« BRT is a fraud (so is Rapid Bus) | Main | In print again »

Republicans Heart Hugo

So follow me on this one:

  1. Self-identified Republicans like to claim to have a far superior understanding of economics than those they call Democrats.
  2. Same batch of folks are now calling for off-shore drilling on the theory that it would have a non-trivial impact on US oil prices.
  3. We know, of course, that oil is fungible, so the impact of any production here is spread across the entire world market for oil, not just the US market.
  4. Those self-identified Republicans must know that too, because of the superior understanding of economics mentioned in #1.
  5. Shirley those Republicans aren't putting forward all this fuss over a pennies-sized drop in the world price of oil which is what would happen if we drilled the hell out of ourselves (including not only offshore but ANWR as well).
  6. Therefore, those Republicans must have some other means in mind by which US prices will fall more than the prices paid by the rest of the world's oil consumers.
  7. There's only one way I can think of, though: forcing oil companies to sell us "our oil" at a discount (compared to the world price, which would only drop a little bit with the amount of production we can bring to bear). In other words, separating the US price from the world price - like our friends in Saudi Arabia do.
  8. What's another word for that? Nationalization. Or socialization, if you prefer. Either one will do.

I wonder if we know anybody who's an expert at that kind of thing. Perhaps even in our own hemisphere?

hey, how you doin'?

I think we found McCain's running-mate. If you're tired of paying too much to fill up your SUV, it's time to push your party leaders towards the McCain/Chavez ticket in '08. THIS IDEA NOT FOR STEALING.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Economics , Politics (Outside Austin) , Republicans Hate The Environment


TrackBack URL for this entry:


This is what happens when the only thing you know about socialism is that it's "red".

You may be on to something.
They're both blowhard "mavericks" who love having fawning media attention, after all. At least McCain-Feingold isn't quite as bad as nationalizing major media networks.
Also, also!: McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which is significantly closer to Chavez's western-Venezuela birthplace than it is to the 48 contiguous states.

For the record I still maintain that a McCain administration will be more like Grant's than any other comparison. Hopefully my theory will never be tested.

A true solution package to energy problems will address both supply and demand.

While I haven't seen the Republicans address the demand side of the equation in an acceptable way, they are definitely confronting the supply side.

The point of approving drilling here now (along with other oil recovery, such as oil shale) is to send a signal to the market and overseas producers (such as OPEC) that a not-insignificant amount of supply -will- come online in the future.

A significant component of the recent high oil prices is commodities speculation. Approving drilling now discourages the high speculation, even if the supply takes a long time to come online.

Heading into a recession, I recognize the importance of telling people to tighten the belt, which appears to be Obama's chief energy strategy at the moment (raise the temperature on your thermostat, increase the pressure in your tires). But there's no way demand can be easily lowered in a significant way without the use of oppressive or very unpalatable restrictions. I think all of us here know that noble suggestions to the American people without a stick to back it will fall on mostly deaf ears.

It is unfortunate that prominent Republicans aren't addressing the demand side, and it needs to be done. But I have yet to see a serious Democratic strategy addressing the supply side.

"that a not-insignificant amount of supply -will- come online in the future."

Compared to the size of the world market, the amount we can bring to bear IS insignificant.

In light of the bottom falling out on oil prices, the insignificant effect argument is even more silly than it was when oil was over $140 a barrel. I have never heard a good argument for what Democrats support - no drilling, no refineries, and windfall profits tax. Just because Republicans have trouble communicating the reasons for certain policies doesn't make Democrat policies valid or correct. However, you are correct that we should watch out for socialism. Unfortunately, our president-elect is a socialist :(

Socialism is a real word that has a real definition: when the government owns the means of production. Until we buy the Big III and other major producers, we're not socialist, even if income tax rates on the rich go from 36% to 39%.

In other words, IHBT. IHNL.

Of course you are either ignoring, or have taken for granted the obvious reasons why the Repubs want to drill baby, drill. It's got nothing to do with lowering the price for 'mericans, making 'merica energy independent, its coz they hate the fact that the Oil rich countries are making all that money and they want in on it. This is the perfect excuse to push for restrictions to be lifted, for arctic wildernesses can be ruined, for water to be polluted in in the grab for some cash. Its the oil industries answer to the subprime mortgage crisis bailout...

Actually I mentioned that in a response on twitter to somebody today. (the "let's make some money too" argument). Smarter still, from a purely economic screw-the-environment sense, would be doing what the Norwegians do - make a lot of money AND tax the hell out of gasoline so they don't waste it on their own driving...

and of course, having just spotted the date of this original post, it was in those blissful days before we'd heard of Palin, wasn't it?

Thats what happens when you retweet your old blogs entries

Post a comment