Cheap Gas is a Bad Habit (Samuelson op-ed)

Washington Post ^ | 09/14/2005 | Robert J. Samuelson

[gogogodzilla]

D'oh!

:-)

[BigBobber]

The liberal lie that "oil is evil" has been repeated so many times in the press that I even see some Freepers repeating the mantra.

Here is the bottom line: Liberals have nothing against high gasoline prices. The crocodile tears they shed when prices go higher are only them playing to the under-classes.

Libs want the revenue from expensive gas to go to themselves instead of free enterprise, so they can spend it on pork and vote buying.

For years, Europe has had the high gas tax Samuelsen lusts for. It hasn't helped.

[Old Professer]

I hate world-savers with a perfect passion.

[kaktuskid]

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.

Ever heard of SASOL? The Fisher/Tropsch process?

[cogitator]

Do you see any booming economies in Western Europe?

In general, they have significantly better mass transit options than the U.S.

[cogitator]

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.

Nuke power was environmentally "sensitive" (idiotic), and biofuels weren't economically competitive. With oil at $70+ a barrel and gas at $3.00+ a gallon, they are much more competitive.

[cogitator]

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 boating industry will change, just like the airline industry is changing now. Fuel-intensive industries will be forced to adapt and pass on necessary costs to the consumer.

Regarding your trips: order in and have them deliver to you. Some areas have a "Takeout Taxi" that can deliver from several restaurants. And most Barnes + Nobles I know of are located in close walking proximity to at least some places to eat.

Or go with friends. Four in a car is a lot less fuel-intensive than four friends in one car.

[cogitator]

Impoverishing people with higher taxes sure is a funny way to have them brace for the economic impact of higher gas prices.

I don't really want to defend Samuelson's technique, but the goal of reducing the economic shock of a substantial cessation in oil supply is laudable and in my opinion, necessary. The cost to impoverished and low-income people of a substantial fuel cost hike due to catastrophe could mean the difference between keeping and losing a job. Samuelson is really saying we need to have national economic incentives to change our fuel use structure, as the present course makes economic difficulty more likely.

[cogitator]

For years, Europe has had the high gas tax Samuelsen lusts for. It hasn't helped.

What you're missing is that a substantial cut in oil supply to Western European nations would not have as big an impact on their economies as ours. Yes, their economies aren't as big, but their energy use structure is also different. They'd feel a hurt, but not as big as the hurt we'd feel.

There is a good reason that a lot fewer Europeans drive SUVs than Americans. I don't care if that's good or bad, but there's definitely a reason.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

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.

The only good thing about such a disaster, would be that this writer would be out of a job. Unfortunately so would the rest of us.

[BigBobber]

There is a good reason that a lot fewer Europeans drive SUVs than Americans. I don't care if that's good or bad, but there's definitely a reason.

They drive fewer SUVs because they don't camp as much.

Summarizing your other posts, you expect high gas taxes to give us a moribund economy, but with more mass transit. What a vision for America!

[.cnI redruM]

It's easy to cheer for $4 gasoline if you have a net worth of 7 or 8 figures. Most of the rest of us would take a pass. Besides, we consume a huge portion of our oil on non-transportation uses. Taking cars off the road reduces anthropogenic air pollution and resource use somewhat, but doesn't really reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[Betaille]

Ordinarily I'm a fairly strict libertarian/capitalist on economic issues, but when it comes to energy I think there is a role for govt. intervention (though limited). Nobody can claim that Oil is a free market... OPEC has more power than they did even in the 70's. The only way to challenge the cartels power is to curb demand, and the most market-friendly way to do that is gas taxes.

[thackney]

The only way to challenge the cartels power is to curb demand, and the most market-friendly way to do that is gas taxes.

Increasing non-OPEC production is not an option?

[AmishDude]

Ah, Robert Samuelson: putting the ass in dumbass.

[cogitator]

Summarizing your other posts, you expect high gas taxes to give us a moribund economy, but with more mass transit. What a vision for America!

I don't think that's a fair characterization of what I have advocated. I think you missed my advocacy of increased development and use of nucler power, and part of the use of nuclear power would include biofuel production. There are ways of maintaining our energy use while still reducing foreign oil dependence. But we have to get reliable energy from somewhere.

[Betaille]

"Increasing non-OPEC production is not an option?"

Yes. It is. I phrased that wrong. I meant that the best way to do that on the demand side is by a tax.

[TXnMA]

At times, individual freedom must be compromised to improve collective security.

~~~~~~~~~~~

That one sentence told me all I need to know to shun anything this surrender-weasel writes...

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin

~~~~~~~~~~~

Samuelson has his head where he need never fear getting sunburn on that shiny forehead. As for me, I'll stick with ol' Ben...

[BigBobber]

Well, I agree with you about nuclear power. It's the best option for the near future and we need to do more to develop and improve nuclear technology.

Cheers!

[The Black Knight]

You're absolutely right about Europe being different. Last I heard, France currently gets around 2/3 to 3/4 of its power from nuclear. No wonder they have so much experience left over to build reactors for other countries (coughcough THE MIDDLE EAST coughcough).