A Simple Plan to Reduce Gasoline Prices
Everyone wants to lower gasoline prices. Since Bush stole the White House, Republicans have focused exclusively on increasing supply, including the invasion of Iraq. Bush's policies have raised gasoline prices from an 8-year average of $1.15 under President Clinton to $3 today - while making us more dependent on Middle East oil and accelerating global warming.
So why don't we try reducing demand instead? Here's a simple plan that would have an immediate effect.
Congress should cancel the $20 billion in giveaways to the oil companies included in the 2005 Energy Bill, and use that money instead to offer a tax credit to car owners of $100 for each MPG saved by trading in their current car for a more fuel-efficient car.
So if you're getting 10 MPG in your Bentley Arnage LWB and trade it in for a 60 MPG Toyota Prius Hybrid, you would get a tax credit of 60-10=50 * 100 = $5,000 - and cut your gasoline costs by 83%!
Car owners would love this idea because they would save money immediately. It would quickly reduce demand for gasoline so the price could come down for everyone. And we would all feel like we were doing something concrete to reduce our dependence on middle east oil - and global warming.
In addition, it would show voters that the Democratic Party is the real party of ideas.
Congressional Democrats, are you listening?
Update 1: For a more comprehensive energy plan, check out the Senate Democrats and the Apollo Alliance. These are all great 10-20 year plans - but Democrats need to show voters we can offer simple ideas that will have immediate impact that voters will see in their wallets.
Update 2: Senator Bob Menendez wants to reallocate $6 billion of oil industry tax credits to a 60-day "federal gas tax holiday" that would reduce the cost of gas by $0.18 per gallon. That will put money in voters' wallets - but won't reduce demand for gasoline by a single gallon. My plan is better!
Update 3: Carpetbagger Report says Sen. Chuck Schumer wants a "complete examination as to whether or not we should break up the big oil companies." That's great as part of a long-term strategy, but in the short-term it won't put a penny in any drivers' wallet or reduce demand for gasoline by a single gallon. My plan is better!
- Bob Fertik's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Yes! Your Plan is Better!
Actually, when one stops to think about it - the bushies have no problem foregoing the $65 billion in oil and gas royalties over the next 5 years payable to the US treasury (you know, the one with the horrendous deficits) - so why should they have a problem with tax credits for drivers to get into more fuel efficient vehicles? Especially since flex vehicles are near?
This sure sounds good to me. With increased demand, the American auto makers can retool for more energy efficient vehicles. Auto dealers would love it, as it would churn their business, and in the right direction, instead of the last gasp of the big vehicle hype that sure sounds like propaganda to clear out their lots of these gas guzzlers.
Due to arrive in your email in the next week or so is a boycott call. Now, that might not be bad as an interim move, but this plan is carefully calculated to produce long term results.
I'm not saying either-or, it could be both - the boycott in the short term while lobbying for the tax credits.
>>This sure sounds good to
>>This sure sounds good to me. With increased demand, the American auto makers
>>can retool for more energy efficient vehicles. Auto dealers would love it, as
>>it would churn their business, and in the right direction, instead of the last
>>gasp of the big vehicle hype that sure sounds like propaganda to clear out
>>their lots of these gas guzzlers.
Wow I disagree. Despite the clear proof of negative environmental impact, despite the ever present problem with high gas prices (and lets face it, this isn't the first time prices have gone this high in the Dubya era) car makers are still churning out the big SUV? "Clear their lots?" Are you kidding? GM just turned out two brand new versions of their massive, fuel sucking Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon vehicle. People are still buying these suckers. People are still buying the H2s, V8s, Tahoes, etc.
What really needs to happen is a nationwide shift in attitudes with regards to vehicles, and maybe the rising prices will do that. But maybe not. We've had tax incentives for hybrids in the past, but people haven't bought them, at least not in enough numbers to alleviate our fuel drain.
The real problem is that we've backed ourselves into a corner. Its going to take a real rise in prices to get those who have 40-60K to spend on the biggest SUVs and gas guzzlers to change their ways. A significant, strong, tax on gas would do it. But that tax would do real damage to the middle and working class people who can't afford even our current prices.
I guess that you have
I guess that you have forgotten that Dubya's "tax cuts for the wealthy" gave huge tax breaks for buying these gas-guzzlers. The auto manufacturers could give a big rat's ass about fuel economy, because they're in bed with Big Oil.
The technology for fuel-efficient engines has been around for decades, but has been squelched by the likes of Exxon and Royal Dutch, and the other Rummy/Cheney/Dubya oil families.
The situation has gone way beyond the need for "a nationwide shift in attitudes with regards to vehicles." It is time for a nationwide shift in attitudes about who controls the government -- Big Business, or The People. The current PNAC/neoconservative political cabal is all about Big Business, all of the time. Consumers (The People) are looked upon as just another "resource" -- namely as contributors of revenue by taxation AND in the marketplace.
The current high gasoline prices are by corporate design, and have absolutely nothing to do with a fabricated American "addiction to oil." The various "streets" of American corporate greed (K Street, Wall Street, and Madison Avenue) all represent the bilking of the American citizen/consumer through the buying of the political process. Our taxes are just another source of income for these anti-American opportunists.
Stick or Carrot?
I wonder if we're really so far apart. Yes, despite rising gas prices, automakers were still building the big gas guzzlers - and offering huge rebates to get them off the lot. The problem is that there's a long lead time for product design from drawing board, through the manufacturing process because of retooling, and finally into the showroom.
Both GM and Ford are bleeding red ink, so how profitable is the big guzzler strategy?
I said "clear the lots" because about a week ago ABC News did a segment on car sales around DC, Prince Georges county, I believe. Anyway, the Lexus dealer wouldn't talk to them, so they went across the street to the Toyota dealer who had over 400 cars on the lot, and only 5 Prius (or is that Prii)? Sales were slowing in response to the rising gas prices.
Let's go with your point that there needs to be a nationwide shift in attitudes. Of course there does, but what alternative offers the best prospect of achieving that without hammering the economy and a good many less affluent folks into the ground?
Higher prices are a stick approach, and the higher prices will come anyway because of increasing world demand for oil in developing economies like China and India. Bob's tax credit proposal is a carrot approach that gives a consumer more control over the economic consequences of their economic choices because the higher fuel costs will come anyway. For many, conservation, as in the Carter Principles he outlined 30 years ago, will be the key to weathering this storm of transition. The consumer could choose how much a tax credit they wanted based on the amount of fuel savings they chose.
It's certainly true that consumers didn't buy hybrids in sufficient numbers in the past to alleviate fuel drain. However, now American consumers are seeing that they are competing against the world for fuel, so I think this time it's different.
The problem with a gas tax is that it's regressive - it hurts the poor and middle income group much more than the upper income group. Plus, it drives up the cost of all products shipped around the country, whereas the tax credit encourages innovation in engine design and maintains consumer choice over their fuel expenditures.
There are implications here that most of us haven't even really begun to think about: how do we prioritize fuel usage? Will auto driving need to be curtailed so farmers can gas up to grow food? What about industrial usage vs. the family car? Do Junior and Sis still get their own little cars to drive to school, the mall, and their job? Or do they get downgraded to a moped or public transportation? Again, my point is merely that there will be significant lifestyle changes and choices ahead.
And I would much rather provide an incentive to my fellow Americans and to the American auto manufacturers to make fuel conscious decisions in the coming years than to simply let the oil companies get $67 billion in oil royalty giveaways when that money could foster a badly needed transition to a more sustainable energy future for us all.
Say what?!
"...Republicans have focused exclusively on increasing supply, including the invasion of Iraq. Bush's policies have raised gasoline prices..."
Um, excuse me, but the first rule of economics is when supply goes up, prices go DOWN. I submit to you that Bush's policies have had the effect of LIMITING supply and INCREASING demand. Instability in the middle east? Great for limiting supply! Fiddling while the gulf coast drowns? Great for limiting supply! Telling people conservation is a virtue? Great for NOT slowing demand!
As to your plan, it is based on something that will never happen: cancelling the giveaways to Bush's oil buddies. Not only that, but the vast majority of people won't give up their gas guzzling SUVs for 4 cylinder go-carts that have to be plugged in at night. (OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift.) And even if those two far-fetched things DID happen, I seriously doubt a price drop would be immediate.
But I like that you're thinking! Keep it up!
Supply and Demand is a catch phrase used to hypnotize chimps.
Cass,
Monopolies, whether explicit or implicit via collusion, often care not one whit about ACTUAL Supply OR demand OR the ratio.
They concern themselves with the what they can get away with, hidden as they are behind the hysteresis of a modern civilization with wimps and midlevel idiot talking heads spouting nonsense.
Considering we’ve been bludgeoned with fluff morality for years now by the Religious Right Republican Party I would think a bit of actual morality might be in order. The oceans of nearly free hydrocarbons are drying up. Conservation is a virtue. Citizens wishing to remove themselves from the big hunk of cheese that tempts dopes like Conservatives to send men to die for a buck (without paying them market wages to do so) should CONSERVE. It is a reasonable thing to ask even of idiots who drive SUVs when far larger (effectively and internally where it counts) vehicles exist. Where far better acceleration exists. Where reasonable ground clearance exists without leaving giant chunks of iron remaining close to the ground to nullify much of the SUV ground clearance. ETC.
And yeah, I'm allowed to throw my 2 cents in the cultural arena when that same arena threw thousands of GIs under the bus with full Republican Cheerleading, Independent malaise, and non DLC Democratic protest. Further, life changes (that may even be its definition) so a small change in culture might occur. Perhaps piece of shit bricks that do nothing well except allow for a very large volume of empty space above one’s head, might someday be viewed as such and a new aesthetic might be born.
I understand that virtually by definition the buyer can’t be wrong but HE IS. The feedback given within the Free Market SUCKS because the average buyer is not very sophisticated. No ominous music need be played. I am no more a Communist than true Communists –the Republican and Libertarian Party (by their own mythos)- but when one actually builds things with one’s hands one tends to be realistic.
Now that you opened the conversation with condescension, a clear desire to straddle the fence with a declaration of Independence in your profile, and burp out catch phrases please do not follow with an admonition that you have a glorified secretarial degree: A MBA perhaps. Or that “limited gummermunt” gives you warm fuzzies when you devour more welfare than those that Independents tend to disparage.
Stop with the cliché’s and begin to think.
…and so ends the curmudgeon sermon.
Jim
Oil Slick
Submarine USS Wahoo ss238
But Jim, its the increased consumption by India and China
and the oil companies havn't built a new refinery in over
20years, and supply and demand, and Iraq and Sudan,
and did you know there hasn't been a new refinery built
in years, supply and demand is also the reason, along
with hurricane Katrina, and the tension in Venezuala,
and also supply and demand is outgrowing capacity, and
the new insurgant video, and the overpopulation of New Guinea,
illigal immigrants in the US, Al Quada is one of the big
factors, continuing terror threats, jealous wives who kill
their husbands, supply and demand, global warming, American
Idol, and finally did I mention that the oil companies
have not built a new refinery in over 20years?
Agreed There.
Agreed There.
lol
Supply and Demand means that with a small supply you can move around the distribution of consumers until you find someone who is willing to shell out more cash.
WE. NEVER. GOT. TO. THAT. POINT.
There was Gas at every station yet prices tripled. This was not Supply and Demand, this was the wussification of America via Republicanism.
Okay so I did not use the phrase enough. I’ll weave into my conversation with my wife tonight in order to secure the TV remote!
I Don't think they are gonna
I Don't think they are gonna give up their SUV's.
With $5/gallon gas.With
With $5/gallon gas.
With a $5000 check in the mail.
With 40 mpg NON HYBRID Station Wagons as effectively big inside as the space USED by the average SUV owner.
With ever more Oil Wars looming.
…I think Bob’s plan would help.
The goal is never to change everyone but to shift the distribution. I think Paul Tuttle of Orange County Choppers should keep his hummer. It’s a good look for him.
>>With 40 mpg NON HYBRID
>>With 40 mpg NON HYBRID Station Wagons as effectively big
>>inside as the space USED by the average SUV owner.
Which wagon is this? Not trying to nit pick but I don't know of any wagon that gets 40 mpg. Heck most sedans can't pull that one off.
I know I know.
Tough to believe but the VW Diesel Wagons do it routinely. (They stopped putting the diesel engines in these cars however.) With a good driver a bit more can be coaxed out of it even at above Speed Limit speeds. 38 to 42 mpg for these same cars in the city. The Jetta still has diesels in them and they can be coaxed to 50 mpg.
VW and Audi publish EPA figures that can be beaten by a reasonable driver while most other manufacturers over estimate.
(On the other end of the spectrum VW has a straightforward concept car -a 2 seater so perhaps only a second car for some people- that gets over 200 miles per gallon of diesel.)
I would also like to note
I would also like to note that this is not simply about conservation as such. Developing high end vehicles, rather than SUV bricks with horrible handling, allows for the possibility of using alternative technologies which are not presently useful.
It's All About Oil!
I liked reading your critique, especially when I got to the end: "...I like what you're thinking! Keep it up!"
I suppose the point here is that the bushies implemented an energy policy that Cheney brokered behind closed doors to benefit his oil cronies, the oil companies and big business, not the American people.
While of course there's no doubt about the economics involved, - the article might have read "increasing access to supply" - which is the reason for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq. But rather than discussing a plausible misstatement, we shouldn't let that detract from the value of the idea as it is one that presents a sustaining improvement for average Americans to wean themselves off gas with its economic consequences and disruptions. One need only consider that for all the oil companies' profits, no new refineries have been built in the last 30 years, and then consider the formidable supply disruption due to Katrina to see the writing on the wall. It will not get better. So, as always, each of us must make decisions in our own and families' best interest that will mean change.
"Increasing supply" is really about the neoconservatives' drive for American hegemony, and one (failed) tactic was to acquire preeminent access to the Iraqi oil supply. Notably, now that Iran is being courted for its oil by the world markets as Iran has an estimated 12% of the oil reserves.
As for conservation, I can't help but refer you to Carter's Principles. As Americans increasingly have to make lifestyle choices and set their spending priorities on the basis of fuel costs (as they will as price increases ripple through the economy), I really think sensible, cost-conscious Americans will conserve - and use American ingenuity to develop new energy sources. Big business pressures will kick in, too, as, for example, even fewer Americans fly due to rising prices.
My opinion is that you take too pessimistic a view of efforts to cancel Bush's giveaways to his buddies. The House majority party is facing reelection and their chances aren't improving as pump prices rise. They literally have a vested interest in being more responsive to their constituents.
I also question the generalization that the vast majority of people are unwilling to give up their gas guzzling SUV's is accurate. I often see RV's pulling little 4 cylinder "go-carts", for one thing. For another, I've recently test driven a 4 cylinder car, and was impressed with its smooth uptake to 70. Of course, a 4 won't react quickly like a 6 or 8, but it did just fine on the highway.
Like you, "I like that you're thinking! Keep it up!" This kind of discourse can only be positive! :)
IF THE SUPPLY FALLS AT THE
I ask this because Sons and Daughters and Moms and Dads are dying –at below market wages- to defend, in part, the Oil Barren’s POTS OF GOLD. These happen to be quite big pots even WITHOUT raising the price at the pump.
-To rake in additional cash from these Soldier’s families.
-To grow those Pots of Gold at the expense of capitol staying in the hands of the vast majority: whom provide the labor, the soldiers, and the new economic engines for the workforce, during a time of war, is in my opinion, un-American and unseemly.
We have replaced a mere possibility with implicit approval. We have replaced morality with the fluff morality of Conservatives.
It may be wrong to demand more. It may be wrong to give in. Perhaps both. It is here where we should agree or disagree and not reflexively to yet another Svengali like phrase of men who can only run a business and nothing else.
I know I am to bow a knee to businessmen or those spouting their lingo so I hope I can be forgiven as I find their spokesmen to be often full of shit.
CATO joins Sierra Club against bush plan
Maybe bush really is the "uniter" after all ?!
Proud member of the reality based community.
I agree with some of this to
I agree with some of this to be sure but there is no unrigged market in a market of finite extent.
-Too few competitors leads to collusion rather than competition.
-The speed of corrective measures is also different than the speed at which undesirable effects can occur.
Ideologues yearn for a simple universe. It does not exist. Democrats understand this. Life is messy and complex.
GOP Blocks Taxes on Oil Companies'
Once again the repugs are all talk and no serious action, when it comes to their buddies in the oil biz.
Proud member of the reality based community.
DECIDER
DECIDER decides to increase the chances of you getting sick in return for a chance to lower gas prices.
I completely understand how cause and effect do not seem related when separated in time, but I am continually amazed at just little Americans demand.
We take a chance on health to save a few pennies WHEN far more is possible with no increased risk?
Who wants to bet on whether some, or all of those pennies, are pocketed BEFORE they reach your pocket at the pump?
Food for thought
(Jim: Chill, Bro. Insults are uncalled for. We're all friends here. And if you want to be understood, write as you would speak, rather than as a college professor might lecture.)
Chip,
You make good points. I would submit it's not all about oil, though. It's about power and money, and the money that buys power and the power that controls money, and the internal combustion engine thereof. Oil is worth only what people will pay for it; but since everybody buys it, controlling oil is the key to money/power in our time. See OPEC. This is what the Bush/Cheney team understands all too well. Oil money put them there. Big oil will be kept happy.
I sincerely hope you're right that the Repubs will be more responsive to their constituents. I'll believe it when I see it.
I stand by my assertion that people won't give up their gas guzzlers. Not easily, anyway. I know too many people driving these tanks, and in my experience, they don't really care about the mileage or the ecology. They can afford the gas. They like the power/accelleration. They feel safer surrounded by all that steel. Plus, "How much difference will it make? If I don't drive it, someone else will." The ole 'just a flea on an elephant's butt' cliche, if Jim will allow me another cliche...
I also question the real value of tax incentives. I think this is beyond the ken of the masses. Mr. 1040EZ doesn't pay any attention to that talk. It's just so much background noise on the TV. The tax system is so convoluted, with so many loopholes that seem counter-intuitive...surely there's a simpler way?
What really matters to Joe Average is his everyday needs. What does he need now? What will he need tomorrow? What factors are really in play?
Case in point: I currently need to buy a car. I used to own a diesel VW Golf, and typically got 50 MPG. That was in the 80's, when I was younger and poorer and saving on fuel meant a lot to my wallet, even though gas was about a buck a gallon. When the engine died at 200K miles, I decided to reward myself with a V6 sedan with a bit more power and luxury. I have come to love it, and have endured its 20-25 MPG, which require more trips to the pump. Now that it is nearing 200K miles, and repairs are nickle-and-diming me to death, I'm shopping around. Is fuel economy a factor? Certainly. Much more than it would have been a year or even 6 months ago. Is it the deciding factor? Not on your life. I, too, want a safer car than a Cooper Mini or a Toyota Yaris. I need something big enough for two kids and gardening supplies, etc. I want the power of a 200+ horses. I don't see the value of spending more for a hybrid, or waiting a couple of months for the model and options I want. I'm inclined to buy a 3-year old off-lease car, or take advantage of the biggest rebate or finance offer I can find (i.e., how can I save NOW). If I knew there was a tax credit waiting for me at the end of the year, would fuel economy become the deciding factor? I seriously doubt it. I *might* consider it in ruling out a minivan or SUV to go with a sedan, but I would NOT go back to a 4 cylinder hatchback. Just not my thing.
Now imagine that thought process times the thousands of people buying cars every day. Other factors in play include: color, image, sportiness, 4WD, cargo room, passenger room, wheel size, offroad ability' etc., etc., etc. Tax credits? hmmmm...
But still and again, I like that you're thinking!
Cass
Well geez Cass
Cassmanic,
Well geez Cass, thanks for all the free advice. If we are all friends here then by all means slap away.
Your second post sounded a lot better than the first but I’m guessing you’re still unaware of the number, and range of posts, that must be responded to. Rush made changes by not heeding advice gentlemen offered. Democrats can do the same. Our audience is not simply the poster we are responding to. I AM targeting a particular group, and a particular paradigm: including its emotional underpinnings.
If there was anything unclear or incorrect in what I posted why not point it out rather than do the social bobbing and weaving you just attempted? You might also admit any “pause” it may have given you. (Yes that may be used as a straight line for a retort but hope springs eternal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-If your final thesis is that people will never give up their gas guzzlers, obviously that’s silly. At some price point they will. Democrats mitigate horrors and that is what Bob Fertik is doing. He is not waiting for that price point. He is offering a nudge. Just as in Iraq, Katrina, etc, the messenger/social engineer attempts corrective measures before the shit hits the fan.
-I agree that delayed gratification makes tax rebates less effective. Offer a solution to that. How about Government rebates at the point of sale?-
-The bottom line is that Peek Oil is here. A civilization needs time to react or people get hurt. You are responsible for enacting changes, including within the cultural arena.-
-SUVs deserve a social stigma. I’ll only note here that the debate on safety needs to be broadened to include: WHO ARE THEY SAFE FOR? They handle in a deadly fashion (and I’m not just talking about roll over). They are designed to kill OTHERS so that their occupants survive (height of bumper and massive weight). A case can be made beyond the mere fact that they guzzle a limited resource.–
-As corny as it sounds, we are aboard a ship here on Earth. Everyone admits the need for military law whenever a group is so constrained. We can often ignore this as the Earth is big, but not always. Nobody would be thrilled with an astronaut tearing out the guts of the Space Shuttle while in orbit in order to make a cool hat, scooter, etc. It is wrong, in my opinion, to view arguments about Oil through the same political prisms we use for entities that are essentially unlimited. Still, unless someone truly believes their life and their loved ones lives are at stake, debates about Oil will remain no big whoop.-
-Thanks for posting confirmation about old technology that yields fantastic gas mileage. The hybrid people have been fibbing a bit though I await some diesel hybrids. You seem stuck believing that good gas mileage AND fantastic acceleration are mutually exclusive. They are not. Cruising speed is another matter. The faster the more guzzled. –
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what is with the 4 cylinder hatchback thing? My 4 cylinder Rabbit with an Audi Diesel Engine could pretty much beat anything on the street from a start.
.
.
.
Of course it was lightened.
.
.
.
By rust.
Jim
Interesting points. First,
Interesting points. First, with regards to the diesel vehicles you mentioned, those do indeed get good fuel economy. One problem is that sales of nre light-duty diesel vehicles (like VWs and Audis) is apparently banned in some states due to emissions requirements. Its my understanding that you can't get these in New York and California, for example. So, if you live in these two populous states, you're SOL. Plus, given that California prohibits their residents from going out of state to purchase a car (they won't let you register it) they are, in effect, banned. Lovely.
I will admit here (and I expect to get reamed for it) that I'm currently driving an SUV, albeit one of the more fuel efficient versions. Why? Simple. I live in an area where, for a significant portion of the year I have to travel long distances through inclement weather to get to work. I'd much prefer a sedan, but AWD sedans and wagons lack the ground clearance to get through the snow I have to pass through. If it weren't for this I'd likely never own one of these beasts. I'd hardly call my SUV a gas guzzler, but its still not optimal. I'm considering getting a small sedan for the months when I don't need the SUV, but that's not exactly in my budget right now. Sigh.. I miss my civic. :(
I will say, I think some of the hybrid hype is a bit overblown, at least with regard to certain models while diesel vehicles get short shrift. Back when I bought the civic I had before my currect vehicle, I test drove a prius, which was then the only hybrid on the market. Having driven one since, I can safely say its an unmitigated piece of crap. The only reason that thing is still on the market is because its become an urban status symbol. The bottom line is this thing drives terribly. Toyota has put a much more realistic hybrid engine in its camry and highlander hybrids, but in my view they still lag behind Honda's superior hybrid technology.
Don't get me started on the contributions to the hybrid market from our American manufacturers. I see that Chevy is planning on producing a hybrid version of its monstrous Tahoe SUV. Maybe it will actually get 18 MPG with the hybrid. :)
No problem.
Although I believe we all need to be responsible, I am thrilled to live in a land that allows as much variation/freedom as possible. I’m not going to take Tuttle’s Hummer away from him ;) and I have no problem with those who actually need a particular vehicle. Those who can however, are saddled with the responsibility of moving the center of the consumer distribution. The dissemination of information and, unfortunately, passion plays, are both needed.
I can deal with moderate snows because of a lack of a low rear axle (using 4 drive axles instead) and simply deal with an occasional Come-a-Long moment. If you’re further off road or in deeper snows you need what you need. No problem. The rest of the Nation should provide some space for citizens in non standard conditions by conserving.
SUVs have been hyped and so have Hybrids (though once again, I am waiting for, and dare I say arm chair building, a diesel hybrid). I’ll have to check on the emissions requirements. I have found that Audis often put out only 1/100 th of the limit!
I don’t want to thoroughly bad mouth the hybrids because I believe they can work and what has already occurred is a step in the correct direction. BUT I HEAR YA!
Jim
Tax Credit
Some comments:
1. I don't think people who drive Bentleys care about the price of oil.
2. I think it would be an administrative nightmare. How do you prove to the IRS what MPG your current car has and it's replacement?
3. I assume the credit would be applied like the Earned Income Tax Credit so if someone doesn't pay taxes they would get a payment for the credit anyway.
4. I wonder if the replacement car of most Americans has a MPG that is significantly different than the cars they are replacing. Will Americans be able to pay the premium for a hybred car? Do most Americans buy new or used cars as replacements?
Readily obtainable oil has reached or soon will reach the tipping point where less oil can be pumped. The suppliers are pumping as much oil as they can. Saudi Arabia does not have excess capacity. So we are in an era of rising oil prices unless a significant recession and depression reduces demand. Demand has been rising because of developing countries like China and India.
Refinaries have not been built for the past 20 or 30 years because the oil industry is run like a business. Until the recent rise in prices, refinaries had very small profit margins, cost a lot to build and were subject to government regulation. Oil companies are not going to start new
development projects unless they are likely to be profitable at an estimated future price of oil. Businesses are run to maximize profits, not for the best interests of society. If the oil industry is to serve a public interest by giving their employees and consumers a larger share of the profits or to use their profits to develop alternative energy sources, the government is going to have to tame the desire to maximize profits. Bush and the Republicans are not going to do this.
Venezuela has a state-run oil industry. Chavez is using the profits to help the poor and middle class rather than the elite. His wholly owned company, Citgo, has even subsidized oil to poor Americans.
I wonder how much oil our military uses? It is unique in American history that we have not demobilized after a major war. Custer died at the Little Big Horn as a captain although he was a general in the Civil War. Eisenhower warned of what a large standing army during peacetime would lead to.
On the details you are correct
BUT
you main tenant: “If the oil industry is to serve a public interest by giving employees and consumers a larger share of the profits…the government is going to have to tame the desire to maximize profits.”
Is exactly what is accomplished by any such plan as Bobs.
I agree we can wrestle over particulars but the reason so many bums exist at the top is that the vast majority have not sufficiently tamed the desire to allow “maximize” profits at the expense of crappy majority wages and high prices.
On another point: Just because a company CAN do something does not mean they SHOULD. Even beyond this: If the SUPPLY is sufficient to meet a steady DEMAND why should the price move up at all? EVERYBODY got gas and EVERYBODY paid a far higher prices. That is not the Supply and Demand mechanism at work. That is the previous paragraphs mechanism at work. The wussification of America under Conservatives.
Corporatization
The recent corporate history of the US shows that the executives will do anything they think they can get away with, whether legal or not, to maximize earnings every quarter to enrich themselves since their compensation package is often tied to the stock price or earnings to the corporation. This is the moral basis under which they operate. They're just like Bush, MBAs.
The "market" price today of oil costs in the diminishing supply, the Nigerian uprising, Bush's invasion of Iraq, Bush's secret war against Iran, Bush's threat of nuking Iran, Bush's attempts to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela, the US summmer driving season, Iran's statements on continuing to enrich uranium (which they have a right to do under the NPT) and all the unintended consequences that these actions may cause, including a regional war in the Middle East. The market is neither efficient or rational. So you can have higher prices even if there is enough supply to meet demand.
YES but one can’t use the
YES but one can’t use the damned phrase “Supply and Demand” anymore
UNLESS one is a ball less Republican Zombie ;)
Oh…One may also use it when it actually applies, but even then I hope Americans understand that it may indicate either: immorality or scabs at work or a bit of the American Dream.
It is not be DEFAULT that latter.