Another inconvenient truth

Search

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
Kind of a long read, but interesting. Just shows the Dems are are full of it also.
Gas Pump Posturing

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Democrats, seething at the injustice of gasoline prices, have sprung to the aid of embattled motorists. So resolute are Democrats about defending the downtrodden, they are undeterred by the fact that motorists, not acting like people trodden upon, are driving more than ever. Gasoline consumption has increased 2.14 percent during the last year.
That probably is explained by the inconvenient (to the Democrats' narrative) truth that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was characteristically overwrought when she said that Democrats intend to do this and that because the price of gasoline recently "set a record" at $3.07 a gallon. In real (inflation-adjusted) rather than nominal dollars, $3.07 is less than gasoline cost in 1981.
Pelosi vowed, as politicians have been doing since President Nixon set the fashion, to achieve "energy independence." Such vows are, as Soviet grain production quotas used to be, irrational reflexes that no serious person takes seriously. Pelosi baldly asserts that "energy independence is essential to reducing the price at the pump," but does not say how.
As Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute notes, there is no yearning for national self-sufficiency concerning other essential goods, such as food, automobiles, airplanes or medicines. Are Democrats worried about security of oil supplies? In some ways, Hayward says, America's energy supply is more secure than it was in the 1970s, partly because "since 1975, energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product has fallen 48 percent." Furthermore, "oil represents a shrinking share of total U.S. energy consumption -- from 44 percent in 1970 to 40 percent in 2005." The oil America consumes -- only one-eighth of which comes from the Middle East -- is used almost entirely in transportation, and accounts for about 40 percent of energy uses. Half of America's electricity is generated by coal, of which America has a huge abundance.
America has about 22 billion barrels of "proven" oil reserves, defined as "reasonably certain to be recoverable in future years under existing economic and operating conditions." In addition, there are an estimated 112 billion barrels that could be recovered with existing drilling and production technology. Make that, with existing drilling and production technology -- and fewer Democrats like Pelosi who, while promising energy independence, are opposed to any drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and much drilling offshore, where 87 billion of the 112 billion barrels are located, as is much of the estimated 656 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.
Pelosi announced herself "particularly concerned" that the highest price of gasoline recently was in her San Francisco district -- $3.49. So she endorses H.R. 1252 to protect consumers from "price gouging," defined, not altogether helpfully, by a blizzard of adjectives and adverbs. Gouging occurs when gasoline prices are "unconscionably" excessive, or sellers raise prices "unreasonably" by taking "unfair'" advantage of "unusual" market conditions, or when the price charged represents a "gross" disparity from the price of crude oil, or when the amount charged "grossly" exceeds the price at which gasoline was obtainable in the same area. The bill does not explain how a gouger can gouge when his product is obtainable cheaper nearby. Actually, Pelosi's constituents are being gouged by people like Pelosi -- by government. While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax) and California's various governments make 40.2 cents (the nation's third-highest gasoline tax). Pelosi's San Francisco collects a local sales tax of 8.5 percent -- higher than the state's average for local sales taxes.

Pelosi and others who just know, evidently intuitively, the "fair" price of gasoline must relish what has happened in Merrill, Wis., where Raj Bhandari owns a BP gas station. He became an outlaw when he had what seemed, to everyone but the state's government, a good idea. He gave a discount of 2 cents per gallon to senior citizens and 3 cents for people who support local youth sports programs.
But Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act requires retailers to sell gasoline for 9.18 percent above the wholesale price. The state's marvelously misnamed Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has protected consumers from Bhandari's discounts by forcing him to raise his prices. Some customers now think he is price gouging.
Some Wisconsin legislators are considering changing the Unfair Sales Act to allow retailers to discount gasoline to benefit things those legislators think should be benefited. In Madison, Wis., as in Washington, D.C., it is considered eccentric to think that government should butt out, let people buy and sell as they please, and let markets equilibrate.
georgewill@washpost.com
 

RX Senior
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
763
Tokens
Usually these threads go like this

- Levi will post saying that he'll bet someone the price will be back below $2.75 by October
- Woof will post saying that we're underpaying for fuel and that if we paid the real value, we'd be paying $5 a barrel
- Bblight will drop his guard and show his socialist side and chime in about how Oil companies are bending us over (most likely because it adversely affects his business)
- Someone will post one of those dumbass "nobody buy Retailer XYZ on Monday and we'll teach them a lesson"

My only real take on this is as follows. The price of gas has gone up 50% in some areas in aprox 5 months. Whether we're under paying compared to Germany or Sweden or JoeContraristan, it doesn't change the fact that for a family that commutes into the city for work/school, or a business that delivers goods - it makes it difficult to budget for such a swing.

As far as I'm concerned - the pressure should not be on investigating gauging (since that always ends up as a dead end) - the question should be why is there only one vendor in the country (Minnesota that I know of) which allows people to buy fuel as though it were a futures market.

Example: If you think the price is going up, you can buy up to 500 gallons at $2.20 (or whatever the current price is) and are given a fuel debit card with 500 gallons. The vendor removes 500 gallons from his current available inventory (or orders 500 gallons more).

It would sure help a small business that delivers parts or equipment. If the price dropped, they could always buy fuel at the lower cost and pay by the tank. If the price went up - they at least "owned" a set amount at the price they paid and would allow them to budget for higher prices down the road.

Am I out to lunch here? It seems to work well for the vendor in Minnesota that I read about.
 

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
16,073
Tokens
The problem as I see it is that NO ONE is the U.S. government wants to really solve this issue. They would rather place the blame on the other party for votes. Everything in politics in this country has to do with money, power and votes.
 

RX Senior
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
763
Tokens
The problem as I see it is that NO ONE is the U.S. government wants to really solve this issue. They would rather place the blame on the other party for votes. Everything in politics in this country has to do with money, power and votes.

What I don't understand is this. If we're supposodly underpaying, why is it? How come we're not paying proper "market". Is our price at the pump some sort of gift from the market?

I posted this in another thread - but if we drill in Alaska -- is there a guarantee that the US market will see this oil? Are we to expect a discount? Can we be assured that by releasing X amount of oil into the market that someone in OPEC might just slow production down X and keep the prices the same anyway?

Pelosi is just chiming in because we're at one of these phony tipping points with consumers. People are angry, her office is flooded so she'll say something and be able to say "look - I'm on it ok?"

Not much different than Bush in 2000 mocking the Clinton/Gore energy policy that he said "allowed" oil to reach the unacceptable level of $32 a barrel. His solution he said was to grab our OPEC friends and "jawbone them to open the spigots". Sounded great to Joe 6-PACK - but thr reality is we're the Johns to the Oil whores - end of story.

For over 1/2 a decade the Republicans controlled the WhiteHouse and both houses (not to mention a strong lean in the Supreme Court). Yet no new refineries and no major Alaska projects. Are we really to believe that in the post 911 world where for 2 years everyone in the media was scared shitless to even ask Bush a real question they couldn't have jammed through this in the name of "ensuring national security"?

Pretty embarassing when we look to a country like Brazil as an example of how a country is weening itself off the black blood.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Pelosi needs to do something because her approval ratings are in the toilet -- under 30% according to some figures.

:puppy:

This phenomenon isn't very complicated for anyone who understands even rudimentary supply and demand economics. There are many factors of course, but an increase in worldwide demand is about the crux of it.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
2,415
Tokens
Actually the crux of it is only partially world demand. With a growing demand in a normal business you would have an increasing supply. Meaning the oil companies would buils more refineries or expand the current sites. We subsidized these guys over $10 Billion this last budget why not step in. If they are willing to take our money we should be able to demand more from them.
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,445
Tokens
KTV

If we were to drill in Alaska, it may not bring down the price since supply can be manipulated.

However, it would almost certainly reduce our reliance on imported oil.

The catch 22 for oil companies and OPEC, if the price rises too high, alternative sources become for viable. Once we establish alternative sources, we will probably not return to oil.

We do live in one fucked up world. Always was? yes Always will be? more then likely.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,123,737
Messages
13,636,795
Members
101,701
Latest member
krishnapearlsandjewellers
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com