Friday
High Oil Prices - Are Dems for or Against?
Typical Washington duplicity... Headlines for the past 5 years have included Democrats and liberal media-types blaming the President for high oil prices. They claim irreparable harm has come unto Americans paying extraordinarily high prices at the pump. Now Democrats and the liberal press are calling for the heads of the corporate oil giants as their profitability sky-rockets along with escalating oil prices.
In a recent interview with the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, Matt Lauer even asked if Exxon-Mobil had a "duty to the American public" to return a portion of its profits in an effort to relieve them of the burden of high fuel prices! Yes, we have typically seen this in a capitalistic system, haven't we? A group of shareholders standing idle as a company returns its dividends to the public in a display of goodwill.
Ironically, it has been the same Democrats that have successfully placed a multitude of taxes on each gallon of gas you purchase! Especially hanous, Democrats sat silently - only a few short years ago - when Al Gore proposed that the U.S. should tax gasoline sufficiently to artificially raise gas prices to $5.00 per gallon. The motivation? To save the environment.
The American public is squarely against government intervention in such an affair. I think I may have shrieked when I heard of Gore's insane energy tax plans. Restricting the energy market by virtue of taxation has many extremely detrimental effects - not only on the economy but, on the power exerted by a government with unbridled taxing power. However, in that mixed-up mind, Gore was partially correct in his assessment: higher energy prices lead to innovation.
In the Midwest, we are witness to increasing oil price's effect on research into alternative energy sources. Here, new ethanol production plants are being established at a VERY rapid pace. Within 60 miles of my home, there are as many as 16 proposed production distilleries. This has the potential to turn the agriculture states into the next Texas.
I celebrate as I consider the effects that high oil prices have had on conservation, environment, economy, and (perhaps most importantly) reduced reliance on middle-eastern oil. Most importantly, I can rest assured that the government fat-cats were not the beneficiaries!
Will
Comments:
<< Home
I am repasting a comment I had sent to a previous posting, only because it applies just as much to this.
Here's a couple of connect-the-dot pointers from a non-economist (me).
1. There is no such thing as quasi-capitalism. Either you bow to mother dollar or move to Oregon (hey wait a minute,isnt Oregon...?)
2. Those "obcene" oil profits the left is crying a river about are going to A) More R&D for finding new resources and B) My loving 401K, my mutual funds quarterly earnings statement and the few dozen shares we ALL have if you are members of any Union, Association, AARP, Investment Group, etc. How can our Portfolios keep growing at a 10% yearly clip without companies making PROFITS?
3)I did not see Goverment lift a freakin' finger the way they did for the Airlines and Auto industries when Exxon was loosing their butts in the early 90's when oil was $9 bucks a barrel. That guy who just got the couple hundred million dollar retirement should have gotten more!. The company sucked before he made it lean, efficient and profitable to the point of attracting investors (like me). That oil companies should not be making "obcene" profits like this is anathema to the central tennant of economic theory. That an industry has to be punished for profits (wallmart anybody?) is contrarian to the very principals of who we are and our CHOSEN economic system. Lastly, it was under Clinton's watch that the Exxon-Mobil merger was authorized thus creating one less major player in the world oil powers and by such, a bit less competition; a common occurrence in the merger-mania cycles. I don't see anybody mentioning THAT!
Every summer we all get our undies in a wad over this. Has anybody noticed that China and India are growing at an annual rate of more than 10%? You think their industries run on Bartles and Jaymes wine coolers? There is simply not enough oil to meet demand, or refining facilities to process it. We have not built a single refinery or Nuclear plant in 30 years! Kennedy and Romney want air turbine farms as long as they are not in the Nantucket sound (go figure). Add it all up America, we've not invested in oil production or new exploration sites due to the blackmail tactics of the environmental lobby.
You want cradle-to-grave government handouts? move to Finland,... in America we serve the high priest of CAPITALISM.
Here's a couple of connect-the-dot pointers from a non-economist (me).
1. There is no such thing as quasi-capitalism. Either you bow to mother dollar or move to Oregon (hey wait a minute,isnt Oregon...?)
2. Those "obcene" oil profits the left is crying a river about are going to A) More R&D for finding new resources and B) My loving 401K, my mutual funds quarterly earnings statement and the few dozen shares we ALL have if you are members of any Union, Association, AARP, Investment Group, etc. How can our Portfolios keep growing at a 10% yearly clip without companies making PROFITS?
3)I did not see Goverment lift a freakin' finger the way they did for the Airlines and Auto industries when Exxon was loosing their butts in the early 90's when oil was $9 bucks a barrel. That guy who just got the couple hundred million dollar retirement should have gotten more!. The company sucked before he made it lean, efficient and profitable to the point of attracting investors (like me). That oil companies should not be making "obcene" profits like this is anathema to the central tennant of economic theory. That an industry has to be punished for profits (wallmart anybody?) is contrarian to the very principals of who we are and our CHOSEN economic system. Lastly, it was under Clinton's watch that the Exxon-Mobil merger was authorized thus creating one less major player in the world oil powers and by such, a bit less competition; a common occurrence in the merger-mania cycles. I don't see anybody mentioning THAT!
Every summer we all get our undies in a wad over this. Has anybody noticed that China and India are growing at an annual rate of more than 10%? You think their industries run on Bartles and Jaymes wine coolers? There is simply not enough oil to meet demand, or refining facilities to process it. We have not built a single refinery or Nuclear plant in 30 years! Kennedy and Romney want air turbine farms as long as they are not in the Nantucket sound (go figure). Add it all up America, we've not invested in oil production or new exploration sites due to the blackmail tactics of the environmental lobby.
You want cradle-to-grave government handouts? move to Finland,... in America we serve the high priest of CAPITALISM.
The choice is clear...and we do have choices as you clearly delineate: capitalism or socialism? America was proudly established on rugged individualism, plain and simple. The rugged part wasn't considered rugged when goverment ties bound everyone from liberty. Socialism is established in a multitude of other countries around the world. Within which border will you choose to occupy? Don't eat my cake and tax it too.
Will
Will
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP http://www.high-voltage-circuit-breaker.info/athabascaonlineuniversity.html kitchen dining sets adware and spy ware removers
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 5:09 AM
: 5:09 AM << Home
