Holding the Key to Gas Prices
By George Will
Thursday, June 05, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the SPR also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.
Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
In his "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,'" Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.
In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their "Jack No. 2" well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress' response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.
Holding the Key to Gas Prices
Holding the Key to Gas Prices
Drill Here, Drill Now
by Jed Babbin
05/30/2008
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s petition to Congress demanding the removal of government obstacles to increasing our energy supplies is gathering momentum by the minute, while the Democrats’ do-nothing Congress wants to raise fuel prices.
Actually, labeling Congress a bunch of “do-nothings” is almost right, but not quite. They’re doing their best to create more obstacles to growing our energy supply. And while the price of energy is already unreasonably high, they’re working hard on a liberal agenda that will raise the prices consumers pay for gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas and home heating oil.
With the summer upon us (and the November election fast approaching) the price of gasoline should be on the mind of every member who wants to keep his job after November. There is a conservative approach to the problem: relieve government burdens on the energy market. But Congress isn’t controlled by conservatives: the Democrats rule both houses of Congress and – even with gasoline prices reaching all-time highs almost daily -- the Dems are doing their best to raise the burden on the voters.
As Speaker Gingrich told me in a Wednesday interview, “Every time I turn around I see Congress and bureaucracy making it harder to produce energy, increasing the price you and I are paying, reducing the amount that’s available, and then trying to find someone else to blame.”
That’s right: while many Americans are paying more than $4/gallon for gasoline (add another 75¢ for a gallon of diesel fuel), Congress is coming back on Monday to try to pass legislation such as the Warner-Lieberman “cap and trade” anti-global warming bill which -- by itself, and without the costs added by other Democratic initiatives -- would boost the price of a gallon of gas to levels paid in Europe. (Yesterday, the price of a gallon of gas in England was about $6.23.)
Gingrich told me:
"At a time when the Congress should be finding ways to lower the amount of cost to put gas in your wife’s car, they are actually proposing to increase the cost of gasoline, increase the cost of diesel fuel, increase the cost of aviation fuel, increase the cost natural gas, and increase the cost of coal. This is at a time when truckers are at a danger of being put out of business. Airlines are in danger of being put out of business. It’s just absolutely amazing."
It is amazing, because there are so many government obstacles to energy development that Congress could eliminate, if it chose to. Gingrich explained:
"t’s currently illegal to explore the Atlantic. It is illegal to explore the Pacific. It is illegal to explore the Eastern Gulf Of Mexico. It is illegal to explore Alaska and it is currently illegal to look for shale oil. Now, if you basically…and this is what makes the recent decision by the House to vote to sue OPEC an act of absolute childishness. If you’re not prepared to allow Americans in America to look for oil and gas in America, how can you have the arrogance to say to some foreign country they have to pump more of the stuff we’re not willing to pump?"
The vote to sue OPEC only produced another “Kucinich moment” for Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats. The little fact that no court would have the power to penalize OPEC didn’t deter the Pelosicrats from this frivolity.
Gingrich’s petition starts with the commonsensical proposition that instead of creating more burdens on the energy market, Congress should go about taking down the old barriers. In Gingrich’s characteristically plain English the petition says:
"We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries."
As of about 8:30 pm Thursday, the petition had about 150,700 signatures. Gingrich aims to get 200,000 signatures by this coming Monday. Every conservative -- and every voter who wants to see energy prices go down and not up -- should sign the petition.
And after Monday?
Gingrich said:
“We’re going to print out the petition, take it up and give it to the US Senate. Then, we are going to continue to gather names. When we get to 500 thousand we’re going to take it up and give it to the US House, and then we’re going to try to gather an excess of a million signatures before the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention."
He proposed that we have a “straight-up” argument in this country on energy and on the Dems’ elitist view that we’re not paying enough. The Dems apparently believe that the answer to economic pain is more pain. As conservatives, we should view this debate to be equal in importance to the illegal immigration debate we forced last year.
It is, like the illegal immigration debate, a question of our nation’s economic survival, our national security. Last year, conservatives prevented passage of the “comprehensive immigration reform” -- i.e., amnesty -- bill. This year, we can -- at least -- prevent passage of legislation that will make our energy supplies more expensive.
And next year?
HUMAN EVENTS is researching and will soon publish a conservative energy agenda, one designed to remove government barriers to exploration, development and distribution of energy in the United States. We believe this is exactly the kind of mess that Ronald Reagan had in mind when he said, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem."
I wish the Rep & you Rico would get off that ANWR idea it been said that the amount of oil you would get is not worth the damage it will do or some thing to that affect I support drilling what the matter with both Atlantic & Pacific as well as the Gulf which I think you will find over abundance of oil there
leave ANWR until all option's have been used & failed
leave ANWR until all option's have been used & failed
I wonder who is saying all of this? It's just a question.aznyron wrote:it been said that the amount of oil you would get is not worth the damage it will do or some thing to that affect
I guess you didn't see this part:
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
on your question it go back about I guess 5 or 6 years ago when the Senator from Alaska was trying to get it through the Senate what year was it that the valdez oil spill it was much later than 69
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, United States, on March 24, 1989. It is considered one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea. As significant as the Exxon Valdez spill was, it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.[1] However, Prince William Sound's remote location (accessible only by helicopter and boat) made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region was a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. The vessel spilled 10.8 million U.S. gallons (40.9 million liters) of Prudhoe Bay crude oil into the sea, and the oil eventually covered 11,000 square miles (28,000 km²) of ocean.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, United States, on March 24, 1989. It is considered one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea. As significant as the Exxon Valdez spill was, it ranks well down on the list of the world's largest oil spills in terms of volume released.[1] However, Prince William Sound's remote location (accessible only by helicopter and boat) made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region was a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals, and seabirds. The vessel spilled 10.8 million U.S. gallons (40.9 million liters) of Prudhoe Bay crude oil into the sea, and the oil eventually covered 11,000 square miles (28,000 km²) of ocean.
Ron, the Valdez oil spill was the result of an oil tanker's hull rupturing due to the incapacitation of the pilot and running the tanker aground. It was not due to errors in judgment related to drilling.
Tankers carrying toxic materials could rupture at any time under similar conditions. We didn't outlaw tankers.
Tankers carrying toxic materials could rupture at any time under similar conditions. We didn't outlaw tankers.
Exactly!!!But as usual the reaction was to throw the baby out with the bathwater!Ricohoc wrote:Ron, the Valdez oil spill was the result of an oil tanker's hull rupturing due to the incapacitation of the pilot and running the tanker aground. It was not due to errors in judgment related to drilling.
Tankers carrying toxic materials could rupture at any time under similar conditions. We didn't outlaw tankers.
It is OK for other nations to drill and refine all around us ,but it is not OK for us!Simply AMAZING!
It is OK for oil laden tankers to go up and down our shores though
An alternative that even a tax and spend liberal with environmental concerns would love, but they won't buy it. It wasn't their idea.
The Power of Four Dollars
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 06, 2008
WASHINGTON -- So now we know: The price point is $4.
At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up, and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy. At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4 percent. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.
The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that "love affair" with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price too.
America's sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average would every car company's fleet have to meet by precisely what date.
It was one out-of-a-hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from past history what the fleet average number does. When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.
At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.) Just Tuesday, GM announced that it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.
Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don't regulate. Don't mandate. Don't scold. Don't appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.
Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us -- and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," The New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. In this space in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.
But instead of doing the obvious -- tax the damn thing -- we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates, and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate is debating this week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.
Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.
Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits, and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand -- and bring down world crude oil prices -- the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.
Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I advocate the tax floor again next year, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.
I am with both of you I said on my past post we need to drill but let start in both ocean's and the gulf if we hit oil then we don't need to drill in ANWR isn't that simple
Brazil is drilling in the Pacific ocean with great results now they are energy independent
I agree it the environmentalist that is blocking all the drilling but like you said congress can do what it wants & the president will sign bingo it now LAW so why not get that law passed and every body is happy except the environmentalist which I know they go way over board on there bull sh/it
like I said I am not liberal or conservative I also know that some of my ideas may be wrong for America but some will be good no body has all the answer but the conservatives think they do and
the liberals are right behind them that why nothing get done
Brazil is drilling in the Pacific ocean with great results now they are energy independent
I agree it the environmentalist that is blocking all the drilling but like you said congress can do what it wants & the president will sign bingo it now LAW so why not get that law passed and every body is happy except the environmentalist which I know they go way over board on there bull sh/it
like I said I am not liberal or conservative I also know that some of my ideas may be wrong for America but some will be good no body has all the answer but the conservatives think they do and
the liberals are right behind them that why nothing get done
Voters Say "Drill"
By Lawrence Kudlow
Monday, June 09, 2008
The recent spike in oil prices and unemployment is dramatically changing this presidential campaign -- virtually overnight. The near $20 jump in oil to $140 a barrel, the unexpected half-point increase in the jobless rate to 5.5 percent (the biggest monthly increase in twenty years), and the resulting 400-point plunge in stocks has created a new campaign issue right before our eyes.
Public worry number one is now oil, jobs, and the economy, with the inflationary woes of the U.S. dollar right underneath. The candidate who can connect with these issues will win in November. But so far neither Obama nor McCain are dealing with the new political reality.
In fact, it’s all about oil right now. The price has doubled over the past year while the economy has slumped.
But here’s an eye opener. Recent polling data from Gallup show the percentage of voters blaming oil companies for skyrocketing gasoline prices has dropped from 34 percent to 20 percent over the past year. At the same time, support for more drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas has increased to 57 percent from 41 percent.
And the candidates remain blind to these shifts.
Obama continues to lambaste oil companies while congressional Democrats push for cap-and-trade. They’re missing the point, big time. The public wants more energy and more fuel to cut high prices and spur economic growth. But the costly cap-and-trade plan would produce less fuel and less growth. It would only raise gas pump prices while mounting a Gosplan-type taxing, spending, and regulating program that would be the moral equivalent of Hillarycare on nationalized medicine.
Sen. McCain has an opening here. Yet he, like Obama, would have voted for cap-and-trade, which went down to defeat in last week’s Senate vote. And while Mr. McCain favors some off-shore production and has been strong on nuclear development, he is against drilling in ANWR Alaska.
Then there’s the oil nobody is talking about. The Bakken fields beneath North Dakota, Montana, and Canada hold an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil. In comparison, Saudi Arabia’s biggest field, Gahawar, has an estimated 55 billion barrels, while ANWR has an estimated 10.4 billion barrels.
Hat tip to Mark Perry at the Carpe Diem blog site for these figures. Perry also is reporting a Bureau of Land Management study showing 279 million acres under federal management where oil and gas could potentially be extracted. But more than half of this is totally off limits. Off-shore, where another 86 billion barrels lie in wait, is also restricted. Then there’s liquefied natural gas, oil shale, and the various coal-to-liquid carbon-capture and sequestration technologies that would be priced out of the market by cap-and-trade.
The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we can’t produce. We’re still the world’s third-largest oil producer, but we could be the Saudi Arabia of oil if our companies were free to drill. Oil CEOs like Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil and David O’Reilly of Chevron keep saying this. But politicians aren’t heeding their message.
Israeli saber-rattling against Iran could have accounted for some of last week’s huge oil spike. And the unemployment story may not be as bad as the May jobs report suggests. An unexpected inflow of teenagers probably bloated the jobless figure by a couple tenths of 1 percent. And economist Jerry Bowyer points out that an unprecedented hike in the minimum wage may be derailing students looking for summer work. However, in a sign of future job improvement, the civilian labor force grew by nearly 600,000, meaning that more people looking for work could signal recovery. Weekly jobless claims are near 350,000, not the 500,000 of past recessions. Overall, at 5.5 percent, unemployment continues to be historically low.
But the economy is still in a slump, not a boom. And the fact remains that Americans are very worried about the economic outlook. This could be a recession election. And right now voter economic anxieties are all about oil, even more than the sub-prime housing credit problem.
Sen. McCain has a great pro-growth plan to slash corporate tax rates, a move that would be a strong tonic for jobs and wages. But he must bolster that plan with a new emphasis on deregulated energy markets that can produce a total portfolio of conventional and non-conventional energy, including major new drilling. He should couple that with a strong-dollar message to curb both energy and non-energy inflation, which is shrinking consumer paychecks and damaging corporate profits.
More oil, more jobs, better wages, and low inflation. That’s a winning GOP message this fall. But what if Sen. Obama gets there first? It’s unlikely, but not out of the question. Either way, voters will move to the candidate who connects with their worries. Right now those worries are up for grabs.
Its not just Anwar it drilling and refining all over the place that people are opposed to even if its just drilling the hole to put up a wind turbin. The people that gripe the most about the cost of energy are the same people that are the least able to afford it and there is a reason that they are the least able to afford it because they spend all there time griping about it.
I don't care what the future of energy is it will always be expensive and there will always be good jobs and income potential surrounding its production.
You can always go native and just burn sticks.
Alaska is like Canada some of it is beautifull country but most of it awfull. Drill in the crapy parts it only makes sence (I obiously just dont get it)
I am a big fan of oil but if you are convinced that french fry oil or the sun is the answer get after it.
I don't care what the future of energy is it will always be expensive and there will always be good jobs and income potential surrounding its production.
You can always go native and just burn sticks.
Alaska is like Canada some of it is beautifull country but most of it awfull. Drill in the crapy parts it only makes sence (I obiously just dont get it)
I am a big fan of oil but if you are convinced that french fry oil or the sun is the answer get after it.
Time for an update from the UK. Well, the oil price hurts, but it is only a part of our cost of living. I paid about $10 for my last gallon of petrol. But we are used to it being expensive, so most of us have more efficient cars (I aim for 45mpg). as has been said, if the price is high, efficiency becomes good economics. Efficiency is also legislated/subsidised for in insulation, gas central heating and renewable energy sources. I am more worried about oil prices fueling inflation than fueling my car.
For once, in the USA energy is expensive, but it hits you harder percentage wise because our fuel is taxed and the tax has only gone up slightly; also the USA is one of the highest per capita consumers of energy. Better efficiency, lower consumption will benefit in the long run. Higher taxes would also cushion you from market fluctuations!
A lot of crap is written about biofuels. I think they have a future, but it needs to be done the right way, maize is an incredibly inefficient source. sugarcane produces 10 times as much per acre. Or grow oilseeds, also far more efficient - due to european taxes, it can actually be cheaper to run a diesel vehicle on sunflower oil from the supermarket than buy diesel at a gas station.
Finally, higher prices will mean more oil reserves will now be economic to exploit. Low prices in the 90's depressed exploration and development; now to hire an oil drilling rig costs 10 times as much as then. It will take time for it to come on line, and oil will probably pass $150 a barrel first, but i expect it will then slowly fall to half that. But the fact is, whatever the price, demand is rising, reserves will fall. We need to seriously explore alternatives before the next crisis and not run headlong into the first quick fix option, wether it be biofuel from maize or burning more coal. We need a sensible balance.
Oil companies are not hurting - heard today that Exxon made a record 41 billion!
For once, in the USA energy is expensive, but it hits you harder percentage wise because our fuel is taxed and the tax has only gone up slightly; also the USA is one of the highest per capita consumers of energy. Better efficiency, lower consumption will benefit in the long run. Higher taxes would also cushion you from market fluctuations!
A lot of crap is written about biofuels. I think they have a future, but it needs to be done the right way, maize is an incredibly inefficient source. sugarcane produces 10 times as much per acre. Or grow oilseeds, also far more efficient - due to european taxes, it can actually be cheaper to run a diesel vehicle on sunflower oil from the supermarket than buy diesel at a gas station.
Finally, higher prices will mean more oil reserves will now be economic to exploit. Low prices in the 90's depressed exploration and development; now to hire an oil drilling rig costs 10 times as much as then. It will take time for it to come on line, and oil will probably pass $150 a barrel first, but i expect it will then slowly fall to half that. But the fact is, whatever the price, demand is rising, reserves will fall. We need to seriously explore alternatives before the next crisis and not run headlong into the first quick fix option, wether it be biofuel from maize or burning more coal. We need a sensible balance.
Oil companies are not hurting - heard today that Exxon made a record 41 billion!
update I was watching Bill O" Rielly FOX news he said the Neil Cavutos and his market investors do not want the drilling because it will hurt them in buying & selling in the oil market now these are not my words they are Bill O'Reilly words and I believe what he said so I guess the investor has congress both R & D in there pockets I also watched newt Ginrich video and he was the one who told me about Brazil and he suggest we drill in both ocean & gulf he did not mention ANWAR
Yes anz your right I do enjoy picking on poor people that vote themselves my money, especially the one that live in the urban centers and don't even own a car. Poor people that want action to be taken against the CEO'S of the oil companies and want them to pay more in taxes so they can get their "justice".
Bill Orielly is a economic dope or he his just putting on an act to get some street credit from economic dopes. I have heard Bill say some of the most economically illiterate statements. (I cant call the guy a dumb ass because he is doing well, but I want to call him a economic dumb ass) Bill is a market illiterate and I consider him and his followers to be the thugs that are slowing a market solution to this energy situation.
Anz, I am actually economically liberal in the classical way of Smith, and Pain and and economic thought of Ricardo, and Smith.
I am a big believer in the market sorting this energy issue out with the trade of consumers dollars for oil companies skills and inventors gizmos. If we have access to the natural resources and a market place that is absent of politicians perversely representing the "needs" of their constituants , we will have energy to burn.
Bill Orielly is a economic dope or he his just putting on an act to get some street credit from economic dopes. I have heard Bill say some of the most economically illiterate statements. (I cant call the guy a dumb ass because he is doing well, but I want to call him a economic dumb ass) Bill is a market illiterate and I consider him and his followers to be the thugs that are slowing a market solution to this energy situation.
Anz, I am actually economically liberal in the classical way of Smith, and Pain and and economic thought of Ricardo, and Smith.
I am a big believer in the market sorting this energy issue out with the trade of consumers dollars for oil companies skills and inventors gizmos. If we have access to the natural resources and a market place that is absent of politicians perversely representing the "needs" of their constituants , we will have energy to burn.
tigerryan I don't know were you are coming from but if you read my post just above you
I don't want my congressmen/women in any body pockets. how do poor people vote them selfs your money I am clueless on that one. As for CEO I can not understand why they make 50 & 100
times more than the President of the USA. As for taxing oil company wind fall profits that is a joke it will only come back to the consumer. And if you do not own a car why should you be concerned about oil prices. As for Bill who are his thugs ? and how are they slowing the market ?
I don't want my congressmen/women in any body pockets. how do poor people vote them selfs your money I am clueless on that one. As for CEO I can not understand why they make 50 & 100
times more than the President of the USA. As for taxing oil company wind fall profits that is a joke it will only come back to the consumer. And if you do not own a car why should you be concerned about oil prices. As for Bill who are his thugs ? and how are they slowing the market ?
-
tingtongfalang
- udonmap.com
- Posts: 225
- Joined: February 19, 2008, 12:57 am
- Location: USA
I don't understand why diesel costs the same as gas. Diesel is easy to make and I don't think the demand for diesel is greater than the demand for gas. Both about the same. Gasoline is a by-product of refining diesel, it needs the additional refining to meet USA emission standards. In the old days most engines burned diesel, but they had so much gasoline as a result they (the Ford brothers) designed an engine that would burn it, a leaded-gasoline engine. The lead was added because when the gasoline burned in the combustion chamber the lead coated and lubricated the valves. California emission standards banned the use of lead and became the national standard, the reason they stopped making leaded gasoline.