The numbers on speculation coinciding with wild swings (mostly up) are hard to deny. I am willing to concede that Bush's open speculation has made the price of crude rise in ways it otherwise would not have (nice Rook to block on the Reagan vs Bush comment by the way).
However, I would not advocate a return to the pre-Bush 43 policy, in a vacuum. And here's why: a funny thing happened on the way tp $4.12 a gallon. Greenies had long sought such skyrocketing prices (Al Gore openly admitted that the best thing for the planet was $10 a gallon gas) because they thought such cost at the pump was the only real way to motivate Americans into consuming "alternative" fuels. The "funny" I speak of was this rise in price had an unintended consequence (if you're a Al Gorian disciple). The "drill here, drill now" movement sprang to life. Talk of opening up ANWR, close shore drilling in numerous states, it all was on the table because at $4 a gallon it felt as if we were being held hostage by this foreign and mischievous OPEC consortium (which is actually a fair description). In fact, the opposite of what the environmentalists wanted occurred. And why? Because "drill baby drill" more aptly captures the American spirit then "$500 cash back on a 2010 Prius." However, if removing the speculation price swings causes us to drop back into anything approaching .88 cents a gallon, then such a domestic push for energy independence (or at least severely curtailing codependence) will cease almost over night.
So, like the watermelon crowd (green on the outside, commie pinko red on the inside. . . hehe), am I willing to see Americans "suffer" at the pump in order to push what I see as a national security imperative? No. Enter my perfect plan, call it the Ryan-Titus Energy Initiative Act of 2012 (given only a new president would sign it into law). We both agree on the national security dimensions. We also agree on fundamental deregulation of the market itself rather then its' speculation. And we both want to crush Al Gore and company. So, as president you announce the EIA to the country as a bill submitted to a simpatico congress. And in it contains the fundamental deregulation of all aspects of domestic energy. We're bringing 5 nuclear power plants and 5 new refineries online per year by slashing red tape and incentivize the tax code. Deregulating the petroleum market. For coal, natural gas, all manners of cost prohibitive obstacles are being eliminated. We're drilling, everywhere. It's fill in the blank deregulation time. Then. . . quietly, without the fanfare, pomp and circumstance of that Rose Garden, not flanked by law makers, in the quiet of the Oval, you roll back Bush 43's speculation allowance. You have fundamentally deregulated the energy market, having re-regulated only the unhealthy speculation of that market.
Now, what have you done? Not only have you set America upon the path of energy independence, shoring up both national and economic security with my deregulation, you have also - if Titus hypothesis is correct - made a move which allows the American consumer to see a tangible drop at the pump within months due to the elimination of wild speculation. It will seem to John Q. Public that merely starting down the path of ramped up domestic energy production reduces his cost at the pump. You will impress upon 2, maybe 3 generations of Americans that domestic production costs them less to fill up, and the green movement costs them more (which happens to be the truth). In our fast food, instant messaging, microwaving, xbox live feed having culture you've got the quick results necessary to sell a long term project. It's beautiful! Now that's bipartisan compromise.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Maybe in three...
One more thing occurred to me after writing my last...
Ryan is, perhaps, advocating a deregulated petroleum market in the hopes of increasing domestic crude production... and THAT I can support 100%. However, I don't think that Bush's efforts helped at all.
By giving in to environmental pressures and allowing such vast areas of production as ANWAR, the Gulf shelf, and the Pacific rim to be removed from the list of oil producing areas of this country, the US has allowed foreign sources of oil to be more economically viable on the market than any domestic oil we can now produce. No one drilling in LA, MS, FL, TX or OK for crude is going to be able to do it at a price that can compete with such producers as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Mexico or Venezuela... where the national economies are GEARED to subsidize the price against consumer demands in places like Europe and the US. The disaster that was the BP Gulf oil leak will only make that problem a thousand times worse, too.
However, allowing speculation pricing to continue only makes this problem WORSE. It feeds fears and hopes that might never materialize beyond the paper they are printed on, and passes those on to the consumer when they never need exist in the first place. A harsh winter playing hell with a wheat crop certainly can impact many, many people here in the US (even more abroad)... but it won't bring the entire nation to its knees the way a $100 increase per barrel of oil will, when that increase is based solely on the speculative ramblings of someone know one really knows anyway. So, spending millions to cash in on a "perceived" glut on the winter wheat market is one thing... but contributing to a spike in crude prices when the entire nation is utterly dependent on the commodity based on nothing more than a whim or rumor is NOT good for the nation or the economy.
Am I clear here? What about this am I still being vague about?
Ryan is, perhaps, advocating a deregulated petroleum market in the hopes of increasing domestic crude production... and THAT I can support 100%. However, I don't think that Bush's efforts helped at all.
By giving in to environmental pressures and allowing such vast areas of production as ANWAR, the Gulf shelf, and the Pacific rim to be removed from the list of oil producing areas of this country, the US has allowed foreign sources of oil to be more economically viable on the market than any domestic oil we can now produce. No one drilling in LA, MS, FL, TX or OK for crude is going to be able to do it at a price that can compete with such producers as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Mexico or Venezuela... where the national economies are GEARED to subsidize the price against consumer demands in places like Europe and the US. The disaster that was the BP Gulf oil leak will only make that problem a thousand times worse, too.
However, allowing speculation pricing to continue only makes this problem WORSE. It feeds fears and hopes that might never materialize beyond the paper they are printed on, and passes those on to the consumer when they never need exist in the first place. A harsh winter playing hell with a wheat crop certainly can impact many, many people here in the US (even more abroad)... but it won't bring the entire nation to its knees the way a $100 increase per barrel of oil will, when that increase is based solely on the speculative ramblings of someone know one really knows anyway. So, spending millions to cash in on a "perceived" glut on the winter wheat market is one thing... but contributing to a spike in crude prices when the entire nation is utterly dependent on the commodity based on nothing more than a whim or rumor is NOT good for the nation or the economy.
Am I clear here? What about this am I still being vague about?
Fool's mate in two...
I like the chess reference...
Look, as I said... no one needs to defend a position against limiting or regulating how much someone can make in profits. End of story. My "hair-pulling" comments were made with that fully understood, okay? This is America, and America runs on profits. That isn't cool to say anymore, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Had you followed my link in yesterday's post, you'd see a shift in gasoline prices between June of '08 and December of '08 of more than $3.50 per gallon of gas. From $4.12 to $1.61 nationally... that's a HUGE shift by any stretch of the imagination... with no change in the supply of crude to account for it. THOSE are the kind of spikes that I think hurt the economy and put the nation at a higher security risk with no measurable reasoning behind the risk... and that means unnecessary risk.
If deregulation of such things as marijuana, opium, alcohol and tobacco still gives you pause because it might impact national security... then how dangerous is an unregulated crude oil market? Every drop of gas, diesel, fuel oil, propane, butane, every ounce of plastic, petroleum lubricants, rubber and asphalt NEEDS crude oil as a start to its production, and every facet of our lives (and I mean globally here) depends on these products... so how can deregulating the crude oil market make things better for America, economically or financially?
How has Bush's repeal of the crude oil curbs helped? THIS CHART, showing the average price of gas since 1979, shows a marked climb in prices AFTER Bush repeals the curbs... with the price NEVER coming below the HIGH point of the previous 20 years at all. Isn't this enough proof that Bush screwed up? (It is even true if you adjust for inflation... go ahead, check it out)
Perhaps its a coincidence that the prices climb at the same time as Bush repeals the curbs, you might say. Perhaps it is... but what, then, is the impetus behind the climb? The War on Terror? Iraq? Afghanistan? Tensions in Iran, North Korea, Palestine? I say no because these were all real and measurable threats long before Bush became President (with the exception of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously).
No... from 1982 until 2001, we see an almost FLAT line of average gas prices, with highs of $1.60 to lows of $.88 a gallon. Since 2001, the price has soared as high as $4.40 to as low as $1.60, but averaging more than $2.75 for the last nine years. That's a 67% increase from what we paid in the 90s to what we paid in the last 10 years... with no appreciable loss in crude availability (but a nearly constant increase in our daily demand as a nation).
So, you'll never hear me say I think curbing profits is a good idea... but changing the way we allow market prices to be determined isn't the same thing. I cannot fathom how YOU, Ryan, of all people, would argue that Reagan's answer to this problem wasn't the best one! I have given you the proof of this time and time again (and again in this very post!)... end speculation pricing as an option in crude oil futures trading, and watch the wild ups and downs of the last 10 years go away... just like they did in the 80s and 90s. The cost of a barrel of crude will be determined by what is available TODAY... not by what might be available tomorrow, or next month. Surely you aren't going to tell me that Exxon-Mobile, BP, Texaco, Chevron, Shell didn't make billions upon billions of dollars in profits throughout the 80s and 90s... because I think they did.
Now... does that remove the threat posed by foreign powers over our economy and national security? NO. You are 100% correct when you say we need energy independence to be safe... but what I am saying needs to be done will surely give the struggling economy a much needed kick in the ass. Stable gasoline prices will allow for a reduction in distribution costs and allow consumers a larger area to "consume" from (meaning more travel and spending). It will put more people to work in industries that have suffered much since the bubble burst of 2000... including the American auto industry and freight hauling.
So, before we can adequately address the tree-huggers and nature-first types of people who seem to want to go back to the days of horse-and-buggy travel... we need to show that this nation can adequately protect the means by which mainstream America commutes to and from work/shop/play at reasonable rates of expense. THEN we can begin to make inroads to supplying our own oil needs and forgoing foreign import dangers.
Look, as I said... no one needs to defend a position against limiting or regulating how much someone can make in profits. End of story. My "hair-pulling" comments were made with that fully understood, okay? This is America, and America runs on profits. That isn't cool to say anymore, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Had you followed my link in yesterday's post, you'd see a shift in gasoline prices between June of '08 and December of '08 of more than $3.50 per gallon of gas. From $4.12 to $1.61 nationally... that's a HUGE shift by any stretch of the imagination... with no change in the supply of crude to account for it. THOSE are the kind of spikes that I think hurt the economy and put the nation at a higher security risk with no measurable reasoning behind the risk... and that means unnecessary risk.
If deregulation of such things as marijuana, opium, alcohol and tobacco still gives you pause because it might impact national security... then how dangerous is an unregulated crude oil market? Every drop of gas, diesel, fuel oil, propane, butane, every ounce of plastic, petroleum lubricants, rubber and asphalt NEEDS crude oil as a start to its production, and every facet of our lives (and I mean globally here) depends on these products... so how can deregulating the crude oil market make things better for America, economically or financially?
How has Bush's repeal of the crude oil curbs helped? THIS CHART, showing the average price of gas since 1979, shows a marked climb in prices AFTER Bush repeals the curbs... with the price NEVER coming below the HIGH point of the previous 20 years at all. Isn't this enough proof that Bush screwed up? (It is even true if you adjust for inflation... go ahead, check it out)
Perhaps its a coincidence that the prices climb at the same time as Bush repeals the curbs, you might say. Perhaps it is... but what, then, is the impetus behind the climb? The War on Terror? Iraq? Afghanistan? Tensions in Iran, North Korea, Palestine? I say no because these were all real and measurable threats long before Bush became President (with the exception of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously).
No... from 1982 until 2001, we see an almost FLAT line of average gas prices, with highs of $1.60 to lows of $.88 a gallon. Since 2001, the price has soared as high as $4.40 to as low as $1.60, but averaging more than $2.75 for the last nine years. That's a 67% increase from what we paid in the 90s to what we paid in the last 10 years... with no appreciable loss in crude availability (but a nearly constant increase in our daily demand as a nation).
So, you'll never hear me say I think curbing profits is a good idea... but changing the way we allow market prices to be determined isn't the same thing. I cannot fathom how YOU, Ryan, of all people, would argue that Reagan's answer to this problem wasn't the best one! I have given you the proof of this time and time again (and again in this very post!)... end speculation pricing as an option in crude oil futures trading, and watch the wild ups and downs of the last 10 years go away... just like they did in the 80s and 90s. The cost of a barrel of crude will be determined by what is available TODAY... not by what might be available tomorrow, or next month. Surely you aren't going to tell me that Exxon-Mobile, BP, Texaco, Chevron, Shell didn't make billions upon billions of dollars in profits throughout the 80s and 90s... because I think they did.
Now... does that remove the threat posed by foreign powers over our economy and national security? NO. You are 100% correct when you say we need energy independence to be safe... but what I am saying needs to be done will surely give the struggling economy a much needed kick in the ass. Stable gasoline prices will allow for a reduction in distribution costs and allow consumers a larger area to "consume" from (meaning more travel and spending). It will put more people to work in industries that have suffered much since the bubble burst of 2000... including the American auto industry and freight hauling.
So, before we can adequately address the tree-huggers and nature-first types of people who seem to want to go back to the days of horse-and-buggy travel... we need to show that this nation can adequately protect the means by which mainstream America commutes to and from work/shop/play at reasonable rates of expense. THEN we can begin to make inroads to supplying our own oil needs and forgoing foreign import dangers.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Debt ...
Just a quick note on a different subject ...
We are now roughly $14, 000, 000, 000, 000 (that's trillion) in debt.
The new GOP majority (full of Tea Party acolytes), have vowed two things as the first order(s) of business. First, they have already (just today in fact) submitted a bill to repeal Obamacare entitled: Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Act. Secondly, they have vowed to vote down the latest bill to raise the US debt ceiling.
The White House has called the prospect of not raising the debt ceiling "grossly irresponsible." Various senior Democrats call it ludicrous, dangerous, unprecedented.
You know who voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2006?
A then Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
By the way, the cost of Obama's 2,500 page health care bill? Upwards of a trillion dollars. The fact that the bill to repeal it is only 2 pages long... priceless.
We are now roughly $14, 000, 000, 000, 000 (that's trillion) in debt.
The new GOP majority (full of Tea Party acolytes), have vowed two things as the first order(s) of business. First, they have already (just today in fact) submitted a bill to repeal Obamacare entitled: Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Act. Secondly, they have vowed to vote down the latest bill to raise the US debt ceiling.
The White House has called the prospect of not raising the debt ceiling "grossly irresponsible." Various senior Democrats call it ludicrous, dangerous, unprecedented.
You know who voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling in 2006?
A then Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
By the way, the cost of Obama's 2,500 page health care bill? Upwards of a trillion dollars. The fact that the bill to repeal it is only 2 pages long... priceless.
knight to king's bishop ...
Let me state categorically that I am not a Ron Paul disciple. I am very sympathetic to the first 80% of the Libertarian argument, I kind of like the notion that Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store and not a government agency. However, when they get into dismantling the FBI and CIA, legalizing drugs etc, they lose me.
My point here is that the choice on regulating oil is not one of what we have now versus "zero." There is a "Laffer Oil Curve", if you will. And my assertion throughout this thread is we are too far into one horizon on that oil curve, and energy in general, when in the United States of America government regulation has made it cost prohibitive to build a single oil refinery in 35 years. Think about that - the most dynamic economy the world has ever seen, and we have not increased our capacity to refine and bring to market the most vital component of that economy (and the world's) in over a generation. That is unacceptable. That is a nation in decline.
So if we're in a thread which is focused on discussing how to bring petro prices for the "little guy" into the realm of reasonable, and you lead off making comments like, "it's probably anti-American to limit what they [oil companies] can make", it makes me want to pull my hair out. You're buying in to this shill game that the problem is the bonuses being paid to Shell executives. Speculation on oil would cease to be so volatile if the sources were less volatile. To step in to further regulate speculation or the oil companies is delving deeper into that already stressed side of the Laffer Oil Curve, attempting to fix the problem from the wrong end. The president of Iran can swing cost by giving a single "Israel should die" speech (which allows speculators to apply their trade in gun slinger fashion) only because America has acquiesced her own energy production. We should be going in the opposite direction on energy regulation. Again, not to zero, but certainly dialed back enough to makes us an energy competitor. And there is one group, large, well organized and funded, that is standing in the way of that economic and national security imperative, and it ain't the boys at Exxon. And every time a smart, center-right middle class American like yourself starts chiding oil company profits, Al Gore wins, because he has redefined the fight. Everyone talks about how much oil companies and speculators profits cost the consumer. But consider what the president said in 2009 from the White House on live TV: "Under my energy plan of cap and trade, energy costs would necessarily sky rocket." Has the CEO of Exxon advocated such madness? How much "skyrocketing" has already occurred due to the Green ideology's influence peddling among our law makers the past 40 years?
Look, when it comes to oil and energy in general I assume like me you want to bring prices at the pump down, and give America a national security edge rather then deficit (in fact I know you do). And my point is, talking about potentially curbing Exxon et al profits rather then curbing the global warming crowd's influence isn't just taking your eye off the ball, it's taking yourself out of the game. Al Gore and his crowd are playing chess on energy... and if our response is to discuss Exxon & speculator profits, well... then we're playing checkers.
My point here is that the choice on regulating oil is not one of what we have now versus "zero." There is a "Laffer Oil Curve", if you will. And my assertion throughout this thread is we are too far into one horizon on that oil curve, and energy in general, when in the United States of America government regulation has made it cost prohibitive to build a single oil refinery in 35 years. Think about that - the most dynamic economy the world has ever seen, and we have not increased our capacity to refine and bring to market the most vital component of that economy (and the world's) in over a generation. That is unacceptable. That is a nation in decline.
So if we're in a thread which is focused on discussing how to bring petro prices for the "little guy" into the realm of reasonable, and you lead off making comments like, "it's probably anti-American to limit what they [oil companies] can make", it makes me want to pull my hair out. You're buying in to this shill game that the problem is the bonuses being paid to Shell executives. Speculation on oil would cease to be so volatile if the sources were less volatile. To step in to further regulate speculation or the oil companies is delving deeper into that already stressed side of the Laffer Oil Curve, attempting to fix the problem from the wrong end. The president of Iran can swing cost by giving a single "Israel should die" speech (which allows speculators to apply their trade in gun slinger fashion) only because America has acquiesced her own energy production. We should be going in the opposite direction on energy regulation. Again, not to zero, but certainly dialed back enough to makes us an energy competitor. And there is one group, large, well organized and funded, that is standing in the way of that economic and national security imperative, and it ain't the boys at Exxon. And every time a smart, center-right middle class American like yourself starts chiding oil company profits, Al Gore wins, because he has redefined the fight. Everyone talks about how much oil companies and speculators profits cost the consumer. But consider what the president said in 2009 from the White House on live TV: "Under my energy plan of cap and trade, energy costs would necessarily sky rocket." Has the CEO of Exxon advocated such madness? How much "skyrocketing" has already occurred due to the Green ideology's influence peddling among our law makers the past 40 years?
Look, when it comes to oil and energy in general I assume like me you want to bring prices at the pump down, and give America a national security edge rather then deficit (in fact I know you do). And my point is, talking about potentially curbing Exxon et al profits rather then curbing the global warming crowd's influence isn't just taking your eye off the ball, it's taking yourself out of the game. Al Gore and his crowd are playing chess on energy... and if our response is to discuss Exxon & speculator profits, well... then we're playing checkers.
Restating the obvious...
Let's get it straight, once and for all:
ANY oil company, big or small, has every right to make as much money as they can as long as they do it legally and ethically. Increasing the price of any product to the maximum that a market will pay for it is exactly how profit is made... and I am not anti-profit. Keeping the cost of producing any product as low as possible to increase profits is also perfectly acceptable, in my eyes.
That is the phrase that Ryan so wants me to say... and I will, if he will say the following equally as loud and with just as much gusto:
If the Federal government cannot legally (meaning "constitutionally") or ethically "regulate" the manner in which crude oil prices are determined even within our free-market system because it is the single most important factor in our society's very existence... then neither can it regulate such commodities as ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Uranium. Tobacco. Alcohol. Marijuana. Hemp. Opium.
Nor can it regulate the products of such commodities, like:
Cigarettes. Cigars. Beer. Wine. Liquor. Joints. Heroine. LSD. Methamphetamine.
I'm not advocating profit fixing or price regulating... that has been settled once and for all and I admit readily that it is a BAD IDEA.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of ANY commodity that is more vital to the US (and all of western civilization) than crude oil specifically, and petroleum products in general (coal, natural gas, shale, etc). Any single one.
If you cannot, then I'm asking you why the Federal regulation of such commodities as uranium, opium, alcohol, or tobacco is any more "ethical" than the regulation of crude oil? Why am I (an independent American businessman looking to make a fast buck in a new niche market, for example) denied the opportunity to market products I make/grow/produce such as opium, whiskey, cigars or marijuana brownies for pure profit... but it is okay to do so without regard to "society" in general by the likes of Exxon, Standard, BP or any one of a hundred other oil companies?
I'm not picking fights here... please, answer my questions.
ANY oil company, big or small, has every right to make as much money as they can as long as they do it legally and ethically. Increasing the price of any product to the maximum that a market will pay for it is exactly how profit is made... and I am not anti-profit. Keeping the cost of producing any product as low as possible to increase profits is also perfectly acceptable, in my eyes.
That is the phrase that Ryan so wants me to say... and I will, if he will say the following equally as loud and with just as much gusto:
If the Federal government cannot legally (meaning "constitutionally") or ethically "regulate" the manner in which crude oil prices are determined even within our free-market system because it is the single most important factor in our society's very existence... then neither can it regulate such commodities as ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
Uranium. Tobacco. Alcohol. Marijuana. Hemp. Opium.
Nor can it regulate the products of such commodities, like:
Cigarettes. Cigars. Beer. Wine. Liquor. Joints. Heroine. LSD. Methamphetamine.
I'm not advocating profit fixing or price regulating... that has been settled once and for all and I admit readily that it is a BAD IDEA.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the name of ANY commodity that is more vital to the US (and all of western civilization) than crude oil specifically, and petroleum products in general (coal, natural gas, shale, etc). Any single one.
If you cannot, then I'm asking you why the Federal regulation of such commodities as uranium, opium, alcohol, or tobacco is any more "ethical" than the regulation of crude oil? Why am I (an independent American businessman looking to make a fast buck in a new niche market, for example) denied the opportunity to market products I make/grow/produce such as opium, whiskey, cigars or marijuana brownies for pure profit... but it is okay to do so without regard to "society" in general by the likes of Exxon, Standard, BP or any one of a hundred other oil companies?
I'm not picking fights here... please, answer my questions.
Oil companies and our Southern border ...
Nothing will illicit a response out of Titus quicker then a defense of either ... hehe.
My insect free ointment ...
My point about extreme weather was driving increases during the summer, and furnaces kick on during the winter. When demand goes up, price goes up. Increased operating costs are not the only legitimate reason companies increase the price of their product.
Now as to those increased prices, lets discuss "gouging." As residents of South Mississippi for multiple decades I think we can all attest to what a common sense definition of gouging is. When you're the only post storm store open in a 20 square mile radius and you're charging $6 for a bottle of water & $15 for a box of Cheez-its, thats gouging. We're talking 50, 100, 500% increases in price because supplies are tight to nonexistent. That is not the case here. 6 months ago when gas was hovering around $2.89, no one was bitching, here or in the press. Now it's at $3.14. That's roughly a 10% increase over 6 months. 10% is to be considered "gouging" now? In addition, supplies, according to you, are plentiful. Now a 10% increase over 6 months when supplies are plentiful sounds quite a ways away from our S. MS definition, doesnt it?
Now ... you seem to have a beef with the increase cost to the consumer when there is no discernable increase in cost to the supplier. So let me get this straight. A private company, lets say Exxon, who's sole purpose for existing is to make money, figured they could raise the price of their product, that the consumer would bare that cost, and the company would as a result increase their revenues, I got that about right? Tell me, how does that make them any different from any other business? "Their product is vital", is sure to be your response. So what do you want to do, create a "sliding scale of vitality" for the private sector? Your ability to profit will be determined on how "vital" your product is? Shall we cap Bill Gates income given his operating systems are vital to 90% of the world's computers? And if we were to single out "big oil" for price controls and profit caps, those investors in shares of Exxon (which include teacher and firemen pensions) might invest elsewhere, drying up capital for new, deep horizon exploration. You could end up decreasing supply while demand goes up, actually increasing cost to the consumer you're trying to protect or recreating the dreaded gas lines. I cant begin to contemplate the number of unintended consequences of profit caps or price controls, but I can safely assume they'll almost all be negative.
Now if you think I enjoy paying 3 or $4 a gallon of gas, you're out of your mind. When I wrote, "(oil companies) are charging what the market will bare", it wasn't an endorsement of the status quo. I want reform.
I want you to think of oil like hate speech. The answer to hate speech isn't to limit it, pass laws against it, or any other imposition. If some jack-wad wants to burn my flag the best response isn't imprisonment or fines. It 's getting 10,000 people in my town to recite the Pledge in tandom on TV in front of the biggest flag the guys at Guinness have ever seen, Fox would cover it live. In other words the answer to hate speech, is more speech.
I don't mean for you to endure a lecture here, I'm simply saying that rather then focusing efforts on narrowing Exxon's profit margin we should be setting our sites on widening the entire energy sector. Lift bans on drilling; slash the mountain of red tape on opening new refineries; build nuclear power plants ( & that's energy that would not be exported to the world market by the way); aggressively explore coal options; natural gas, the works. If we want real reform we have to make America a serious energy player again, and drive down costs at home and even world wide. The problem is this President, the Democrat Party, and certain high profile Republicans have a death grip on this nation's energy potential because they've either bought in to or have been bought out by the global warming zealots & their lobby.
So look, you can go on hating oil companies with the heat of a thousand suns all you want, that's fine, they're not saints (nor are they in the business of sainthood). But if what you want is an energy policy that works for the little guy, you should hate the green movement even more.
My insect free ointment ...
My point about extreme weather was driving increases during the summer, and furnaces kick on during the winter. When demand goes up, price goes up. Increased operating costs are not the only legitimate reason companies increase the price of their product.
Now as to those increased prices, lets discuss "gouging." As residents of South Mississippi for multiple decades I think we can all attest to what a common sense definition of gouging is. When you're the only post storm store open in a 20 square mile radius and you're charging $6 for a bottle of water & $15 for a box of Cheez-its, thats gouging. We're talking 50, 100, 500% increases in price because supplies are tight to nonexistent. That is not the case here. 6 months ago when gas was hovering around $2.89, no one was bitching, here or in the press. Now it's at $3.14. That's roughly a 10% increase over 6 months. 10% is to be considered "gouging" now? In addition, supplies, according to you, are plentiful. Now a 10% increase over 6 months when supplies are plentiful sounds quite a ways away from our S. MS definition, doesnt it?
Now ... you seem to have a beef with the increase cost to the consumer when there is no discernable increase in cost to the supplier. So let me get this straight. A private company, lets say Exxon, who's sole purpose for existing is to make money, figured they could raise the price of their product, that the consumer would bare that cost, and the company would as a result increase their revenues, I got that about right? Tell me, how does that make them any different from any other business? "Their product is vital", is sure to be your response. So what do you want to do, create a "sliding scale of vitality" for the private sector? Your ability to profit will be determined on how "vital" your product is? Shall we cap Bill Gates income given his operating systems are vital to 90% of the world's computers? And if we were to single out "big oil" for price controls and profit caps, those investors in shares of Exxon (which include teacher and firemen pensions) might invest elsewhere, drying up capital for new, deep horizon exploration. You could end up decreasing supply while demand goes up, actually increasing cost to the consumer you're trying to protect or recreating the dreaded gas lines. I cant begin to contemplate the number of unintended consequences of profit caps or price controls, but I can safely assume they'll almost all be negative.
Now if you think I enjoy paying 3 or $4 a gallon of gas, you're out of your mind. When I wrote, "(oil companies) are charging what the market will bare", it wasn't an endorsement of the status quo. I want reform.
I want you to think of oil like hate speech. The answer to hate speech isn't to limit it, pass laws against it, or any other imposition. If some jack-wad wants to burn my flag the best response isn't imprisonment or fines. It 's getting 10,000 people in my town to recite the Pledge in tandom on TV in front of the biggest flag the guys at Guinness have ever seen, Fox would cover it live. In other words the answer to hate speech, is more speech.
I don't mean for you to endure a lecture here, I'm simply saying that rather then focusing efforts on narrowing Exxon's profit margin we should be setting our sites on widening the entire energy sector. Lift bans on drilling; slash the mountain of red tape on opening new refineries; build nuclear power plants ( & that's energy that would not be exported to the world market by the way); aggressively explore coal options; natural gas, the works. If we want real reform we have to make America a serious energy player again, and drive down costs at home and even world wide. The problem is this President, the Democrat Party, and certain high profile Republicans have a death grip on this nation's energy potential because they've either bought in to or have been bought out by the global warming zealots & their lobby.
So look, you can go on hating oil companies with the heat of a thousand suns all you want, that's fine, they're not saints (nor are they in the business of sainthood). But if what you want is an energy policy that works for the little guy, you should hate the green movement even more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
