Posted on 10/26/2006 8:25:27 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The recent gasoline price spice and resulting record oil company profits generated an uncountable number of accusations of greed. The resentment stirred up has spawned Proposition 87, backed by a multimillion dollar promotional campaign, even as gas prices fall.
Proposition 87 is being spun as a means to reduce oil consumption and stimulate the economy by creating alternative energy innovation. However, that is what it hopes to accomplish. Backers offer none of the necessary details to evaluate it or reasons to presume success. But it will inefficiently transfer resources from where consumers’ choices direct to where government bureaucrats dictate, and harm rather than help the economy.
Beyond treating wishful thinking as reality, Proposition 87’s promotional campaign goes little beyond punishing oil companies for the high profits that “prove” their greed. The pro-87 ballot argument’s second sentence reads: “Had enough of oil companies charging outrageous prices and making obscene profits?” The $4 billion cost it would impose on oil companies is justified as making them pay their “fair share” three times in its first 85 words, while assuring voters that there will be “NO COST TO CONSUMERS” (highly questionable, since it increases taxes on oil production).
Californians are being told “you will benefit; they will pay (but their greed makes it OK).” But that claim rests on an inconsistent use of “greed” that confuses the issues rather than clarifying them.
The most obvious inconsistency is that “only others are greedy.” Proposition 87’s backers manipulate envy and resentment to ensure voters see greed only in “Big Oil,” but never in themselves, their self-appointed advocates, or governments that profit more than producers. Higher oil company profits are denounced as greed. However, consumers’ desire for lower gasoline prices is not, despite sharing the same essential characteristic--“more for me.” And Prop 87 backers are not greedy, despite “close financial ties to the type of ‘green tech’ companies that could benefit,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Assertions that oil companies under-invest in alternative energy are then added, allowing backers to define oil companies’ failure to finance their pet causes as greed, but not their mandate that others pay $4 billion on those causes. Of course, where alternative energy investments are profitable, greedy oil companies would invest without massive subsidies.
Another inconsistency is alleging greed when it provides rhetorical ammunition against oil companies, but not when it would contradict different accusations they wish to make.
High gas prices are “greedy.” But what about when prices fall, as currently? Is “Big Oil” just intermittently greedy? Oil companies are accused of building insufficient refinery capacity. But greedy oil companies would have built more refineries if they were certain to be highly profitable. They have been accused of all sorts of “isms” in employment—racism, sexism, ageism, etc.--as well. But if any group is systematically underpaid, hiring them is a massive profit opportunity the greedy would not pass up. Besides, government profit extraction, such as Proposition 87, only reduces profit incentives to seek out productive but underpaid employees.
Oil companies are “greedy” for using their resources in pursuit of profits, rather than as Proposition 87’s backers wish. But even if motivated by greed, profits arise only from improving others’ options, when transactions are voluntary. In contrast, those asserting oil company greed want to coerce others for their benefit. That is greedier, and unlike market arrangements, it provides no assurance of benefit to the rest of us.
Emerson asserted that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” But using “greed” consistently is foolish only if getting Proposition 87’s backers more of what they want is all that matters. That is why they don’t do it. But their inconsistency forestalls logical discussion, making efficient energy policy impossible. And since efficient energy policy is Proposition 87’s supposed goal, if logical consistency outweighed their greed, even its backers would vote “no” in November.
Someday we should have a president with a degree in economics.
Ben Stein? not sure about the economics degree tho. ;-)
Vote NO on 87.
I will.
Reagan majored in economics at Eureka College.
Already voted NO on 87.
Clinton Says Raise Taxes on Oil
Former President Bill Clinton says that taxes hikes on oil will reduce dependence on energy. Clinton threw his support behind Proposition 87, which calls for raising taxes on oil to encourage conservation and fund government research on alternate fuels.
"High oil prices are the key to saving the planet,” Clinton told a cheering crowd at the campus. “It will encourage people to forego foolish travel. There is no need for the average person to be driving wherever and whenever he pleases. There is no need for these people to be jetting around the country for frivolous reasons. Oil needs to be conserved for important purposes—like my trip to join you here tonight for this rally.”
Proposition 87 has drawn criticism from opponents who claim that raising taxes on oil produced in California would discourage production and make the state more dependent on foreign oil. The California Taxpayers Association (CTA) and several public safety groups are opposing the proposition.
“A couple of months ago these Democrats were saying high prices were wrecking the economy and that it was Bush’s fault,” said Tom Swift, spokesman for the CTA. “Now they’re saying high prices are a good thing? It makes no sense.”
Clinton explained the apparent inconsistency. “Bush’s high prices weren’t the result of higher taxes,” Clinton pointed out. “The money was all flowing to the private sector where all it would do is encourage companies to supply more fuel. This would just perpetuate wasteful travel. Prop 87 extracts the money from consumers and funnels it into projects selected by the government. There would be no risk of inducing increased supplies of gasoline that would undermine the conservation objective.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
No wonder he was such a good president.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.