the same as using crack or herion: None of these activities injure anyone against their will, so none of them is morally problematic at all.
Published: May 2, 2006 12:58 PM
So this is one of the reasons you look at the New York Times - to find out what the leading circles of Democrats are thinking.
Forewarned is forearmed I suppose.
Published: May 2, 2006 1:46 PM
Prosperity must fail, not founded on
Production but on schemes of Washington.
Prosperity must fail where industries
Sustain unprofitable syntheses.
Published: May 2, 2006 3:48 PM
To paraphrase something I wrote on another blog (you mean there are other blogs!?), which "borrowed" a theme from a poem called "The Incredible Bread Machine":
Three inmates are talking:
1st prisoner: I'm from Exxon and I'm in prison because they say I charged too much for oil. Price gouging they called it.
2nd prisoner: I'm from Walmart and I'm in prison because they say I charged too little for my product. Unfair competition they called it.
3rd prisoner: I'm from Samsung and I'm in prison because they say I charged the same price as everyone else for my commodity DRAM chips. Price fixing they called it.
Anyway, the moral of the story is that the government is a joke when it comes to understanding prices. Prices are a reflection of supply and demand. The higher the supply or the lower the demand, the lower the price. The lower the supply or the higher the demand, the higher the price.
Prices aren't a reflection of bad morals or good morals, simply supply and demand for the underlying product. Therefore both the producers and the consumers of the underlying products are neither moral nor immoral for their input into the price, i.e. their production and distribution, or their consumption, or lack thereof.
The government needs to mind its own business, and those of who know better need to explain to everyone that supply and demand is inviolable regardless of how many laws are made or who gets fined or goes to prison for breaking those futile laws.
The government had price ceilings during the 70's on oil, and we got gas lines as a result. In other words, the government fixed the price too high and supply and demand never went away, they just took a different form.
The government has price floors of various sorts on wages and benefits, and we have unemployment as a result. In other words, the government has fixed the price for unskilled labor too high and supply and demand never went away, they just took another form.
Published: May 2, 2006 4:36 PM
To clarify from my last paragraph, hte price *floor* I am talking about is the price the would-be laborer is allowed to charge for his services. This is most obvious in the minimum wage, but is also a result of payroll taxes, mandated employee "protections" and breaks etc. all of which needlessly raise the cost of hiring unskilled or low skilled workers, or risky hires like ex-cons who need to support themselves somehow....
Published: May 2, 2006 4:44 PM
Here is my alternative fuel:
Get every government employee to pull carts with people in 'em. How's that for justice and economic efficiency?
Published: May 2, 2006 6:10 PM
"Given their present state, US companies simply cannot make enough money selling small automobiles to survive. Thus, if the government were to order new mileage standards, such policies would force automakers to spend billions of dollars in new research and new production lines, with near-zero or even negative financial returns. While people may declare the automakers to be obstructionists, in reality new changes in fleet mileage requirements would place firms like GM in even worse positions than they are at the present time"
I agree with the sentiment of your article, but have to take issue with the above. Of course the government shouldn't be mandating minimum fuel efficiency standards, but neither should they have allowed tax breaks for trucks / SUVs years ago. Without the distortions caused by these tax breaks, the US car industry would not have geared its production so excessively towards "gas guzzlers", & would probably not be facing bankruptcy now.
GM, Ford and Chrysler all posses the technology to build fuel efficient cars, they all make them in large volumes for non-US markets, so it would hardly take "billions of dollars in new research" to make US cars more fuel efficient.
The problems have been caused by previous government interference, sadly people have now got used to driving huge inefficient SUVs & will resist change.
Published: May 2, 2006 7:14 PM
Colin, any more info on these tax break schemes for SUVs? You mean tax breaks for consumers, or a taxbreak for corporations in their manufacture? Combination?
Published: May 3, 2006 12:01 AM
One thing that politicians can do is set a good example instead of legislating their economic beliefs on everyone else. When some of the politicians stood in front of gas stations making their empty promises to the voters, the politicians were driving in SUVs. I say that Ted Kennedy and Dennis Hastert need to ride their bikes to work. They need the exercise.
Published: May 3, 2006 3:27 AM
Right on. Pols on both sides of the aisle are participating in such grotesque political theater that it's hard to differentiate anymore... A couple of things that get lost in the debate: 1) Oil cos profits are huge because BILLIONS of people consume their product every day. It's a matter of scale. 2) The WPT that some Democrats are calling for to alleviate the suffering at the pump would only be passed on to the consumer. It's not logical. Having said that out loud, I'm not sure why I'm surprised...
Published: May 4, 2006 6:00 AM
flander,
"Pols on both sides of the aisle are participating in such grotesque political theater that it's hard to differentiate anymore"
Did the above begin in: a.)1916 b.)1936 c.)1976
or d.)this past week ??
Published: May 4, 2006 6:25 AM
We need a law against "tax gouging."
Published: May 4, 2006 1:20 PM
I agree with flander... WPT isn't going to help us with high gas prices at all. What we need is to continue a focus on comprehensive, sound energy policy-- increasing supply through domestic sources, loosening regulations on oil companies so that they can expand their technologies, etc.
Published: May 4, 2006 7:38 PM
Mark, I wholeheartedly agree. It really upsets me that the government is investigating the oil industry for price gouging. Yet, when I fill up, less than 10% goes to the oil companies. Meanwhile, the government is taking in almost 50 cents per gallon on taxes. Let's not forget that they're taking in an exorbitant amount from the oil companies too.
Published: May 4, 2006 8:21 PM
I like how Congress picks on the big oil companies here in the US and blames them for price gouging and windfall profits. But only Exxon even shows up in the top ten, world wide, as the only free market company and then at number 5. And they only produce 3% of the world's oil.
My point is that the real culprits of price gouging and windfall profits are the state run companies in the OPEC countries and others such as Russia. Why isn't there more pressure in Congress to go after Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and all the rest?
Published: May 5, 2006 12:47 AM
I'd like to add a long-range perspective to Mr. Anderson's comments, based on several singular points he raised.
First Quote: 'To say that consumption of oil products is an "addiction" is like saying that the breathing of air is "addictive."'
Response: A better analogy would be to say 'consumption of oil products... is like saying the breathing of air *in a hermitically sealed chamber* is "addictive".
Point: If you knew that you could breath air in a large-enough room for 40yrs if you *remained calm*, or for 7yrs if you were *enraged* to find an exit, which would you promote, if not alone?
Second Quote: "Petroleum is a commodity that has many uses, and without it we would be much poorer and life expectancy would be considerably shorter."
Response: I would emphasize that 'without it we **will** be much poorer, and life potential will be considerably different.'
Point: No non-state Oil company has found more dollar-value oil (since 1998, I believe) than the money they'd spent seeking that deposit (or: it costs $500mil to find $450mil of extractable oil)
NB: same stats apply (roughly) for production of hydrogen (the *myth* as oil-replacement)
Third Quote: "Given their present state, US companies simply cannot make enough money selling small automobiles to survive."
Response: I am interested in seeing the statistics that support such a hypothetical conclusion.
Point: If Mr. Anderson says, (reworded) 'They (auto manufacturers) have to sell huge gas-guzzling cars to survive', and they have been, and they are NOT surviving, does this not raise two points? First, that by his own logic they're 'going out of business' by doing what Mr A supports? And as Free Market Liberals, should we not wish the death of behemoth companies, selling behemoth cars, so that new and more versatile companies can move into the market for *personal transportation* entities of the future?
In conclusion: in 1993 I discussed 'socio-economic inertia' with my PoliSci prof in Colorado / the impact of dislocating such large economic players...
(the entire oil-auto-parts-tires-gas economy) ... society sustains them, supports them, until their total collapse:
the world can't 'afford' to 'change trains', but when it does.............
Drew
Published: May 5, 2006 11:12 AM
Thankyou
Published: July 5, 2006 9:25 AM
This reminds me of the US in the mid-1900's when Americans were "addicted" to whale oil for indoor lighting. The supply began to run out and prices soared over 1,000%. Then a Canadian figured out how to extract kerosene from oil shale, then from petroleum. Within a few shorts years, the country had broken its "addiction" to whale oil and begun using petroleum and kerosene at much lower prices. Should oil be running out, and I'm not convinced it is, we have several alternatives, the most promising of which seems to be hydrogen, either burning it or making electricity with it via fuel cells. The transition might be bumpy, but the future is secure.
Published: July 5, 2006 10:28 AM