Tuesday, August 26, 2008

More liberal lies about energy

This idiot speaking before Hillary said that the U.S. uses 25% of the world's oil but has only 3% of the reserves.

First, that's proven reserves. Reserves are in fact not going down, but constantly going up despite global consumption. That's because because we keep discovering new reserves that exceed what we take out. The world consumes about 87 million barrels of oil per day, so Brazil's new reserves of 33 billion barrels could alone supply the world's needs for just over a year. And what about all the other deposits we know about and will likely continue to discover?

Second, the moron is confusing consumption with total supply, just like there's a difference between income and savings. The former is a rate at which the latter increases or decreases. If a wife is using 25% of the family's income but personally contributed only 3% of the assets, that's not necessarily a problem. What if the family spends $100,000 a year but has billions in wealth? If the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil per day. That means a newfound deposit of 20 billion barrels will by itself supply the U.S. for 1000 days.

Now the idiot is talking about Obama's plan to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in "green technology," how it will create 5 million new jobs. Don Luskin debunked this in June:
Let's see... $150 billion over ten years is $15 billion a year. Let's see... 5 million jobs. That's $3,000 a year per job. Let's see... that's a wage rate of about $1.40 an hour. If those are "good" jobs, I'll take a bad one if you don't mind.

Does this mean Obama favors repealing the minimum wage?
All you need to do is put things in perspective, to think for a minute that a billion is a thousand millions, and liberals' lies become so transparent.

Good lord, the fucker is so obese, he can't even fully button his shirt collar. Reminds me of Peter Jackson at the Oscars a few years ago. Surely they make enough to afford a decent shirt with a collar that fits?

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

The truth about oil versus gasoline prices

Updated: the formatting was off on the chart. It's more readable now.

This New York Post article jumps on the tired old bandwagon: oh, those evil oil companies raise prices quickly and lower them slowly!

There are several reasons why this argument is completely false and absurd, not to mention dishonest when you look at the numbers.

First, it compares crude oil's $140 very temporary peak with pump prices that don't fluctuate as quickly. Short-lived peaks tend not to be reflected at the pump, because station managers prefer to keep prices stable: consumers like a stable price that's a midpoint of fluctuations, rather than a constantly changing price, because it minimizes their costs of searching for and remembering gas prices. So if oil peaked at $140 for a few days and averaged around $130 for a longer period of time, you won't see a 7.7% drop of pump prices. The pump price changed based on oil's price over a longer period of time, not to mention the lag time of several weeks that's required to refine crude oil into gasoline and deliver it.

A while back I sent Don Luskin the link to a story describing how gas stations -- yes, gas stations! -- are hurting. Believe it or not, gas stations have razor thin profit margins of a few cents per gallon, and that's before paying fees to a credit card company.

Second, the graph is statistically absurd and completely dishonest. A proper evaluation of crude versus gasoline requires much more than just the last ten months of prices. Also, the y axes have been dishonestly misaligned. An honest graph would have started with a base of zero, but here there are offsets, which were chosen carefully and deliberately. The only reason to choose them is force the prices to appear somewhat correlated until the last little while, which isn't true.

Third, oil and gasoline have separate price elasticities, on both the supply and demand curves. It's partly because not all oil is converted into gasoline, and mainly because sunk costs, marginal costs and marginal revenues are very different for the two.

Fourth, the truth is that gasoline prices have gone up more slowly than crude prices. Let's take a look at some numbers. The Department of Energy provides historical gasoline pump prices from 1978 forward and historical crude oil prices from 1993 forward. However, I went back only to 1997 for my analysis. Crude prices from 1993 through 1996 are spotty, and it's simply poor statistical work to interpolate one week's price for an entire year.

The only difficulty is in formatting the numbers. After that, it's just a matter of applying common sense, instead of succumbing to anti-capitalist hysteria. Look at the ratio of a barrel of crude to a gallon of gasoline: the truth is that the price of oil has increased much faster than the pump price of gasoline, precisely the reverse of these accusations of price-gouging! If anything, oil companies are doing a favor to consumers by increasing gasoline prices more slowly than the price of crude has gone up, wouldn't you say?

Actually, no. They're still acting in their self-interest, but for each product, the price charged is what people are willing to pay, and the different rates of price increase are merely demonstrative of the different price elasticities.

Lots of numbers follow:
               U.S. All Grades All
Formulations Retail Price per Ratio of crude
Gasoline Prices barrel of price to
Date (dollars per gallon) crude gasoline price
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 06, 1997 1.272 22.90 18.00
Jan 13, 1997 1.287 23.56 18.31
Jan 20, 1997 1.287 22.79 17.71
Jan 27, 1997 1.284 21.83 17.00
Feb 03, 1997 1.282 21.16 16.51
Feb 10, 1997 1.280 20.97 16.38
Feb 17, 1997 1.273 19.93 15.66
Feb 24, 1997 1.270 19.38 15.26
Mar 03, 1997 1.261 18.05 14.31
Mar 10, 1997 1.253 17.74 14.16
Mar 17, 1997 1.246 17.79 14.28
Mar 24, 1997 1.250 18.36 14.69
Mar 31, 1997 1.246 17.95 14.41
Apr 07, 1997 1.248 17.09 13.69
Apr 14, 1997 1.244 16.55 13.30
Apr 21, 1997 1.245 16.32 13.11
Apr 28, 1997 1.240 16.59 13.38
May 05, 1997 1.238 16.98 13.72
May 12, 1997 1.238 16.73 13.51
May 19, 1997 1.247 17.82 14.29
May 26, 1997 1.255 18.45 14.70
Jun 02, 1997 1.258 17.97 14.28
Jun 09, 1997 1.251 17.45 13.95
Jun 16, 1997 1.242 16.50 13.29
Jun 23, 1997 1.232 16.40 13.31
Jun 30, 1997 1.226 16.71 13.63
Jul 07, 1997 1.222 17.09 13.99
Jul 14, 1997 1.219 16.81 13.79
Jul 21, 1997 1.222 16.91 13.84
Jul 28, 1997 1.216 17.00 13.98
Aug 04, 1997 1.237 17.31 13.99
Aug 11, 1997 1.272 17.70 13.92
Aug 18, 1997 1.274 17.33 13.60
Aug 25, 1997 1.288 17.39 13.50
Sep 01, 1997 1.287 16.99 13.20
Sep 08, 1997 1.288 17.04 13.23
Sep 15, 1997 1.281 16.88 13.18
Sep 22, 1997 1.269 16.59 13.07
Sep 29, 1997 1.255 16.95 13.51
Oct 06, 1997 1.254 17.92 14.29
Oct 13, 1997 1.248 18.61 14.91
Oct 20, 1997 1.238 17.77 14.35
Oct 27, 1997 1.228 17.75 14.45
Nov 03, 1997 1.221 17.59 14.41
Nov 10, 1997 1.222 17.41 14.25
Nov 17, 1997 1.213 17.37 14.32
Nov 24, 1997 1.207 17.19 14.24
Dec 01, 1997 1.197 16.87 14.09
Dec 08, 1997 1.187 16.17 13.62
Dec 15, 1997 1.176 15.62 13.28
Dec 22, 1997 1.167 15.42 13.21
Dec 29, 1997 1.158 15.41 13.31
Jan 05, 1998 1.148 14.86 12.94
Jan 12, 1998 1.140 13.80 12.11
Jan 19, 1998 1.129 13.26 11.74
Jan 26, 1998 1.112 12.95 11.65
Feb 02, 1998 1.108 13.26 11.97
Feb 09, 1998 1.101 13.05 11.85
Feb 16, 1998 1.085 12.77 11.77
Feb 23, 1998 1.090 12.38 11.36
Mar 02, 1998 1.075 11.66 10.85
Mar 09, 1998 1.065 11.59 10.88
Mar 16, 1998 1.055 10.69 10.13
Mar 23, 1998 1.047 10.38 9.91
Mar 30, 1998 1.077 12.40 11.51
Apr 06, 1998 1.074 12.48 11.62
Apr 13, 1998 1.072 11.91 11.11
Apr 20, 1998 1.075 11.92 11.09
Apr 27, 1998 1.086 11.99 11.04
May 04, 1998 1.095 12.28 11.21
May 11, 1998 1.109 12.80 11.54
May 18, 1998 1.109 12.62 11.38
May 25, 1998 1.108 12.20 11.01
Jun 01, 1998 1.104 12.38 11.21
Jun 08, 1998 1.113 12.06 10.84
Jun 15, 1998 1.104 11.01 9.97
Jun 22, 1998 1.096 9.62 8.78
Jun 29, 1998 1.096 10.74 9.80
Jul 06, 1998 1.097 10.72 9.77
Jul 13, 1998 1.092 10.68 9.78
Jul 20, 1998 1.097 11.11 10.13
Jul 27, 1998 1.088 11.03 10.14
Aug 03, 1998 1.077 11.53 10.71
Aug 10, 1998 1.072 11.34 10.58
Aug 17, 1998 1.065 10.80 10.14
Aug 24, 1998 1.058 10.98 10.38
Aug 31, 1998 1.053 11.17 10.61
Sep 07, 1998 1.046 11.14 10.65
Sep 14, 1998 1.042 11.50 11.04
Sep 21, 1998 1.053 11.79 11.20
Sep 28, 1998 1.053 13.07 12.41
Oct 05, 1998 1.059 13.50 12.75
Oct 12, 1998 1.063 12.64 11.89
Oct 19, 1998 1.058 11.69 11.05
Oct 26, 1998 1.055 11.07 10.49
Nov 02, 1998 1.050 11.77 11.21
Nov 09, 1998 1.048 11.44 10.92
Nov 16, 1998 1.037 10.84 10.45
Nov 23, 1998 1.030 9.99 9.70
Nov 30, 1998 1.015 9.72 9.58
Dec 07, 1998 0.996 8.87 8.91
Dec 14, 1998 0.987 8.51 8.62
Dec 21, 1998 0.986 8.95 9.08
Dec 28, 1998 0.979 8.73 8.92
Jan 04, 1999 0.977 9.10 9.31
Jan 11, 1999 0.982 10.00 10.18
Jan 18, 1999 0.985 10.14 10.29
Jan 25, 1999 0.977 9.63 9.86
Feb 01, 1999 0.971 9.89 10.19
Feb 08, 1999 0.968 9.60 9.92
Feb 15, 1999 0.960 8.90 9.27
Feb 22, 1999 0.949 8.99 9.47
Mar 01, 1999 0.955 9.62 10.07
Mar 08, 1999 0.963 10.03 10.42
Mar 15, 1999 1.017 11.12 10.93
Mar 22, 1999 1.056 12.10 11.46
Mar 29, 1999 1.121 12.90 11.51
Apr 05, 1999 1.158 14.14 12.21
Apr 12, 1999 1.179 13.77 11.68
Apr 19, 1999 1.175 14.24 12.12
Apr 26, 1999 1.171 15.39 13.14
May 03, 1999 1.176 15.83 13.46
May 10, 1999 1.180 16.17 13.70
May 17, 1999 1.180 15.29 12.96
May 24, 1999 1.166 14.52 12.45
May 31, 1999 1.151 14.63 12.71
Jun 07, 1999 1.152 14.07 12.21
Jun 14, 1999 1.148 15.21 13.25
Jun 21, 1999 1.163 15.55 13.37
Jun 28, 1999 1.153 15.47 13.42
Jul 05, 1999 1.165 16.16 13.87
Jul 12, 1999 1.182 16.97 14.36
Jul 19, 1999 1.208 17.56 14.54
Jul 26, 1999 1.232 17.78 14.43
Aug 02, 1999 1.234 18.23 14.77
Aug 09, 1999 1.246 18.32 14.70
Aug 16, 1999 1.275 19.15 15.02
Aug 23, 1999 1.273 19.58 15.38
Aug 30, 1999 1.273 19.24 15.11
Sep 06, 1999 1.282 19.64 15.32
Sep 13, 1999 1.290 20.82 16.14
Sep 20, 1999 1.307 21.84 16.71
Sep 27, 1999 1.302 21.97 16.87
Oct 04, 1999 1.296 22.29 17.20
Oct 11, 1999 1.290 21.10 16.36
Oct 18, 1999 1.277 20.39 15.97
Oct 25, 1999 1.277 20.64 16.16
Nov 01, 1999 1.271 20.62 16.22
Nov 08, 1999 1.274 20.73 16.27
Nov 15, 1999 1.292 22.39 17.33
Nov 22, 1999 1.309 23.24 17.75
Nov 29, 1999 1.315 24.24 18.43
Dec 06, 1999 1.313 23.43 17.84
Dec 13, 1999 1.315 24.05 18.29
Dec 20, 1999 1.310 23.60 18.02
Dec 27, 1999 1.314 23.65 18.00
Jan 03, 2000 1.312 23.86 18.19
Jan 10, 2000 1.304 22.68 17.39
Jan 17, 2000 1.318 23.18 17.59
Jan 24, 2000 1.354 25.56 18.88
Jan 31, 2000 1.355 25.34 18.70
Feb 07, 2000 1.364 25.53 18.72
Feb 14, 2000 1.394 26.10 18.72
Feb 21, 2000 1.443 26.62 18.45
Feb 28, 2000 1.458 26.60 18.24
Mar 06, 2000 1.539 27.55 17.90
Mar 13, 2000 1.566 29.11 18.59
Mar 20, 2000 1.569 27.89 17.78
Mar 27, 2000 1.549 25.08 16.19
Apr 03, 2000 1.543 24.29 15.74
Apr 10, 2000 1.516 23.26 15.34
Apr 17, 2000 1.486 22.05 14.84
Apr 24, 2000 1.478 23.00 15.56
May 01, 2000 1.461 23.32 15.96
May 08, 2000 1.495 24.40 16.32
May 15, 2000 1.531 25.77 16.83
May 22, 2000 1.566 26.96 17.22
May 29, 2000 1.579 26.93 17.06
Jun 05, 2000 1.599 27.14 16.97
Jun 12, 2000 1.664 27.02 16.24
Jun 19, 2000 1.711 28.56 16.69
Jun 26, 2000 1.691 28.37 16.78
Jul 03, 2000 1.661 28.78 17.33
Jul 10, 2000 1.630 27.58 16.92
Jul 17, 2000 1.586 27.03 17.04
Jul 24, 2000 1.562 26.32 16.85
Jul 31, 2000 1.514 24.74 16.34
Aug 07, 2000 1.504 24.78 16.48
Aug 14, 2000 1.489 26.68 17.92
Aug 21, 2000 1.508 27.88 18.49
Aug 28, 2000 1.521 28.36 18.65
Sep 04, 2000 1.568 29.81 19.01
Sep 11, 2000 1.598 31.50 19.71
Sep 18, 2000 1.599 30.08 18.81
Sep 25, 2000 1.586 30.94 19.51
Oct 02, 2000 1.563 27.93 17.87
Oct 09, 2000 1.541 27.49 17.84
Oct 16, 2000 1.578 30.13 19.09
Oct 23, 2000 1.588 29.03 18.28
Oct 30, 2000 1.584 29.73 18.77
Nov 06, 2000 1.565 28.49 18.20
Nov 13, 2000 1.562 29.09 18.62
Nov 20, 2000 1.550 30.26 19.52
Nov 27, 2000 1.549 30.39 19.62
Dec 04, 2000 1.526 29.20 19.13
Dec 11, 2000 1.490 24.70 16.58
Dec 18, 2000 1.462 22.84 15.62
Dec 25, 2000 1.453 21.07 14.50
Jan 01, 2001 1.446 20.38 14.09
Jan 08, 2001 1.465 21.77 14.86
Jan 15, 2001 1.513 22.91 15.14
Jan 22, 2001 1.511 23.59 15.61
Jan 29, 2001 1.500 24.37 16.25
Feb 05, 2001 1.483 23.74 16.01
Feb 12, 2001 1.515 25.67 16.94
Feb 19, 2001 1.489 24.18 16.24
Feb 26, 2001 1.471 23.36 15.88
Mar 05, 2001 1.457 22.50 15.44
Mar 12, 2001 1.453 23.42 16.12
Mar 19, 2001 1.444 22.01 15.24
Mar 26, 2001 1.445 21.17 14.65
Apr 02, 2001 1.482 21.78 14.70
Apr 09, 2001 1.540 21.82 14.17
Apr 16, 2001 1.610 22.86 14.20
Apr 23, 2001 1.658 23.23 14.01
Apr 30, 2001 1.665 22.89 13.75
May 07, 2001 1.739 23.97 13.78
May 14, 2001 1.748 23.96 13.71
May 21, 2001 1.724 24.46 14.19
May 28, 2001 1.739 24.96 14.35
Jun 04, 2001 1.715 24.67 14.38
Jun 11, 2001 1.688 24.28 14.38
Jun 18, 2001 1.644 24.50 14.90
Jun 25, 2001 1.583 23.38 14.77
Jul 02, 2001 1.520 22.91 15.07
Jul 09, 2001 1.484 22.58 15.22
Jul 16, 2001 1.459 22.64 15.52
Jul 23, 2001 1.440 21.38 14.85
Jul 30, 2001 1.428 22.28 15.60
Aug 06, 2001 1.419 22.48 15.84
Aug 13, 2001 1.434 23.19 16.17
Aug 20, 2001 1.467 23.32 15.90
Aug 27, 2001 1.523 23.08 15.15
Sep 03, 2001 1.579 23.57 14.93
Sep 10, 2001 1.562 23.89 15.29
Sep 17, 2001 1.564 23.89 15.27
Sep 24, 2001 1.522 23.70 15.57
Oct 01, 2001 1.455 19.61 13.48
Oct 08, 2001 1.393 19.13 13.73
Oct 15, 2001 1.351 18.96 14.03
Oct 22, 2001 1.307 18.02 13.79
Oct 29, 2001 1.277 17.66 13.83
Nov 05, 2001 1.249 17.03 13.63
Nov 12, 2001 1.224 16.36 13.37
Nov 19, 2001 1.208 15.62 12.93
Nov 26, 2001 1.168 14.87 12.73
Dec 03, 2001 1.149 15.76 13.72
Dec 10, 2001 1.136 15.96 14.05
Dec 17, 2001 1.101 15.16 13.77
Dec 24, 2001 1.113 15.59 14.01
Dec 31, 2001 1.137 16.75 14.73
Jan 07, 2002 1.152 17.06 14.81
Jan 14, 2002 1.152 17.60 15.28
Jan 21, 2002 1.146 15.71 13.71
Jan 28, 2002 1.142 15.67 13.72
Feb 04, 2002 1.157 16.53 14.29
Feb 11, 2002 1.148 16.97 14.78
Feb 18, 2002 1.157 18.00 15.56
Feb 25, 2002 1.157 17.54 15.16
Mar 04, 2002 1.185 18.62 15.71
Mar 11, 2002 1.262 20.02 15.86
Mar 18, 2002 1.328 21.62 16.28
Mar 25, 2002 1.382 22.53 16.30
Apr 01, 2002 1.412 23.12 16.37
Apr 08, 2002 1.454 24.00 16.51
Apr 15, 2002 1.446 22.86 15.81
Apr 22, 2002 1.446 22.10 15.28
Apr 29, 2002 1.435 23.34 16.26
May 06, 2002 1.437 24.16 16.81
May 13, 2002 1.431 23.91 16.71
May 20, 2002 1.439 24.69 17.16
May 27, 2002 1.429 24.98 17.48
Jun 03, 2002 1.433 22.01 15.36
Jun 10, 2002 1.417 21.66 15.29
Jun 17, 2002 1.419 21.33 15.03
Jun 24, 2002 1.425 22.92 16.08
Jul 01, 2002 1.433 23.66 16.51
Jul 08, 2002 1.423 23.73 16.68
Jul 15, 2002 1.435 23.94 16.68
Jul 22, 2002 1.451 24.90 17.16
Jul 29, 2002 1.447 24.30 16.79
Aug 05, 2002 1.437 24.28 16.90
Aug 12, 2002 1.435 23.95 16.69
Aug 19, 2002 1.434 24.95 17.40
Aug 26, 2002 1.444 25.87 17.92
Sep 02, 2002 1.436 25.74 17.92
Sep 09, 2002 1.437 25.54 17.77
Sep 16, 2002 1.442 26.29 18.23
Sep 23, 2002 1.436 26.39 18.38
Sep 30, 2002 1.455 27.24 18.72
Oct 07, 2002 1.480 27.08 18.30
Oct 14, 2002 1.481 26.35 17.79
Oct 21, 2002 1.499 26.24 17.51
Oct 28, 2002 1.485 25.11 16.91
Nov 04, 2002 1.489 23.61 15.86
Nov 11, 2002 1.480 22.56 15.24
Nov 18, 2002 1.451 21.46 14.79
Nov 25, 2002 1.423 21.92 15.40
Dec 02, 2002 1.408 22.66 16.09
Dec 09, 2002 1.404 23.48 16.72
Dec 16, 2002 1.407 24.04 17.09
Dec 23, 2002 1.443 26.34 18.25
Dec 30, 2002 1.484 28.23 19.02
Jan 06, 2003 1.487 28.52 19.18
Jan 13, 2003 1.496 28.44 19.01
Jan 20, 2003 1.502 29.21 19.45
Jan 27, 2003 1.515 29.71 19.61
Feb 03, 2003 1.569 29.31 18.68
Feb 10, 2003 1.649 29.46 17.87
Feb 17, 2003 1.701 30.65 18.02
Feb 24, 2003 1.699 30.79 18.12
Mar 03, 2003 1.726 31.35 18.16
Mar 10, 2003 1.752 31.14 17.77
Mar 17, 2003 1.768 30.87 17.46
Mar 24, 2003 1.732 26.51 15.31
Mar 31, 2003 1.692 23.45 13.86
Apr 07, 2003 1.673 24.38 14.57
Apr 14, 2003 1.639 22.69 13.84
Apr 21, 2003 1.618 22.70 14.03
Apr 28, 2003 1.600 23.11 14.44
May 05, 2003 1.556 21.53 13.84
May 12, 2003 1.534 21.83 14.23
May 19, 2003 1.539 23.53 15.29
May 26, 2003 1.528 24.95 16.33
Jun 02, 2003 1.514 24.48 16.17
Jun 09, 2003 1.530 25.50 16.67
Jun 16, 2003 1.558 26.13 16.77
Jun 23, 2003 1.537 25.07 16.31
Jun 30, 2003 1.528 24.95 16.33
Jul 07, 2003 1.530 26.28 17.18
Jul 14, 2003 1.563 26.14 16.72
Jul 21, 2003 1.566 26.90 17.18
Jul 28, 2003 1.558 26.72 17.15
Aug 04, 2003 1.576 26.48 16.80
Aug 11, 2003 1.611 28.20 17.50
Aug 18, 2003 1.668 27.91 16.73
Aug 25, 2003 1.787 27.30 15.28
Sep 01, 2003 1.786 27.84 15.59
Sep 08, 2003 1.758 26.49 15.07
Sep 15, 2003 1.739 25.09 14.43
Sep 22, 2003 1.686 24.09 14.29
Sep 29, 2003 1.635 23.86 14.59
Oct 06, 2003 1.617 25.39 15.70
Oct 13, 2003 1.611 26.69 16.57
Oct 20, 2003 1.612 28.34 17.58
Oct 27, 2003 1.584 26.69 16.85
Nov 03, 2003 1.577 26.23 16.63
Nov 10, 2003 1.547 25.71 16.62
Nov 17, 2003 1.540 27.03 17.55
Nov 24, 2003 1.554 27.94 17.98
Dec 01, 2003 1.533 26.76 17.46
Dec 08, 2003 1.519 26.62 17.52
Dec 15, 2003 1.509 27.46 18.20
Dec 22, 2003 1.528 26.84 17.57
Dec 29, 2003 1.521 27.77 18.26
Jan 05, 2004 1.552 27.63 17.80
Jan 12, 2004 1.603 28.57 17.82
Jan 19, 2004 1.637 29.49 18.01
Jan 26, 2004 1.664 29.28 17.60
Feb 02, 2004 1.660 28.49 17.16
Feb 09, 2004 1.681 27.23 16.20
Feb 16, 2004 1.690 27.10 16.04
Feb 23, 2004 1.730 28.51 16.48
Mar 01, 2004 1.758 29.02 16.51
Mar 08, 2004 1.780 30.42 17.09
Mar 15, 2004 1.767 30.74 17.40
Mar 22, 2004 1.785 31.08 17.41
Mar 29, 2004 1.800 31.09 17.27
Apr 05, 2004 1.822 29.82 16.37
Apr 12, 2004 1.827 29.95 16.39
Apr 19, 2004 1.853 31.05 16.76
Apr 26, 2004 1.853 31.11 16.79
May 03, 2004 1.884 31.71 16.83
May 10, 2004 1.979 33.40 16.88
May 17, 2004 2.055 34.61 16.84
May 24, 2004 2.104 35.56 16.90
May 31, 2004 2.092 34.98 16.72
Jun 07, 2004 2.075 34.83 16.79
Jun 14, 2004 2.029 32.78 16.16
Jun 21, 2004 1.981 32.44 16.38
Jun 28, 2004 1.965 32.43 16.50
Jul 05, 2004 1.939 31.15 16.06
Jul 12, 2004 1.959 33.57 17.14
Jul 19, 2004 1.971 34.30 17.40
Jul 26, 2004 1.948 35.14 18.04
Aug 02, 2004 1.930 36.08 18.69
Aug 09, 2004 1.920 37.51 19.54
Aug 16, 2004 1.917 38.16 19.91
Aug 23, 2004 1.926 39.84 20.69
Aug 30, 2004 1.909 38.58 20.21
Sep 06, 2004 1.893 36.31 19.18
Sep 13, 2004 1.889 36.68 19.42
Sep 20, 2004 1.908 37.01 19.40
Sep 27, 2004 1.959 39.55 20.19
Oct 04, 2004 1.980 41.20 20.81
Oct 11, 2004 2.035 42.02 20.65
Oct 18, 2004 2.077 44.22 21.29
Oct 25, 2004 2.074 44.44 21.43
Nov 01, 2004 2.076 46.00 22.16
Nov 08, 2004 2.045 41.70 20.39
Nov 15, 2004 2.014 39.30 19.51
Nov 22, 2004 1.992 36.74 18.44
Nov 29, 2004 1.989 38.81 19.51
Dec 06, 2004 1.956 35.80 18.30
Dec 13, 2004 1.893 30.30 16.01
Dec 20, 2004 1.861 31.45 16.90
Dec 27, 2004 1.838 34.20 18.61
Jan 03, 2005 1.824 32.07 17.58
Jan 10, 2005 1.837 33.79 18.39
Jan 17, 2005 1.863 36.96 19.84
Jan 24, 2005 1.896 38.16 20.13
Jan 31, 2005 1.953 39.14 20.04
Feb 07, 2005 1.952 37.92 19.43
Feb 14, 2005 1.941 36.58 18.85
Feb 21, 2005 1.948 38.08 19.55
Feb 28, 2005 1.969 40.57 20.60
Mar 07, 2005 2.040 43.38 21.26
Mar 14, 2005 2.098 45.46 21.67
Mar 21, 2005 2.149 46.42 21.60
Mar 28, 2005 2.194 46.97 21.41
Apr 04, 2005 2.258 45.32 20.07
Apr 11, 2005 2.321 47.69 20.55
Apr 18, 2005 2.280 44.23 19.40
Apr 25, 2005 2.279 43.96 19.29
May 02, 2005 2.277 45.90 20.16
May 09, 2005 2.231 43.36 19.44
May 16, 2005 2.206 43.62 19.77
May 23, 2005 2.169 41.17 18.98
May 30, 2005 2.141 41.76 19.50
Jun 06, 2005 2.159 44.79 20.75
Jun 13, 2005 2.173 46.89 21.58
Jun 20, 2005 2.204 47.77 21.67
Jun 27, 2005 2.257 51.22 22.69
Jul 04, 2005 2.268 50.89 22.44
Jul 11, 2005 2.369 52.01 21.95
Jul 18, 2005 2.360 52.57 22.28
Jul 25, 2005 2.333 50.59 21.68
Aug 01, 2005 2.335 51.73 22.15
Aug 08, 2005 2.410 53.65 22.26
Aug 15, 2005 2.592 56.28 21.71
Aug 22, 2005 2.654 57.56 21.69
Aug 29, 2005 2.653 57.66 21.73
Sep 05, 2005 3.117 59.84 19.20
Sep 12, 2005 3.002 58.09 19.35
Sep 19, 2005 2.835 55.86 19.70
Sep 26, 2005 2.851 58.11 20.38
Oct 03, 2005 2.975 57.79 19.43
Oct 10, 2005 2.896 55.47 19.15
Oct 17, 2005 2.775 54.14 19.51
Oct 24, 2005 2.652 53.64 20.23
Oct 31, 2005 2.528 51.84 20.51
Nov 07, 2005 2.424 51.74 21.34
Nov 14, 2005 2.342 50.31 21.48
Nov 21, 2005 2.247 47.86 21.30
Nov 28, 2005 2.200 48.17 21.90
Dec 05, 2005 2.191 48.08 21.94
Dec 12, 2005 2.228 50.11 22.49
Dec 19, 2005 2.255 51.58 22.87
Dec 26, 2005 2.241 49.37 22.03
Jan 02, 2006 2.281 49.56 21.73
Jan 09, 2006 2.371 53.28 22.47
Jan 16, 2006 2.366 55.05 23.27
Jan 23, 2006 2.382 56.45 23.70
Jan 30, 2006 2.402 57.70 24.02
Feb 06, 2006 2.388 57.57 24.11
Feb 13, 2006 2.331 54.70 23.47
Feb 20, 2006 2.286 51.35 22.46
Feb 27, 2006 2.298 51.43 22.38
Mar 06, 2006 2.373 52.96 22.32
Mar 13, 2006 2.408 53.61 22.26
Mar 20, 2006 2.548 53.80 21.11
Mar 27, 2006 2.542 54.18 21.31
Apr 03, 2006 2.631 56.68 21.54
Apr 10, 2006 2.727 58.82 21.57
Apr 17, 2006 2.828 60.99 21.57
Apr 24, 2006 2.960 64.00 21.62
May 01, 2006 2.966 64.89 21.88
May 08, 2006 2.955 65.54 22.18
May 15, 2006 2.992 64.68 21.62
May 22, 2006 2.938 63.38 21.57
May 29, 2006 2.913 62.83 21.57
Jun 05, 2006 2.937 63.84 21.74
Jun 12, 2006 2.951 62.97 21.34
Jun 19, 2006 2.917 61.46 21.07
Jun 26, 2006 2.914 60.89 20.90
Jul 03, 2006 2.979 63.44 21.30
Jul 10, 2006 3.017 66.54 22.06
Jul 17, 2006 3.033 67.24 22.17
Jul 24, 2006 3.048 67.98 22.30
Jul 31, 2006 3.050 66.57 21.83
Aug 07, 2006 3.083 68.13 22.10
Aug 14, 2006 3.047 69.52 22.82
Aug 21, 2006 2.971 66.15 22.27
Aug 28, 2006 2.893 64.86 22.42
Sep 04, 2006 2.777 63.18 22.75
Sep 11, 2006 2.670 60.49 22.66
Sep 18, 2006 2.549 57.28 22.47
Sep 25, 2006 2.429 54.46 22.42
Oct 02, 2006 2.360 53.26 22.57
Oct 09, 2006 2.310 52.75 22.84
Oct 16, 2006 2.274 51.78 22.77
Oct 23, 2006 2.255 51.87 23.00
Oct 30, 2006 2.264 51.61 22.80
Nov 06, 2006 2.246 50.65 22.55
Nov 13, 2006 2.278 51.71 22.70
Nov 20, 2006 2.285 51.50 22.54
Nov 27, 2006 2.292 50.42 22.00
Dec 04, 2006 2.342 53.54 22.86
Dec 11, 2006 2.340 55.55 23.74
Dec 18, 2006 2.366 54.79 23.16
Dec 25, 2006 2.387 55.09 23.08
Jan 01, 2007 2.382 54.00 22.67
Jan 08, 2007 2.354 51.57 21.91
Jan 15, 2007 2.280 47.72 20.93
Jan 22, 2007 2.216 45.29 20.44
Jan 29, 2007 2.213 46.94 21.21
Feb 05, 2007 2.237 49.35 22.06
Feb 12, 2007 2.287 52.15 22.80
Feb 19, 2007 2.341 51.62 22.05
Feb 26, 2007 2.428 52.31 21.54
Mar 05, 2007 2.551 55.18 21.63
Mar 12, 2007 2.605 55.53 21.32
Mar 19, 2007 2.623 54.39 20.74
Mar 26, 2007 2.655 54.02 20.35
Apr 02, 2007 2.753 58.08 21.10
Apr 09, 2007 2.848 60.53 21.25
Apr 16, 2007 2.922 59.21 20.26
Apr 23, 2007 2.917 58.66 20.11
Apr 30, 2007 3.017 59.19 19.62
May 07, 2007 3.097 59.76 19.30
May 14, 2007 3.143 58.06 18.47
May 21, 2007 3.258 60.29 18.51
May 28, 2007 3.250 63.11 19.42
Jun 04, 2007 3.200 62.10 19.41
Jun 11, 2007 3.122 64.10 20.53
Jun 18, 2007 3.057 63.45 20.76
Jun 25, 2007 3.029 65.69 21.69
Jul 02, 2007 3.005 65.51 21.80
Jul 09, 2007 3.026 67.65 22.36
Jul 16, 2007 3.092 70.63 22.84
Jul 23, 2007 3.005 71.71 23.86
Jul 30, 2007 2.926 71.36 24.39
Aug 06, 2007 2.888 72.19 25.00
Aug 13, 2007 2.821 68.09 24.14
Aug 20, 2007 2.832 66.29 23.41
Aug 27, 2007 2.796 65.16 23.30
Sep 03, 2007 2.840 66.47 23.40
Sep 10, 2007 2.862 68.93 24.08
Sep 17, 2007 2.835 70.24 24.78
Sep 24, 2007 2.860 72.62 25.39
Oct 01, 2007 2.838 73.50 25.90
Oct 08, 2007 2.821 73.65 26.11
Oct 15, 2007 2.813 73.39 26.09
Oct 22, 2007 2.873 77.84 27.09
Oct 29, 2007 2.921 79.47 27.21
Nov 05, 2007 3.060 83.69 27.35
Nov 12, 2007 3.158 86.88 27.51
Nov 19, 2007 3.148 85.21 27.07
Nov 26, 2007 3.147 87.93 27.94
Dec 03, 2007 3.113 87.22 28.02
Dec 10, 2007 3.053 81.95 26.84
Dec 17, 2007 3.050 82.44 27.03
Dec 24, 2007 3.032 83.41 27.51
Dec 31, 2007 3.104 85.52 27.55
Jan 07, 2008 3.159 88.41 27.99
Jan 14, 2008 3.119 89.60 28.73
Jan 21, 2008 3.070 85.36 27.80
Jan 28, 2008 3.030 82.66 27.28
Feb 04, 2008 3.030 85.36 28.17
Feb 11, 2008 3.011 83.21 27.64
Feb 18, 2008 3.092 85.50 27.65
Feb 25, 2008 3.180 89.61 28.18
Mar 03, 2008 3.212 91.74 28.56
Mar 10, 2008 3.273 95.15 29.07
Mar 17, 2008 3.332 99.76 29.94
Mar 24, 2008 3.310 99.67 30.11
Mar 31, 2008 3.339 96.65 28.95
Apr 07, 2008 3.381 95.56 28.26
Apr 14, 2008 3.438 101.22 29.44
Apr 21, 2008 3.557 105.27 29.60
Apr 28, 2008 3.653 109.25 29.91
May 05, 2008 3.663 108.98 29.75
May 12, 2008 3.771 112.96 29.95
May 19, 2008 3.840 116.32 30.29
May 26, 2008 3.986 120.16 30.15
Jun 02, 2008 4.026 121.92 30.28
Jun 09, 2008 4.090 117.82 28.81
Jun 16, 2008 4.134 125.28 30.30
Jun 23, 2008 4.131 125.93 30.48
Jun 30, 2008 4.146 128.02 30.88
Jul 07, 2008 4.165 133.60 32.08
Jul 14, 2008 4.164 133.32 32.02
Jul 21, 2008 4.118 134.44 32.65
Jul 28, 2008 4.010 122.59 30.57

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Repeat after me, kids: "It's the tree-huggers' fault"

Sadie and Pyper, only 9 and 7 years old, are protesting high gas prices that made their parents cut out cable TV. Welcome to the real world, girls. Welcome to the lower quality of life that's inevitable when people let themselves be ruled by environmentalists. Those are the people you should be blaming, girls, not oil companies! Oil companies would love nothing better than to supply us with more oil and gas, and at lower prices: when you do the math, lower prices mean higher sales, so they earn more profit while we consumers still benefit from cheap, plentiful carbon fuels.

Instead of blaming the oil companies, Sadie and Pyper need to learn who's really at fault. Their parents are paying more for gasoline because the federal and state and local governments for 32 years have prevented new gasoline refineries from being built, because EPA regulations have forced the number of refineries to drop from 254 in 1985 to a mere 142 in 2007, because the EPA requires an area to use one of 42 different gasoline blends depending on local "air quality," because the federal government would rather keep Colorado shale as useless wilderness most Americans would never bother visiting (instead of letting oil companies turn it into useful energy), because California and Florida elitists want to preserve "pristine" shorelines that they don't like to share, because both Democrats and Republicans always block efforts to drill in ANWR (a place as barren as the moon), and because of the insanity to "protect" plentiful polar bears the girls will likely never see in their lives (and probably wouldn't want to anyway, since their "cuteness" disappears suddenly once you see the violent predators munching a seal).

Polar bears are cute, aren't they? Let's take a look at one in action. (image borrowed from Supanet)



My best friend doesn't send me polar bear stuff as often as she used to, but she's sent a lot over the years, from coasters to stuffed animals. Those are cute. Real polar bears are not cute. Knut was a cute little cub until you saw him eat his natural diet of meat, at which point a rational person realizes, "This is a predator."

I suppose the girls could be considered "spoiled," when countless millions of other children around the world would be grateful for just a few bits of food. God knows I've personally seen many Filipino children who may never know a full stomach. However, on further reflection, I'm more sympathetic than some of the comments in reply to the article. The Vance family isn't necessarily among the many idiotic people who think they should live like kings on one 40-hour per week income; there's nothing in the article to indicate either way. Also, the girls are misguided in their protests, but they're young and have yet to learn economics. Economics is the science of human choices and its consequences, or more specifically, the study of how we deal with scarcity. "You can't have everything."

If the girls like cable TV so much, their family can cut back on going to restaurants (including fast food) and the movies. Each month, two fewer trips for fast food, or one fewer outing to the movies, would probably cover their cable bill. Cutting back on cell phone plans, and settling for "freebie" phones when renewing contracts, is also a way to reduce expenses that many people overlook. Alternatively, the family can try to increase its income. One of the parents could get a part-time job, just two Saturdays a month to pay for cable. The girls could also try a paper route or babysitting. I don't expect them at their age to understand more advanced economic concepts, but they're not too young to understand that in the real world, you should work honestly and trade voluntarily for what you want.

But we shouldn't blame the family, because they shouldn't have to cut back or try to earn more money to compensate for what government hath wrought. If it weren't for government, oil and gasoline would be cheaper. The family still couldn't have everything, but they wouldn't have to cut this or that out of the family budget to afford to drive around. Putting aside any questions of whether the parents derive income from others without consent (i.e. "the redistribution of wealth" and "subsidies"), the parents have the income and possessions they have, and who has the right to tell them not to use it, or use less? That's what government is doing: it wants us to use less oil, so it's forcing changes in our behavior. I don't use "force" lightly, because in the end, it comes down to government doling out fines and prison time, enforced at the point of a gun.

The Orange County Register had an editorial last week with a great title: "You can't ride a polar bear to work." Contrary to Agent Smith's derision in the first "Matrix" movie, it's one of mankind's greatest strengths that we can adapt the environment to ourselves, whereas most other lifeforms adapt to their environment. We're not living in some state of nature, like buzzards or decomposer bacteria waiting for something to die, or lions waiting for an antelope to pass by, or squirrels that try to scavenge enough to survive the winter. We get out there and fight Mother Nature for what we have. My friend Billy Beck recently said something similar, I think, but for the life of me I can't find it right now. (The closest I can find are this and this but neither are it.)

Our fight for the last two centuries has involved a remarkable increase in how we use our surroundings, at a rate never seen before in human civilization. It's come at the price of altering our environment, and I for one see it as worthwhile. I, for one, am willing to make trades and use our available technology so that I do not have to live like an animal. And once humans don't have to live like animals, which means no less than "to struggle against nature," we don't have to worry about following a herd of prey, or living adjacent to water sources. We don't have to accept that it's "natural" for someone to die because we ran out of resources. We can actually worry about how to improve our already comfortable lives! If Drew Barrymore thinks it's "cool" to "poo in the woods," that's her choice. Same goes for that idiot Frenchman who wants to live alone on an island. If we all lived in such "natural conditions," we'd require far more land per person to feed ourselves. It's modern technology that allows us to plant and harvest more and more in the same land area. But I suspect he doesn't mind that, that he shares the same mindset as that bastard Jacques Cousteau, who envisioned an Earth with a controlled human population of only 100,000.

Many on the planet still struggle, but even they have supplanted "other species" like the more fortunate of us. And is that so wrong? What parent can rationally wake up without worrying about starting work at dawn, in dwellings at a comfortable temperature with non-dirt floors, with sanitary ways to excrete and bathe and cook, then worry that their children will never see dodo birds wandering up to them on the beach, or flocks of passenger pigeons? Besides the fact that Mother Nature killed far more species than man ever did, I see pigeons of all kinds every day. One extinct kind frankly doesn't make any difference to me. Huge flocks that darkened the sky, and entire trees filled? That only means that much more bird droppings.

Or as Billy said about the comparative worth of polar bears:
Take a good long look at your kids.

Tell me they're not worth more than a polar bear.

That's the fight that will now take place in all kinds of courts for years on end every time someone wants to deliver unto your dainty hands a single new gallon of fuel.
And elsewhere about the caribou-protectors,
I hope they freeze in the dark, listening to the cries of their children. The real sin in all this is how they take sensible people along with them on the ride.
Unfortunately it's Sadie and Pyper who are paying the price. It isn't oil companies' "gouging" that's preventing them from watching Hannah Montana. It's entirely the fault of government and the damn tree huggers, who are making oil and gas artificially more expensive. I can only wish that Sadie and Pyper's parents can pull them aside, show them pictures of polar bears at dinner, and say, "These cute things are why you can't watch Hannah Montana."

Then you have morons like this who actually say that $8 per gallon gasoline will be good for us. Why? Because it promotes behavior that he likes, never mind what you or I like. He talks about the "antiquated technology" that's driving automobile engines. Did he ever consider the "antiquated technology" called electricity that continues to power most of our modern comforts? And if higher prices are an economic "stimulus," why not hike all prices? Let's set tomatoes' price at $1 million per pound -- by his logic, that would spread prosperity throughout the economy as people have more money to spend! But in reality, it would wreck everything. The simple lesson is to let prices fluctuate on their own, similar to what Bastiat warned us in his Sophisms: "Has not M. Bugeaud uttered these words: 'Let bread be dear, and the farmer will be rich'? Now, bread can be dear only because it is scarce. Thus, M. Bugeaud was extolling scarcity." It follows, then, that it's a fallacy to think that because government makes something artificially more expensive, and an industry thereby becomes artificially more prosperous, that the prosperity will spread throughout. It simply won't happen: all prices will go up accordingly, and because of government's interference in setting prices, buyers and sellers will not be able to determine the correct prices for anything else.

Then the fool goes on about how oil producing nations have so much power over us, when in fact we should be worrying more about the federal government having power over us. It's the federal government who has greater control over our supply of oil, not Saudi Arabia or Hugo Chavez. And for all his talk about how wonderful public transportation is, how we'll eliminate urban sprawl, it comes down to him and other collectivists telling the rest of us how to live our lives. They like paying more for gasoline, they think it's a good thing, they value unused natural resources more than modern comforts, and therefore we all must follow them on the road to hell.

Sadie and Pyper, welcome to the 1970s.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, November 19, 2005

How to cut taxes yet cost consumers in the same bill

My hand seems much better today, after my stupidity yesterday, good enough to type mostly normally. My friend and I never did get to Chelsea Piers last night, partially because we were in suits and dress shoes and not more suitable clothes, and he didn't want to aggravate my hand -- or was he afraid I'd lose my grip and send the club flying? We did go to Madison Square Park where, he's right, the Shake Shack serves a very, very good hamburger. At $7 for just a double cheeseburger (no fries or drink), it's more expensive than the fast food joints across the street, but there was no comparison in taste. To quote one of my favorite actors: "Mmhmm! This is a tasty burger!" (Go here for that sound clip and many others.)

That being said, here's something I'm surprised wasn't blogged about more yesterday. To mildly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, were Congress to direct a marathon, runners would run backwards on moving sidewalks. Only in Washington, D.C, could a bill effectively nullify itself.
Senate Passes $60 Billion Tax Bill
Senate Passes $60 Billion Tax Bill Extending Tax Cuts, Raises Taxes on Oil Companies


WASHINGTON - The Senate passed a $60 billion bill early Friday that would extend expiring tax cuts and prevent roughly 14 million families from paying higher taxes through the alternative minimum tax.

It drew a presidential veto threat for raising taxes on oil companies.
Then again, President Bush threatened to veto this year's transportation bill, which I had criticized since March, if it exceeded the original plan of $284 billion. He then signed the final $286 billion package, because, well, some members of Congress wanted to spend as much as $400 billion...so $286 was more than originally wanted but a good "compromise" nonetheless.
Much of the bill, passed 64-33 after midnight, preserves tax cuts approved in previous years that are set to expire unless lawmakers keep them alive. "I call this bill the 'Tax Increase Prevention Act,'" said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

Senate GOP leaders pledged that when the bill returns to the Senate for final approval, it will also extend the life of reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends, scheduled to end when the calendar flips to 2009.

"Millions of Americans have benefited from these important tax policies either directly through lower taxes or indirectly through new and better jobs and greater economic security for families," said Treasury Secretary John Snow.
A good start. Now if only they'd do big tax cuts, and just as importantly, cut spending to match. Let's face it: $60 billion over five years is a drop in the bucket compared to federal spending just for this year alone. The federal government will spend $2.47 trillion just for 2005, and $14.3 trillion during fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
Democrats roundly oppose extending tax cuts for investment income. Senate leaders dropped an extension from their bill because a key moderate Republican balked at its inclusion.
Naturally! Democrats don't like it when any "rich" can actually keep money to invest in the economy, never mind that rich people's investment and consumption spending does trickle down to create jobs for everyone else. Democrats also dislike it when the middle class starts investing. After all, investing helps wean people from government's teat (especially regarding retirement), and worse, the mere act of owning a piece of a business transforms them into the mythical Democratic bogeyman of Evil Rich Capitalists. Exceptions, of course, are made for the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, et al.
The bill would stop a tax increase on about 14 million families in line to pay the alternative minimum tax next year. Originally a levy to prevent the wealthy from avoiding taxation, inflation causes the alternative minimum tax to reach into the pockets of more families every year. Lawmakers regularly enact walls to hold it back.
The AMT simply must go. Even if you believe in progressive levels of taxation, it's one of the stupidest ideas conceived, because there was no indexing for inflation.
Senate Republicans beat back Democratic attempts to use the bill to pinch oil and energy companies that have been reporting record profits while consumers pay high gasoline prices, efforts that reflected sensitivity on Capitol Hill to high gasoline prices and fears of skyrocketing home heating costs this winter.

The largest oil companies, nevertheless, would be hit with about $4.3 billion in taxes through a change in accounting methods. That provision drew a veto threat from the White House and upset some Western Republicans, who deemed it an unfair and political attack on the energy industry.

"Is it a windfall tax by another name?" said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
So much for Republicans "beat[ing] back Democratic attempts to pinch oil and energy companies." When will both parties join Sen. Craig, and when will all politicians acknowledge the reality that businesses do not pay taxes, ever? Businesses are only tax collectors for the government: they necessarily pass along their taxes to the consumer.

While the most profusely bleeding heart "progressive" touts the idea of taxing businesses and redistributing the money to consumers, it will not happen because it does not account for incentive.
The Senate defeated a Democratic effort to impose a temporary windfall profits tax, 50 percent on the sale of oil over $40 a barrel, on profits not reinvested in increasing domestic oil and gas supplies. The money would have been returned to energy consumers through an income tax rebate. A 64-35 procedural vote defeated the effort.

"The major integrated oil companies have all of the gain. Who has all the pain?" asked Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who then answered his own question: "All the American people who are trying to pay for the price of a tankful of gas or trying to figure out how they are going to heat their home in the winter."

The Senate also defeated an amendment to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to fund a low-income heating assistance program.
I initially debunked Dorgan's myth toward the end of this entry. His first error stems from the erroneous liberal misconception that companies hoard money. Increased profits for any company or any sector of the economy, no matter how great, never "take away" from or "deprive" the rest of the people, or the rest of the economy. Even if it's oil executives getting all the money, what will they do, sit on piles of it? No, they will by definition save and/or spend it. The money goes right back into the rest of the economy, so it's only a shift in spending patterns, with nothing lost.

Oil companies are simply in a cylical heyday, which will not last forever. In the late 1990s, it was technology companies. Once upon a time, it was horse breeders. In 17th century Holland, it was tulips. It's only a matter of which sector at the present time can best capitalize -- i.e. be the most competitive -- on consumer preferences.

In his economic ignorance, Dorgan doesn't understand the role of prices. Prices are critical (as I explained in "The power of markets") not just because they reflect a resource's scarcity and limit consumption, but because they encourage others to "get into the act" and thereby increase the supply. Prices cannot get so high, by definition, unless there are enough people willing and able to pay them. I think regular gasoline peaked at $3.43 down the road from me; today it was down to $2.49. If no one could afford it like some think, how could the station charge a dollar more only two months ago?

It's a nice-sounding progressive idea, certainly appealing to most people, that we can tax oil companies $5 per $50 per barrel oil, or $10 per $60 per barrel oil, then "rebate" the profits to people via income tax cuts. Oil companies could still make a profit, and people would effectively get part of the money back, right? As Gov. Schwarzenegger could say, "Wrong!" If oil is selling at $50 per barrel, oil companies would produce only the oil that's worth $45 to produce. This greatly restricts supply, because they won't bother to supply more expensive oil which certain consumers are willing to buy, and what happens when supply is reduced? The price goes up. Crude oil suppliers could also raise their prices to compensate for the taxes; do you think your grocery store would charge the same prices if it were hit with a 10% excise tax?

Either way, consumers will need that remitted money to cover the increased cost that federal controls produced. Ultimately this idea of "tax and rebate" is self-defeating: it does absolutely nothing, like a large part of federal spending, but establish additional Big Brother bureaucracy that brings consumers a step forward only to take them one (if not more) step backward. I still wonder how Dorgan proposes to rebate the money. How about someone like me, who spends very little on gas compared to my total income? My very situation demonstrates why an income-based rebate cannot work, and providing proof of purchase (like receipts) is logistically ludicrous.
Senators rejected other proposals that would have eliminated a tax incentive for major oil and gas companies that allows them a credit for exploration and development costs. An amendment to ban price-gouging during national energy emergencies declared by the president won the support of 57 senators but fell short of 60 votes needed to overcome a procedural hurdle.
Good and good. Removing a "tax incentive" is the same as increasing taxes, so once again, raising taxes on a business only means passing it onto the consumer. And have we still not learned from the 1970s that price controls lead to shortages?
The overall bill reduces taxes about $60 billion over five years, preserving many tax breaks scheduled to expire unless lawmakers keep them intact. Unlike a version scheduled for debate in the House on Friday, the bill would not extend reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends. Congress lowered the maximum tax rate on that investment income to 15 percent in 2003, and many Republicans want to act this year to keep those rates in place in 2009 and 2010.
Investment in business allows them to expand and create new jobs, yet Democrats do their best to stymie any efforts to cut taxes on investment that encourage growth. It doesn't matter that the jobs go to lower income brackets; all the Democrats care about is that the tax cuts mean "rich people" can have more money.
The bill also would offer $7 billion in assistance to businesses and individuals hit by Hurricane Katrina and other storms, filling in details of President Bush's proposed Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Would this turn out to be anything like "Supplemental Terrorist Relief Act" loans that were supposed to be strictly for businesses affected by 9/11, some of which wound up at Dunkin' Donuts as far away as Vermont, Ohio and even Georgia? That's right: the New York Post has the full story, which I forgot to blog about last week. Now these were just loans: imagine how bad the grants might be. Would they compare to the infamous $2000 debit cards for Katrina victims, some of which were used to buy Louis Vitton and lap dances? What can I say: I predicted abuse from day one.

One Dunkin' Donuts franchise owner said he knew his business wasn't hurt by 9/11 but accepted the loan anyway. Another claimed his business, in Vermont, was hurt, giving an anecdote about people buying a coffee and two doughnuts before, but "probably" only a small coffee and one doughnut afterward. Then why didn't my aunt's wine store qualify for such a loan after 9/11, when people were buying less? Or was it actually that we were already in a recession, a very mild one which nonetheless influenced people to cut back on their spending?

Other owners claim they didn't know, that they simply borrowed the money for renovations. The banks claim they didn't know they were making STAR loans, just loans, but the article reveals their motive: "Banks had an incentive to hype the loans because the government reduced the traditional fee — saving some of the biggest lenders millions." So I guess nobody knew a damned thing, except the taxpayers who look at their paycheck stubs and wonder for what latest foolishness their earnings are appropriated.
Among many provisions extended in the bill are a deduction for state and local sales taxes, investment incentives for small businesses, a business research and development credit and a tuition deduction. Taxpayers would get new incentives to make charitable contributions at the same time that tax-writers put new curbs on charitable deductions deemed excessive.
As if this bill couldn't have anything more foolish: government wants to give people an incentive to donate to charity, but it will discourage the wealthy, i.e. those who have the most to give, from giving as much as they could. If a deduction is "excessive," how must government view the donation? Badly, as is the nature of big government: to tax you to hell and back, denying you the freedom to dispose of your earnings yourself, and spending on the money on what it says is best for you.

Labels: , , , , ,