Off topic, Joe! <Expensive oil is an energy conservation program in and of itself. But Al Gore cares about his election more than about some silly energy conservation program.>
Actually, I have now decided that this is a politically brilliant move for Gore, if you subscribe to the very liberal point-of-view.
Think about it. The government releases some of the reserves, thereby lowering prices (ideally). Not only will this allow the underprivileged to afford heating this winter, but it will also buy a little time for the government to spend more tax money on researching alternative energy sources. In other words, government handouts will help people deal with the oil shortage until government can single-handedly figure out a real solution.
On the other hand, the conservative point-of-view would be to "leave it to the market." As oil prices rise, people will be forced to conserve, and there will be more incentive for businesses to invest more R&D in alternative energy. The problem with this approach is that the underprivileged pretty much get it in the shorts. I personally don't mind spending $2.00 per gallon, but many people would. Also, there's no guarantee that businesses will move any faster than government in investing R&D in this field. A few may even try their very best to resist such efforts, especially those which stand to lose the most.
So it's your classic debate between "trickle-down theory" vs. "tax-n-spend." Heck, and I didn't even talk about how OPEC fits into both the liberal and conservative points of view.
Tenchusatsu
P.S. - Gas in Korea cost like $3.75 per gallon, and that was back in late 1998 when oil was "cheap." Yet traffic jams there are still very heinous. Even a 350 km trip from Taegu to Seoul during "Korean Thanksgiving" took 12 hours. After suffering through that, no longer does the traffic in Portland and Seattle bother me anymore. |
