He should be dragged in front of a tribunal at the Hague...

No, not Qaddafi. I refer instead to the gentleman whom forced you to endure MSNBC for six hours.

Now see, if I were going to make a reference to my & Jambo's infrequent posting, I would of went with something like, "I haven't seen so many lame posters since my sister's New Kids on the Block phase" hehehe. Although, if I tortured that metaphor any further it'd be me in the Hague.

Well, well, well, lets see. The MSNBC "doubling domestic drilling would only reduce gas costs 0.03 cents per gallon" argument reminds me of the "ANWR wont produce a drop of oil for 10 years" argument. Do you know when I first heard that ANWR argument? About 10 years ago. What they (MSNBC & crew) willingly ignore is that if events in the Gulf States effect the price of oil in real time, then so does every other "psychological impact." If Iran announces that it will reduce its production over the next 10 years, the price goes up starting the day of the announcement, not at the conclusion of the 10 years. If the US, the most prolific consumer of energy on the planet, were to announce a serious domestic drilling and energy plan the price would also respond, the day of the announcement, rather then after every facet of the plan is in place. Such is the nature of speculation. Of course, that doesn't fit the ideological template of Mr. Matthews or Mr. Maddow (that was cheap, but I couldn't resist sinking to their level, if only for a moment), so it isn't explored, no matter how intellectually bereft it leaves them looking.

By the way, the CEO of GE is a de facto member of the president's cabinet. And guess who owns MSNBC? I'm sure if Murdoch were part of GW Bush's senior economic advisory board that Messuire Madow would see no problem with that (ok, that was the last time, I promise).

But let me back up a minute. Would Reagan era speculation curbs, well, "curb" spikes? The data suggests yes, undoubtedly. But I thought it was you Titus that pegged the "spike damage" the Bush policy allowed for as but a symptom of a much deeper problem - our straying from the gold standard.

From your post of 15 March, 2011 entitled, This Is Going To Be Painful To Write:

I might have been wrong to blame the spectre of speculation pricing on the growing cost of oil... So, what is driving crude oil prices so high, when the supply of oil is UP in the US by more than 3 million barrels per day since 2008? The US Federal Government. Here's why ...

You then went on to add: [if] the value of a dollar was [still] tied to the price of gold (meaning the value of a dollar went up and down with the value of gold, and the global value of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce), the average cost for a barrel of oil right now would be $2.60 per barrel. Translate that into the national average for a gallon of gasoline, and the price is $0.10 per gallon. Yep... ten cents per gallon of gas ... the greater decline in the value of the dollar is a major contributor to the cost of oil.

And you concluded with: Ending speculation pricing would (I still ardently maintain) take away much of the volatility of the oil market, and keep the price at a more steady, long-term level... but it won't take away the trend upwards in price.

Having reread your post in its' entirety I'm forced to ask, so why crucify Bush? You have declared that the "Nixon Shock", combined with our irresponsible spending making a fiat currency untenable, the true problem. Clearly we will continue to hurt at the pump until we ("slowly") return to a currency backed by a tangible asset. Right?

Now look, I get that the curbs would at least be a bandaid, maybe even a tourniquet. But you can't post the above argument one month then call for the crucifixion of Bush (2 days after Easter no less) the next. Not when the afore mentioned argument confessed that Bush's actions weren't at the core of the problem. I don't care what "curbs" are put in place, they wouldn't have rendered a gallon of gas 10 cents, nor a barrel of crude $2.60.