Look, I'm not saying you're right or you're wrong about future's speculation of crude. I too think their is a proverbial line in the sand where "special" government rules need apply, the nukes/weapons argument dictates my recognizing that. But here's my issue:
When that much of our livelihood depends on one commodity, that commodity is no longer something that society can simply assume will be available when we demand it. Allowing speculators to work markets as a means to larger profits while the rest of the country sees their profits and earnings being consumed by higher costs in fuel and energy... where is the benefit to our society as a whole? Isn't the regulating of a small percentage of our economy less painful over-all than not having the regulation and seeing the bulk of our economy suffer from a disparity in supply-and-demand pricing?
You went on to say that in certain instances "security trumps profit." My question here is degrees. Is the above paragraph not something Chavez would say as his reason for nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry (which he did)? And aren't these the similar arguments (although not identical to be sure) that socialized medicine advocates use to say profit has no place in something as vital as health care (and its' damn vital when you're the one sick)? In fact the only "commodity" as valuable to a human being as oil is perhaps the ability to be treated when seriously ill.
Now you will undoubtedly say you're talking regulation, not nationalization. Ok, ok, fine. But you conceded that you're not sure where you'd draw the "vital" line. So if you haven't a clearly drawn "line" then would you not accept as rational my inclination that we not travel down a road so unclearly marked? And even if we were to discover that line, within that scenario we must then ask ourselves at what point does the "too vital" argument take us from hyper regulation to flat out nationalization (again, insert healthcare)? I see a flashing red slippery slope when as private citizens we say to the government, "ok, this one privately owned/traded commodity you can treat different, but no others." No entity in existence turns the proverbial inch into a mile more efficiently then government. I bristle at the notion that X, Y or Z product is "too vital" to let the free markets handle; and all I'm saying is no matter the pain at the pump, or your own bristling over record oil profits while you pay ever more per gallon, we must never be cavalier about turning economic liberties over to the feds under the guise that something is "too important."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Without dragging this out any further, I'd "draw the line" at crude. It is the ONLY commodity that our society is dependent on, thus it is (or should be) the only commodity that can't be "speculated on".
We can talk deregulation, too... there are many areas that I feel we could deregulate and see substantial growth in private industry and small business (and thus greater revenue for the Fed), but I don't feel the life blood of our society should be used in a speculative manner that doesn't promote safety or security as much as it promotes marginal profits (meaning outside the parameters of free market norms, not insignificant) for limited investors with substantial means.
Almost anyone can by stock in a company, but only a select few can buy futures... and those few have deep pockets that can absorb risk far in excess of what you and I can afford to pay at the pump.
Post a Comment