Posted on 06/11/2008 1:46:26 PM PDT by Fred
Sen. John McCain delivered a nearly pluperfect supply-side tax-cut plan yesterday, one that is worthy of conservative support, and frankly a real eye-opener showing just how good he can be. I wrote about it in my latest column.
But then he goes on NBC’s Today Show this morning and gets the whole energy story wrong. Oh my gosh.
When asked about gas prices at the pump, and whether they could go any lower, Sen. McCain said he didn’t think so because “You’ve got a finite supply, basically, and a cartel controlling it.”
This is exactly wrong. There is no finite supply, or if there is we are 100 years away from it. I don’t know who has put this thought into the senator’s mind, but it is a bad thought in terms of energy and a bad thought in terms of the politics of this campaign.
Look, we have the Bakken fields, the outer continental shelf and all the offshore drilling opportunities, ANWR, and so forth. There’s probably over a trillion barrels worth of reserves out there. And Republicans in the Senate are trying to move a deregulated drilling bill through the process. McCain should be backing this and talking about it.
Democrats are out there pushing cap-and-trade, which would jack up gasoline and oil energy prices, damage the economy, and create a massive central-planning exercise. The Democratic Congress has done nothing to alleviate the oil shortage. They’re captured by the greenies. They should be blamed.
This is a real turnaround issue for the Republicans and Mr. McCain. But McCain’s not going there.
Incidentally, in the Today Show interview, the senator takes a whack at oil-company profits, suggesting they should return some of these profits to consumers. And he would consider voting for a windfall profits tax. And then he used the phrase “obscene profits.” Make that two oh my goshes.
Your problem is that your mind works on a hinge. It must be either one or the other and cannot be a combination of things. The oil companies have no lack of money and no lack of political clout. If they really wanted to fix the problem they could have.
One of your problems is that you think that it is a bunch of dems and bureaucrats beating up on poor private industry who just want the shackles lifted on their business. That is so so wrong. Who do you think pays all the bills to keep K-street up and running. Answer - private industry because that is where the money is. If they lobby so heavily, how come we have so much regulation - answer - they like it that way because it cuts out competition. You think that so-called private enterprise wants to go out and find and exploit lots more oil. But why would they do that. If they were running profitable businesses when oil was $20 and $30 a barrel they must love it when oil is $137 a barrel. (That is an economic rent - i.e. free money - of $107 a barrel.) Why when you are making SO MUCH free money would you have any incentive to do anything to bring down the cost of oil by increasing supply.
When you can draw supply and demand curves for oil, show the effects of elasticity, effects of windfall profit taxes on those curves, effects of incentives for exploration and exploitation, then I will admit that you are starting to understand something.
Right now, however, you are just spewing idiotic ideology that shows no understanding of how this business or any business actually works.
yup free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.....that includes energy....
Tell me why you think the US energy markets constitute anything close to a free market. Do you think the problem is "only" government regulation or are their other externalities. Do you know what an externality is?
Hi, I'm from the Department of Redundancy Department and I've come from the Carter Administration to help.
On just this topic, right? (Otherwise, I don't have that kind of time.} He's a technological numb-skull.
AndyJackson: “Your problem is that your mind works on a hinge.”
Ah, so you know how my mind works as well as being a master of all things economic?
Of course you’re right about Washington. That’s why I said we need less of it, not more. Obviously big business does as you wrote. The farm industry is a classic case. I bet most people would end farm subsidies in an instant if they knew what was going on, but most people aren’t running the country. We are led by a relatively small number of elites. Sure, occasionally someone new breaks into the party, but they are quickly marginalized or corrupted.
Like you wrote, we hardly have a free market. We are well past that. When I propose a free market and less government, I’m not asking for anarchy. I’m asking for an end to corporate welfare and the byzantine system of rules and regulations.
What you seemed to be proposing in your initial email was more government intervention and control. Yet, you yourself wrote how big oil essentially controls the government. How, therefore, do you see government solving this problem?
Fred: “dude you are so cracking me up..”
Look, dude. If you don’t know what an externality is, you simply aren’t qualified to comment. LOL.
It’s pretty difficult for us rubes to comprehend, but here’s the definition...
EXTERNALITY:
An externality is an effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.
Classic example of a negative externality: pollution, generated by some productive enterprise, and affecting others who had no choice and were probably not taken nto account.
Example of a positive externality: Purchase a car of a certain model increases demand and thus availability for mechanics who know that kind of car, which improves the situation for others owning that model.
Clue me in on how this nonsense will get the price of oil down and improve the future for energy.... I am sure you will have plenty to say....
If for no other reason, as a last great act of defiance, please do so.
Ask yourself, "What would a free (wo)man do?
Fred: “Clue me in on how this nonsense will get the price of oil down and improve the future for energy.... I am sure you will have plenty to say....”
You’d have to ask AndyJackson. Personally, I’m more inclined to support your view.
You said it sister. You KNOW you get no arguments from me. We see too much eye to eye on too many things. Hang tough. One way or the other, we have to win this WAR!
He may not be able to vote on anything as Prez, but he can twist arms like he did as senator, and worse, he can sign crappy bills.
I’m going to have to pass on the viewing opportunity. I want some hair left.
see, he's a conservative doncha know and we'd be fine if he was president.
holy, cr#p. The next 4 years are going to s#ck.
I could not agree more.
How, therefore, do you see government solving this problem?
There is a lot of R&D for instance that the government must do because industry won't do it (It is high risk, doesn't provide a capturable return to a private firm, is not in a business line that the business is in, etc.). There are other things such as public/private partnerships on nuclear energy, including nuclear waste, advanced nuclear design, first of a kind rector plants (remember the AEC built a lot of reactors at the beginning so .gov was not always this incompetent at everything.), providing incentives to get back into the nuclear game (high entry hurdles, regulatory risk and delay), fixing the legal system, etc.
And if you knew anything about the economics of R&D funding you would know that these days that ton of money would be poured in by the US government because private industry would not pour in ant crap unless they already had a patent and payoff is in the next 2 years.
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.