Posted on 09/14/2005 10:49:53 AM PDT by cogitator
What this country needs is $4-a-gallon gasoline or, maybe, $5. We don't need it today, but we do need it over the next seven to 10 years via a steadily rising oil tax. Coupled with stricter fuel economy standards, higher pump prices would push reluctant auto companies and American drivers away from today's gas guzzlers. That should be our policy.
...
Hurricane Katrina's message is clear: We are vulnerable to any major cutoff of oil. This cutoff came from a natural disaster, but the larger menace is a political cutoff.
...
Government needs to foster a market for fuel efficiency. ... One way or another, Americans should know that the era of cheap gasoline is history. Some drivers will want hybrid versions of their present vehicles; others will downsize. It's not a national tragedy for someone to trade an Expedition for a Taurus.
At times, individual freedom must be compromised to improve collective security.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I think that will happen. I think Samuelson was more interested in addressing the current national situation and how the "trajectory" can be changed to avoid a sudden, large decrease in oil supply and the ensuing economic impact -- which wouldn't be pretty.
I.e. let's put some plywood in the garage now before the next storm hits, rather than after one blows out all the windows. In case 1, you just pay the cost of the plywood. In case 2, you pay for plywood, new windows, and all of the damage that the storm causes inside your house. Big $$$$ difference.
Samuelson is a Keynsian gas bag.
I mentioned that in my opening reply.
He should check to see how many thefts of gas have occurred since the prices are going up. Raise taxes, raise prices and the stealing of gas will increase. DUmocrats need to take basic High School economics before they attempt to claim themselves as experts on anything.
I think the problem all these arguments have is that the problem isn't clearly defined, and the different definitions call for different solutions.
Problem 1) Environmental, i.e. greenhouse gasses (not one I particularly believe in, but it is one definition). To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we would need to decrease our use of oil. The solution then would be high oil prices. With taxes on oil sufficiently high and with an energy policy that focuses on alternative sources of fuel (like nuclear, solar, etc.) raised CAFE standards would be redundant and unnecessary.
Problem 2) Political, i.e. depending on foreign sources of energy. The solution to this problem would include not only higher prices and investment in alternative energy sources, but also increased domestic production including other greenhouse gas emitting sources like coal(in contradiction to the environmental solution).
Problem 3) Economic, i.e. cheap energy is good for the economy. For this we want lower gas prices for the sake of the economy. This contradicts the solution for both the environmental and political problems. We also want to increase domestic production, which contradicts the environmental solution. Like both other problems we want ready access to alternative energy sources, but in this case not at the expense of oil but in addition to it. This is also the only case where higher CAFE standards might make sense, because we might want to decrease the use of gasoline by cars to keep the price of oil low. The effect would likely be small though given that oil is a global market.
Personally I think the economic problem is the most important to address.
More than forty years have passed since the last time I was a rider making that sort of trip. Wear and tear (and certainly not the price of gas) wasn't much of a consideration. The driver took on riders (a buck a day) to pay for the gas, keep him company, and for the extra traction when the snows came. :-)
Don't know about their expenses, but on my last visit back to that region, people were still traveling very long distances for jobs. They will be the ones screaming.
Another solution I forgot, boarding. Back then, there were people coming from rural areas in neighboring states, rooming in boarding houses, and going back home, if they could afford it, on their days off. I imagine people are still doing that.
Good analysis. Note that in my advocacy of increased nuclear power, the byproduct is the production of biofuels from agricultural feedstock. This would allow continued use of fuel for transportation with no net greenhouse emissions. (We just have to make sure Yucca Mountain is a safe nuke waste repository.)
This is the same old crap the liberals spouted back in the 70s and off and on since then. Raise gas taxes and you will be better off. BS! What we need is to dump the EPA and tell the enviro weenies to get lost and start drilling again, build nuclear power plants and maybe start working on alternative fuel sources that actually work.
This guy sounds like a cheap substitute for Bill Maher. He is obviously more interested in social engineering than really finding a solution, too.
Only an idiot would argue for Samuelson's program. The high fuel costs would tank the economy, after which Washington would be swept clean. However, like most people in the elite, he lives in an urban dreamland. Without affordable energy, the whole economy will tank.
Further, a nation cannot tax its way to alternative fuels anymore than it can tax its way to wealth. Look at the wonders that high fuel prices have done in Europe. Do you see any booming economies in Western Europe? I sure don't. Why copy a failed solution? Only a social engineer would push for that, and that's because they value control, not solutions.
Here's a handbasket. Get in and you'll figure out where to go. Last thing we need is MORE taxes...even though in principle I think we do need to reduce oil dependence.
Wonder if he feels the same way about the Patriot Act?
Nice try. Unfortunately, getting oil from tar sands requires a HUGE resevoir with which to dump the contaminants. I hate the Canadians usually, but they are an indicator of what that technology does. People don't like man made lakes period, let alone man made lakes of waste.
And coal is a fossil fuel, but doesn't burn nearly as good or clean as petroleum. In fact, that's why we shifted TO petroleum and AWAY from coal in the early 21st Century.
But I do like the Biomass idea, and especially the nuke power deal. I don't know why they aren't being exploited more now.
Myself for example. On a sunday afternoon, I might go 20 miles or so and stop for food, barnes & noble, and probably pizza or something. That's three or four businesses that get my business.
If gas is too high and makes me walk or just sit on FR, no one gets my business.
It does not sound like a good thing since our economy is consumer driven. What about the boating industry? Airplane tickets and travel? Cost of Cruises? Etc Etc??
The gov't will just waste any revenue from this. Why give it to them?
This guy is elitist scum.
Golly, Mr. Samuelson, I think we need to raise taxes on all the rich and the evil corporations, too!
signed: all the Democraps.
(Iffen ya can't see that this is sarcasm, there is no hope for ya!)
Impoverishing people with higher taxes sure is a funny way to have them brace for the economic impact of higher gas prices.
Sorta like saying, I'm gonna kick you in the nuts right now, so it's not as big a shock when I punch you in the stomach in a couple minutes.
My lord I saw "pipes" but read "nips" and almost fell out of my chair. LOL!
Just another limousine liberal who wants YOU and ME to ride the bus so his limo won't get stuck in traffic.
F\/ck him.
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.