Samuelson: Gas Gouging Good

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The actual title of Robert J. Samuelson's column in today's Washington Post is A Full Tank of Hypocrisy, but the teaser headline for it on the online op-ed home page is "The Case for Gouging."

Samuelson in fact disputes that gouging, in the sense of collusion among oil producers/refiners, is taking place. He points out, for example, that concentration of ownership in the oil industry has been deemed low-to-moderate, "less concentrated than the auto industry, which is considered intensely competitive." But the long-time WaPo columnist does make the case than many politicians in the global-warming crowd are engaging in some have-it-both-ways hypocrisy on the issue of higher gasoline prices.

It's one of those delicious moments when Washington's hypocrisy is on full and unembarrassed display. On the one hand, some of America's leading politicians condemn high gasoline prices and contend that they stem from "gouging" by oil companies. On the other, many of the same politicians warn against global warming and implore us to curb our use of fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

Guess what: These crowd-pleasing proclamations are contradictory. Anyone fearful of global warming should cheer higher gasoline prices, because much higher prices represent precisely the sort of powerful incentive needed to push consumers toward more fuel-efficient vehicles and to persuade the auto industry to produce them in large numbers. Bravo for higher prices!

Samuelson concludes with these inconvenient truths:

[I]f fuel prices aren't high, people won't want to buy fuel-efficient cars, which will be more expensive, smaller or both. People will also drive more -- offsetting efficiency gains -- because it's cheaper. In 2005, the average car traveled 12,375 miles, up 1,871 miles since 1990. Given expanding populations of people and cars, massive gains in efficiency are needed merely to hold total fuel use constant. All this applies equally to buildings and appliances; higher electricity prices are an essential catalyst.

Americans want to stop global warming. They want to cut oil imports. They want cheaper energy. Who will tell them that they can't have it all? Not our "leaders."

Personally, I believe the global warming alarmism of the Al Gore variety is just that. Still, it's illuminating to see politicians spin in a circle of their own hypocrisy on these issues.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

[Brilliant]

Samuelson is a man of timeliness. He only says these things when it looks like the Dems need an excuse for doing nothing. If the GOP were still in power, he’d be all over them.

[IronJack]

oncentration of ownership in the oil industry [is] ... less concentrated than the auto industry, which is considered intensely competitive.

The difference being that nobody HAS to buy a new car, and that even if they have to have personal transportation, there is a huge, thriving secondary market for automobiles. No such supply exists for petroleum fuels.

[jmaroneps37]

I like Levin’s line that a guy named “Matt” sits in a mountain top shack and decides the price of gas. Zipperhead o’reilly seems to believe it.

[GBA]

Interesting point. But then, no one has to own a vehicle that gets low gas mileage. And, how much of anyone's driving is simply for convenience rather than necessity? I once watched a woman get in her car to drive across the street to go to church.

If I could increase competition in the oil business, it would be to increase the number of refineries and pipe lines, as well as allowing more drilling in places like the Gulf of Mexico and in ANWR.

If I wanted to lower the price, assuming that it's too high, I would lower taxes tacked on to each gallon of gasoline.

[Red Badger]

In the 70’s we had the “Arab Oil Embargo”. Gas prices went up, because demand remained the same as the supply dwindled. Today, we have demand going up as the world population gets larger and larger, and China, India and a host of other 3rd World nations become more mobile. But the “supply” remains relatively the same. Both these situations are basic supply/demand scenarios from ECON 101. The “price” of gas is not a constant, but a variable in a complex formula of many variables. The only real way to ultimately influence the price is increase supply or decrease demand. Alternative fuels, more fuel efficient autos, and yes, higher prices / taxes, will decrease demand. Building more refineries and finding more oil fields will increase supply. Which side do the “controllers” take?....................

[barb-tex]

Dont forget John Kerry wanted a tax to raise the price to 3.00. Consider the high price a “carbon Offset” like algore buys.
barbra ann

[theBuckwheat]

Nothing cures high prices like high prices, that is when the free market is allowed to operate.

And what groups conspire to make it difficult, if not almost impossible for the market to operate? The US has more hydrocarbons in the form of coal and shales than does the Middle East in the form of oil. What groups find it to their benefit to forbid using these resources, to dig, pump, drill, haul or refine them?

And what group now complains the loudest that we have high prices and that the same government that it has hijacked to deny mining and drilling it will now agitate to “investigate” why prices are so high?