Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/26/2006 3:28:05 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

[L]et's have an investigation, but let's not confine it to ExxonMobil's profit margin. Let's expand the probe into the bankruptcy of our energy policy for the past thirty years and the handcuffs we put on ourselves that force us to rely on unstable sources of crude oil and gasoline to meet our energy needs. Let's start getting realistic about those needs and start proposing rational methods of meeting them. Take the shackles off the US energy industry and allow us to shrug off the mullahs that control the world market. Bush Wants Investigation Of Gas Prices By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters George Bush has called for an investigation into escalating gas prices in order to ensure that gouging and illegal manipulation of the markets has not caused the increases. Bipartisan calls for a probe reflect a growing populist concern that oil companies have unduly profited from the squeeze in oil markets: <<< President Bush is ordering an investigation into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated, his spokesman said Monday. During the last few days, Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into possible cheating in the gasoline markets, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Bush planned to announce the action Tuesday during a speech in Washington. ... House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Bush in a letter Monday to order a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada dispatched his own letter, calling for a multi-pronged approach to restrain gas prices. Among the steps were swift enactment of anti-price gouging legislation, an appeal to oil companies to refrain from further price increases; use of more alternative fuels and increased attention to existing fuel-saving laws and regulations. >>> Bush can call for all the investigations he wants, but all he will find is a ridiculous American energy policy that practically guarantees our inherent risk of market manipulation and foreign extortion. With the price of crude oil topping $75 a barrel, it doesn't take an economics genius to understand why the price at the pump keeps going up. China's demands on worldwide production have contributed mightily to that increase, and it will continue getting worse as China expands its industrial base. Until we find ways to produce more crude in order to get more oil onto the market, the prices will continue to increase. Oil is, after all, a commodity -- a free-market product that will fetch the best price possible in trade. The more oil produced, the cheaper it will become. That mechanism does not rely on cost, either, except to the extent that high production costs would lower the amount of oil in the marketplace until prices rose high enough to cover the overhead. If the US would start producing its own crude oil, then global prices would start dropping due to the increased worldwide supply and the drop in demand. We have vast fields of petroleum available for this purpose. Both coasts have proven oil deposits, and the Alaskan arctic area has stood ready for years to produce crude. In the case of our deposits off of the Florida coast, others such as Cuba may exploit those reserves instead. However, environmentalists refuse to allow for this production, forcing us to buy our oil elsewhere, artificially propping up prices and surrendering to the instability of the markets. Crude oil is the basic component of gasoline, and the price at the pump will reflect the vagaries of oil prices. However, that isn't the only component that drives the cost so high. The main problem with gasoline prices is the number of varieties of gasoline that must be produced for local markets. Instead of having one single formulation, states have passed their own standards for the composition of gasoline, with various additives required in differing concentrations depending on where it is sold. If states all had their own refineries, this would present less of a problem. However, as we have noted before, the US has not built a refinery in 30 years, forcing the existing refineries to run at full capacity at all times -- a dangerous policy that does not allow for enough down time to avoid major disasters in the long run. Only during national emergencies such as the hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year do states lift their formulation requirements so that a single formulation of gasoline can be produced and sold anywhere, easing these artificial restrictions on production of each formulation. Environmentalists won't let us build more refineries, either. Even Corpwatch notes that Americans now have to import gasoline -- not just crude oil, but refined gasoline -- in increasing quantities. That project, even if allowed to proceed unhampered, will not come on line for at least another three years, and that is the only production facility proposed thus far. Lately, populists such as Fox's Bill O'Reilly have railed about the excessive profits realized by companies like ExxonMobil, whose $10 billion in bottom line offends their sensibilities. As Dale Franks at QandOt points out, however, that comes to a 10% profit margin, a good number but hardly a ripoff in any sense of the word. ExxonMobil employs hundreds of thousands of people and has millions of stockholders, with plenty of crossover between the two groups at all levels of employment. A return of ten percent beats sticking money in a CD, but it doesn't amount to the kind of exploitation that O'Reilly and others presume from the gross numbers they toss around out of context. In fact, stockholders at most publicy-held companies might wonder why the number-one corporation in gross sales only came in at #127 for profitability. So let's have an investigation, but let's not confine it to ExxonMobil's profit margin. Let's expand the probe into the bankruptcy of our energy policy for the past thirty years and the handcuffs we put on ourselves that force us to rely on unstable sources of crude oil and gasoline to meet our energy needs. Let's start getting realistic about those needs and start proposing rational methods of meeting them. Take the shackles off the US energy industry and allow us to shrug off the mullahs that control the world market. captainsquartersblog.com msnbc.msn.com corpwatch.org qando.net washingtonpost.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/26/2006 5:06:10 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Bush eases gasoline rules, halts reserve deposits By Joseph Curl The Washington Times Nation/Politics April 25, 2006 President Bush today suspended new purchases of crude oil for the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, a small move to boost market supplies, and announced a federal investigation into possible manipulation of gas prices that have topped $3 per gallon. Mr. Bush, responding to concern over skyrocketing fuel costs, also took direct aim at oil companies, saying they have a responsibility to American motorists and called on Congress to strip away tax breaks that the corporations now enjoy, despite record profits. "To reduce gas prices, our energy companies have got a role to play. Listen, at record prices, these energy companies have got large cash flows, and they need to reinvest those cash flows into expanding refining capacity, or researching alternative energy sources, or developing new technologies, or expanding production in environmentally friendly ways," Mr. Bush said. "That's what the American people expect," Mr. Bush said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources. He also ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, giving refineries more leeway to produce more gas, but analysts predicted the actions will do little to dampen high prices this summer. Mr. Bush's announcement came a day after House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, sent a letter to Mr. Bush calling for a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation. Both Democrats and Republicans have turned rising gas prices into a political fight, each blaming the other, even though they can do little to control the world market and other factors that drive prices up and down. Mr. Bush said the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and the Energy Department will investigate possible price manipulations. In calling on Congress to cancel about $2 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, Mr. Bush said that record profits for oil companies mean "that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures, or the use of taxpayers' money to subsidize energy companies' research into deep water drilling." "Cash flows are up. Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies," he said to applause. washingtontimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/26/2006 5:56:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Price gouging defined Power Line Pat Cleary takes a clear-headed look at the increase in gasoline prices. He argues that the causes of the increases we are experiencing are not mysterious, and that there is no need to posit "price-gouging" as an explanation. But if we're going to blame price-gouging, we'll need a definition. My friend Craig Harrison offers this two-parter: Price Gouging. Price Gouging is defined to be any profit made by a company in an industry that is defined to be a Suspect Industry. Suspect Industry. Any company that is engaged in any energy activity, or any company or industry that is designated by any elected official of the Democratic Party to be a Suspect Industry by any public statement. Under no circumstances will trial lawyers, the health care industry, unions or the abortion industry be included within this category. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013871.php blog.nam.org

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/26/2006 6:09:33 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

STEAL THIS IDEA LIKE IT WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TKS jim geraghty reporting Dear Republican lawmakers, Please take this idea (eliminating the federal tax on gas and diesel for sixty days) and run with it. Take the support of Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and argue that this is bipartisan and make the Democrats vote for or against temporary tax relief for American drivers. If everyone votes for it, then great. Let the Democrats argue that they thought of it first. All the voters will remember in November is that gas prices dropped 18 cents a gallon (unleaded) and 24 cents a gallon (leaded) and that a GOP Congress and a GOP president got it done. Just some free advice. tks.nationalreview.com rawstory.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/27/2006 12:24:27 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

It's hard out here for a pump by Ann Coulter Townhall.com Apr 26, 2006 I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago. But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices. Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years. For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets. The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program. Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost. Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter -- another testimonial to the American public educational system. The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley. Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon." Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming. Just two months ago, we were being confidently told -- on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true -- that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday. How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism? It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid! The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY! When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda. Ann Coulter is the author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), Treason, Slander, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/28/2006 12:12:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

[T]he people who are making the most noise about the high price of gasoline are the very people who have for years blocked every attempt to increase our own oil supply. They have opposed drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast, off the Pacific coast, or in Alaska. They have prevented the building of any new oil refineries anywhere for decades. Oily politicians by Thomas Sowell Townhall.com Apr 27, 2006 If there is anything worse than partisan demagoguery, it is bipartisan demagoguery. Republican leaders have now joined the Democrats in blaming the oil companies for the fact that prices rise when demand expands more than supply. Prices have been rising under these conditions for thousands of years, long before there were any oil companies. This has happened with everything from food to furs and it has happened among people in every part of the world. What has also happened in recent times has been that higher gasoline prices bring outraged charges of "gouging" by Big Oil. Some of the most emotionally powerful political words and phrases are wholly undefined -- "exploitation," "greed," "social justice" and the perennial favorite, "gouging." Are the oil companies charging all that the traffic will bear? No doubt. But they were probably charging all that the traffic would bear when the price of gasoline was half of what it is today. Even businesses that are losing money are charging all that the traffic will bear. Otherwise they could raise their prices and stop losing money. Most of the people who are making this claim are charging all that the traffic will bear for their own labor or the use of their own products. Dressing up the plain fact that we all usually prefer more to less in political rhetoric about "gouging" explains nothing. Something that is true all the time cannot explain drastic changes. Is it rocket science that, when oil prices hit new highs, gasoline prices also hit new highs? Do you think the price of wheat could double without the price of bread going up? Would we have politicians running around spouting off about "gouging" by Big Wheat? No matter how big American oil companies are, there are other oil companies around the world and the price of oil is determined in international markets. As for investigating Big Oil, that has been done time and again already, with nothing to show for it. Is it rocket science that, when huge countries like India and China have rapidly growing economies, their demand for oil goes up by leaps and bounds? Is it rocket science that, when demand shoots up but supply doesn't go up as much, prices rise? Prices are a symptom of an underlying reality. Politicians can seize on the symptom and even pass laws dealing with it, without changing the underlying reality. Prices are like a thermometer reading. When someone has a fever, it is not going to do any good to put the thermometer in ice water to bring down the reading. If you think the fever is gone, it may not be long before the patient is gone, if you don't do something about what is causing the fever. Ironically, the people who are making the most noise about the high price of gasoline are the very people who have for years blocked every attempt to increase our own oil supply. They have opposed drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast, off the Pacific coast, or in Alaska. They have prevented the building of any new oil refineries anywhere for decades. They have fought against the building of hydroelectric dams or nuclear power plants to generate electricity without the use of oil. They love to talk about their own pet "alternative energy sources," without the slightest attention to what these would cost in terms of money, jobs, or our national standard of living. Even when one of their pet "alternative energy sources" -- windmills -- is proposed to be built near them, suddenly it is not right to spoil their view. Politicians have indulged these spoiled brats for generations. Now, when the chickens come home to roost, they are screaming about high prices and Big Oil. That is world class chutzpa. Liberal politicians have played this game for years. With the help of the liberal media, they have so demonized oil producers and so replaced economics with demagoguery that now Republicans are running scared, which seems to be their favorite exercise. Republicans have apparently decided that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. Republican "leaders" have apparently decided to give up on trying to talk sense to the public. So we end up with bipartisan demagoguery. Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/28/2006 1:31:58 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Wasn't There a Time When Republicans Knew Something About Economics? Posted by John Power Line Senate Republicans have unveiled their "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006," and it's not pretty. Let's just go through its components, one by one. 1) Gas Tax Holiday Rebate: everyone gets a check for $100. Taxes are a large part of the cost of gasoline. How about if we cut them? 2) Consumer Anti-Price Gouging Protection: Authorizes the FTC and others to "bring enforcement actions against any supplier unlawfully inflating the price of gas." Meaning what? How you you "unlawfully inflate the price of gas"? Last year, Congress directed the FTC to conduct an investigation of "price gouging." Pursuant to that law, the FTC reported to Congress just last month; you can read the report at the link below. It is, to put it mildly, unhelpful. Here is the FTC's conclusion: <<< The Commission has made considerable progress in identifying and gathering the information necessary to address the inquiries posed by Congress. The Commission has cast a broad net, using compulsory process to demand information from almost 200 companies across the United States. Moreover, the Commission has interviewed other companies to obtain necessary information and is conducting 15 investigational hearings. The agency is continuing to gather and assimilate information, and it would therefore be premature to draw conclusions at this time. >>> Inasmuch as no one knows what "price gouging" is, I'm not holding my breath. There was a time when Republicans knew better than to engage in this kind of stupid degagoguery. If Republicans don't know any more about economics than Democrats, why, exactly, should we keep voting for them? Well, there is national defense. But, still. 3) Tax Incentives: Repeals tax incentives for the oil companies, while expanding tax incentives for hybrid vehicles and increasing refinery capacity. Not sure I understand that one. Is someone other than the oil companies expected to build oil refineries? 4) Fuel economy standards: Authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to impose fuel economy standards. How about if we just let people buy whatever kinds of cars they want, and let them decide whether they're willing to pay for the gas? 5) Advanced Energy Initiative: Funds research and development into alternative fuels and "advanced technology vehicles." I'm all for those things. But is there something special about the government's money? Isn't the prospect of cutting in on the oil companies' action sufficient incentive for industry to carry out that research? 6) Strategic Petroleum Reserve: "Urges" the President to suspend making contributions to the reserve for six months. Well, you can't say Congress isn't doing anything. They're "urging." 7) Expanding Domestic Supply in ANWR: "Opens a portion of the Coastal Plain of ANWR to environmentally sensitive oil exploration to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." Hallelujah. Let's hope it passes this time. This means you, Norm. And you too, Mark. 8) Refinery Capacity: Includes incentives to encourage additional refinery capacity. I believe it's the case that we haven't built an oil refinery anywhere in the U.S. for more than 15 years. I don't think the problem is a lack of "incentive;" I think the problem is that government regulations (principally environmental) and the threat of litigation make refinery construction so slow and expensive as to be virtually impossible. Do the Republicans propose to do anything to make refinery construction easier? Not that I see in the package I got from the Senate. Bottom line: The Republican Senators' proposal does nothing, other than ANWR drilling, that acknowledges the rules of supply and demand that govern prices. The "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act" is mostly crude pandering of the kind we used to expect from Democrats, not Republicans. One Republican Congressman, Mike Conaway of Texas, did offer some sensible thoughts: <<< Congress's actions must be rationally based on economics and the realities of global energy markets. We must not fall into the political trap of knee-jerk reactions that will only worsen our problems. There is a great hypocrisy in America's national energy policy. As long as politicians continue to demagogue energy companies and oppose legislation that addresses the long-term problem of rising energy costs, we will continue to fail the American people. Yes, oil companies are making large sums of money in real dollars; however it is disingenuous to simply look at the raw dollar amounts without looking at these numbers in the proper economic context. We need to look at the percent of return these companies are making. In reality the oil and gas industry's earnings are easily comparable to other industries and in many cases lower. According to Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, the oil and natural gas industry earned 5.7 cents for every dollar of sales compared to an average of 5.5 cents for all U.S. industry over the past five years. By contrast in the third quarter of 2005 the pharmaceuticals industry made a profit of 18.6% per dollar of sales versus 7.6% for the oil and gas industry. The average profit per dollar for all US industries is 7.9%. *** It is time for Congress to look at the facts. It is the global market place and the law of supply and demand, not greedy oil companies that are responsible for higher prices. The price of a barrel of oil is set by the global market not by multinational energy companies. When some in Congress refuse to allow for domestic and deep sea energy exploration that would increase supply and reduce cost, the problems get worse. We must enact legislation that would open ANWR, expand refinery capacity, reduce costly fuel regulation and allow for deep sea exploration. These are long-term issues that could have made a difference today had we avoided political posturing and addressed them years ago. It isn't too late for us to do the right thing now and begin enacting common sense legislation like increasing supply and increasing research and development regarding alternative sources of energy. We must stop allowing the issue of rising energy costs to be clouded with misinformation and politically motivated emotion. >>> I want the oil companies to make enormous amounts of money. I want them to make enormous amounts of money so they can spend it on drilling wells and building pipelines and refineries. I talked to an oil executive recently who told me that the fact that we can't expand our refining capacity is a scandal in terms of the public interest, but is actually good for the oil companies' profitability. Look at it this way: if the oil companies agreed among themselves not to drill for oil in new locations like ANWR, and not to build new refineries, so as to limit the supply of oil and thereby drive prices higher, it would be illegal; indeed, it would be the greatest price-fixing conspiracy in American history. But it isn't the oil companies that have conspired to limit supply and thereby drive prices higher. It is our government that has foreseeably, if not intentionally, achieved this ignoble end. powerlineblog.com ftc.gov

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/28/2006 3:02:44 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Are congressmen really dumb, or is it just their constituents? BY JAMES TARANTO Best of the Web Today Thursday, April 27, 2006 Congressional Gasbags We believe in democracy and all, but we're glad we don't have to defend that position today. Gasoline prices are up--over $3 a gallon in New York and California, among other places. People are frustrated, and their elected representatives are doing their best to pander to the frustration. The Washington Post's Milbank* has some fun at the expense of our silly solons: <<< "Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry." She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg)--even though her Senate office was only a block away. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration. >>> Blogger Markos "Kos" Moulitsas transcribes a dopey speech by Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader (we've corrected various errors in the transcription): <<< If you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and therefore improve our national security situation, you can't do it if you're a Republican because you're too wedded to the oil companies. We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect. How dare the president of the United States make a speech today in April--many, many, many months after the American people have had to undergo the cost of home heating oil? A woman told me she almost fainted when she received her home heating bill over this winter. And when so many people making the minimum wage, which hasn't been raised in eight years, which has a very low purchasing power, have to go out and buy gasoline at these prices? Where have you been, Mr. President? The middle-class squeeze is on, competition in our country is affected by the price of energy and of oil, and all of a sudden you take a trip outside of Washington, see the fact that the public is outraged about this, come home and make a speech? Let's see that matched in your budget; let's see that matched in your policy; let's see that matched in your separating yourself from your patron, big oil. Cut yourself off from that anvil that is holding your party down and this country down--instead of coming to Washington and throwing your Republican colleagues under the wheels of the train, which they mightily deserve for being a rubber stamp for your obscene, corrupt policy of ripping off the American people. >>> Observes Kos, "More of this . . ., and we might actually start inspiring Democrats to hit the polls this November." (Hat tip: Tom Elia.) Even we wouldn't dare suggest that Democrats are that stupid. But then again, we're astonished at how stupid Republicans are too. From Reuters: <<< Senate Republicans unveiled a proposal on Thursday to soften the blow of rapidly rising gasoline prices by giving taxpayers a $100 check and suspending a retail fuel tax. Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, outlined parts of the proposal during a speech on the Senate floor. Further details were expected to be released by Senate leaders later on Thursday. "As we see skyrocketing gas prices around the country, it is time for this Congress to act," Thune said. . . . Thune said the energy legislation would suspend until September 30 the 18.4-cents-per-gallon retail gasoline tax. The measure would be aimed at helping consumers during the summer months, the heaviest driving season in the United States. . . . To pay for the lost revenues, Thune said, the legislation "would suspend a number of tax credits and royalty waivers received by oil corporations." >>> Wow, that's brilliant. Thune is going to cut taxes on the purchasers of fuel and make up for it by raising taxes on the producers of fuel. Whatever the merits of the tax breaks he proposes suspending, it seems clear that the producers would pass the costs on to the consumers. But don't worry, they have these $100-check trees in Washington! Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias, arguing for a similar Democratic proposal, defends politicians. They're not stupid, he says; they're just cynical. It's the constituents who are stupid: <<< High gas prices are very unpopular with the public. This presents an opportunity for the opposition party to score gains against a genuinely pernicious incumbent party by presenting itself as prepared to "do something" about the situation. But, simultaneously, the correct liberal point of view is that high gasoline prices are actually a good thing for environmental and foreign policy reasons. Ergo, Democrats propose "legislation that would put a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax for at least 60-days to provide consumers immediate relief at the pump," but would also "chop oil company tax benefits and burden refineries with unwarranted reporting requirements, making it unable to win enough support in Congress to have even a remote chance of passing." This accomplishes the political goal of making the Republicans unpopular--siding with their corporate masters to defeat a plan to lower the price of gasoline--while also accomplishing the policy goal of not making gasoline prices lower. That, to me, deserves the label "smart." >>> It sounds as though both parties are about equally "smart." * All Washington Post reporters are named Dana. opinionjournal.com washingtonpost.com dailykos.com theneweditor.com today.reuters.com prospect.org

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	4/28/2006 9:09:41 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

This would be funny if it weren’t for the realization that this is what passes for economic literacy in Washington. These concepts really aren’t this hard. As Groucho once said, “A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.” As soon the child arrives she should be sent over to the White House, NPR and Capitol Hill. We are all Marxists now by Dave Cloud Townhall.com Apr 28, 2006 “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and them misapplying the wrong remedies.” --Groucho Marx Who knew that Ted Kennedy was an Economics genius? Kennedy’s never-ending campaign for an increase in the minimum wage—the law that Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has called “one of the most anti-black laws on the statute books”—certainly never betrayed his hidden expertise. But after Sunday’s edition of Meet The Press, the secret is out. In response to a question from Tim Russert about what should be done in response to rising gas prices, Kennedy laid out his clever three-part plan: 1) President Bush should call the oil company executives into the Oval Office and “jawbone” them to lower prices. 2) The FTC should be awakened from its slumber and put to work “24/7” to do an investigation. Perhaps someone should investigate who told Kennedy he wouldn’t look silly saying “24/7”. 3) The U.S. government should “capture the excess profits” from the oil companies. Like the two guys in the beer commercial say: “Brilliant!” All that is really needed to bring down oil prices is to give the oil company bigwigs a good talking to. Kennedy, ever the leftist, sounded just like Marx—Groucho not Karl. Russert, who often asks good questions, was perhaps too stunned by Kennedy’s mental powers to ask what should be done if the jawbone-of-an-ass treatment doesn’t work. Perhaps a great big time out would be in order. “You and your company can just go sit in the corner for a while and think about those high prices, little mister.” Perhaps the umpteenth FTC investigation won’t find for the umpteenth time that there is no collusion amongst the oil companies. They might actually find—if they work 24/7—that the oil business really doesn’t take place in a global market driven by global conditions. Maybe they will show that the U.S. really isn’t competing against other buyers like India and China for a scarce resource. And, of course, if all else fails we can fall back on the old standby of raising taxes. There’s nothing like taking away more money from companies to encourage greater production. We all know that taking money from oil companies won’t affect any real people. After all, it’s not like Exxon and all of the others are really owned by stockholders, many of whom are of modest means and hold the stocks in their retirement accounts…oh wait, they are. Not to be outdone, National Public Radio’s Juan Williams, appearing on Fox News Sunday, insisted repeatedly that “supply is at an eight year high” as proof that the oil companies are cheating us. He kept repeating the phrase, as if that would make it a more sensible statement. It didn’t. Think of it this way: If I tell you I have 10,000 cans of soda, more than I’ve ever had, you might think that is plenty of soda until I tell you I had 20,000 thirsty people coming over. Frustrated by his inability to convince others of his nonsense, Williams then insisted that there is no connection between supply and demand. Even Groucho and Karl would know that’s not true. President Bush and congressional Republicans, eager not to be left off the economic idiocy wagon now that it is rolling, are also calling for investigations. Perhaps the President wants the investigation as a means to show conclusively that there is no real purpose for the Energy Department. The House and Senate leaders plan to drag oil company executives before their committees to take some abuse so that the brave senators and congressmen can tell their constituents they “did something” about high gas prices. Oh the inanity. This would be funny if it weren’t for the realization that this is what passes for economic literacy in Washington. These concepts really aren’t this hard. As Groucho once said, “A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.” As soon the child arrives she should be sent over to the White House, NPR and Capitol Hill. Dave Cloud is a high school economics teacher and frequent columnist with The American Enterprise Online. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/3/2006 5:22:02 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

New Offshore Drilling = More Oil and Fish by Humberto Fontova HUMAN EVENTS Posted May 03, 2006 That clique of noisy, well-heeled and politically powerful south Florida voters is at it again. And as usual, Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Mel Martinez are pandering shamelessly. Never mind the national interest. This cantankerous group's archaic prejudices still prevail. Never mind simple logic. Their emotions still guide our national policy to the frustration of the rest of the nation, to the detriment of our economic well-being and to the bitter amusement of much of the world. Never mind almost half a century of visible evidence against their moss-ridden bugaboos. Their zealotry, intransigence and apparently incurable block-headedness again prevail. This groveling by Republican politicians to a fringe group of highly emotional Florida voters is a national scandal by now. It's high time these hotheads in Florida got with the national program. They need to shed their petty obsessions with the past and start assessing the national interest soberly and in light of current developments, not stale policies enacted in the heat of hysteria almost half a century ago. Most outrageous of all, their policies hurt the very people they claim to help. I refer, of course, to offshore oil drilling, currently banned off Florida because of rich pressure groups. That shock and awe at the gas pump might wake up a few people. There's something called the law of supply and demand. Rant and rave all you want, bellow and whine all you want, throw as many tantrums as you want, hold as many rain dances as you want, hold as many séances with ghosts as you want, sacrifice as many virgins as you want, burn as many witches as you want -- but no amount of legislation or wishful thinking will abolish it. We need more oil and there are millions of barrels offshore, especially in the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. Soon Fidel Castro himself with the help of Spanish and Chinese oil companies (who are not subject to U.S. environmental rules) will be drilling for it barely 45 miles of the Florida coast. This raises the fascinating prospect of Florida beaches fouled by the very oil we'll later use to fuel the SUVs to transport us to those beaches -- all purchased from Communists who crave to blow us up. Only politicians could create such a prospect. Actually the fouling of beaches is a long shot. The environmental dangers of oil exploration and extraction rank right up with the marvels of Cuba's healthcare as modern man's most zealously cherished fables. It's the transportation of oil that accounts for the overwhelming number of oil spills. Recall the Valdez, the Cadiz, and the Argo Merchant. These were all tanker spills. And even these (though hyped hysterically as environmental catastrophes) always play out as minor blips, those pictures of oil soaked seagulls notwithstanding. To the horror and anguish of professional greenies, Alaska's Prince William Sound recovered completely. More birds get fried by landing on power lines and smashed to pulp against picture windows in one week than perished from three decades of oil spills. In fact, Florida's gorgeous and tourist-packed beaches have suffered from an ugly oil spill. It happened summer of 1976 off Panama City and Destin, by far the most beautiful beaches in America. That sugar white sand and those emerald waters were fouled from a tanker spill. The current drilling ban will make another such spill more likely. The ban not only puts us at the mercy of shaky sheikdoms and Hugo Chavez for oil, it also means we'll need to keep transporting that oil stateside -- typically to refineries in Louisiana and Texas. This path takes those tankers smack in front of Florida's beaches. But there's another resource shortage that more drilling would solve. "Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950," said a National Geographic headline a couple years ago. "Our demand for seafood appears to be insatiable. From giant blue marlin to mighty blue fin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left." Then let's create a new fishing frontier, using offshore oil platforms and the explosion of marine life that always accompany their installation. It happened here in Louisiana. The observable evidence is overwhelming. The verdict is in. Of the 3,739 offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico nowadays, 3,203 lie off the Louisiana coast. We love offshore oil drilling, and not just for the loot (taxes) extorted from oil companies for the privilege. "Environmentalists" wake up in the middle of the night sweating and whimpering about offshore oil platforms only because they've never seen what's under them. This proliferation of marine life around the platforms turned on its head every "expert" opinion of its day. The original plan, mandated by federal environmental "experts" back in the late '40s, was to remove the big, ugly, polluting, environmentally hazardous contraptions as soon as they stopped producing. Fine, said the oil companies. About 15 years ago some wells played out off Louisiana and the oil companies tried to comply. Their ears are still ringing from the clamor fishermen put up. Turns out those platforms are going nowhere, and by popular demand of those with a bigger stake in the marine environment than any "environmentalist." Every "environmental" superstition against these structures was turned on its head. Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs. Louisiana produces one third of America's seafood. In fact a study by Louisiana State University shows that 85% of Louisiana offshore fishing trips involve fishing around these structures and that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding Gulf bottoms. Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries -- because of, not in spite of, these platforms. All of this and not one major oil spill in half a century -- not one. As more assurance, today's drilling technology compares to the one used only 20 years ago about like the Kitty Hawk compares to a jumbo jet. The one that gave us the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in 1969 compares to today's like a fossil. Market forces, not meddlesome bureaucrats, account for cleaner, safer oil drilling. A deep-water drilling rig might cost $1 billion. This thing has to produce oil daily -- hourly(!) -- to recoup such a gargantuan investment. A blowout and spill would shut them down for weeks. No oil company could stay in business that way. In 1986 Louisiana started the Rigs to Reef program, a cooperative effort by oil companies, the feds and the state. This program literally pays the oil companies to keep the platforms in the Gulf. Now they just cut them off at the bottom and topple them over as artificial reefs; more than 60 have been toppled thus far. Louisiana wildlife and fisheries officials were recently invited to Australia to help them with a similar program. Think about it: here's the nation with the Great Barrier Reef, the world's biggest natural reef, the world's top dive destination, asking for help from Louisiana about developing exciting dive and fishing sites by using the very structures that epitomize (in greenie eyes) environmental disaster. Mark Ferrulo, a Florida "environmental activist" who lobbies incessantly against offshore drilling called Louisiana's coastal waters "the nation's toilet." Then Florida's fishing fleet must love fishing in toilets. And her restaurants must love serving what's in them. Many of the red snapper you eat in Florida restaurants are caught around Louisiana's oil platforms. We see the Florida-registered boats tied up to them constantly. Sometimes we can barely squeeze in. It also turns out that Louisiana's natural reefs are much healthier than the much-protected and pampered Florida reefs. The Flower Garden coral reefs lie off the Louisiana-Texas border. Unlike any of the Florida Keys reefs, they're surrounded by dozens of offshore oil platforms that have been pumping away for the past 40 years. Yet according to G.P. Schmahl, a Federal biologist who worked for decades in both places, "The Flower Gardens are much healthier, more pristine than anything in the Florida Keys. It was a surprise to me, and I think it's a surprise to most people." "A key measure of the health of a reef is the amount of area taken up by coral," according to a report by Steve Gittings, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's science coordinator for marine sanctuaries. "Louisiana's Flower Garden boasts nearly 50 percent coral cover ... in the Florida Keys ... it can run as little as 5 percent." The panorama under an offshore oil platform staggers the most experienced divers. I've seen divers fresh from the Cayman's Wall surface from under an oil platform too wired on adrenaline to do anything but stutter and wipe spastically at the snot that trails to their chins. I've seen an experienced scuba-babe fresh from Belize climb out from under a platform gasping and shrieking at the sights and sensations, oblivious to the sights and sensations she was providing with her bikini top near her navel. Mr. Fontova is the author of Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant humaneventsonline.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/3/2006 2:11:48 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

From Instapundit: MAX BOOT: <<< Of the top 14 oil exporters, only one is a well-established liberal democracy ? Norway. Two others have recently made a transition to democracy ? Mexico and Nigeria. Iraq is trying to follow in their footsteps. That's it. Every other major oil exporter is a dictatorship ? and the run-up in oil prices has been a tremendous boon to them. My associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, Ian Cornwall, calculates that if oil averages $71 a barrel this year, 10 autocracies stand to make about $500 billion more than in 2003, when oil was at $27. This windfall helps to squelch liberal forces and entrench noxious dictators in such oil producers as Russia (which stands to make $115 billion more this year than in 2003) and Venezuela ($36 billion). Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez can buy off their publics with generous subsidies and ignore Western pressure while sabotaging democratic developments from Central America to Central Asia. The "dictatorship dividend" also subsidizes Sudan's ethnic cleansing (it stands to earn $4.7 billion more this year than in 2003), Iran's development of nuclear weapons ($45 billion) and Saudi Arabia's proselytization for Wahhabi fundamentalism ($149 billion). Even in such close American allies as Kuwait ($35 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($36 billion), odds are that some of the extra lucre will find its way into the pockets of terrorists. >>> Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we'd be called imperialist oppressors, then. UPDATE: Various people (with various degrees of enthusiasm) see the above as a call for invasion. It was, rather, a comment on the vacuity of the "imperialist oppressors" language. Though I was probably wrong there anyway: If we really were imperialist oppressors, the critics would be sucking up. feeds.feedburner.com latimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/4/2006 10:15:08 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Misplaced Outrage Betsy's Page Gary Andres hits the nail on whom Americans should really be blaming for gas prices. <<< For years Democrats conspired with environmental special-interest groups in Washington to block a host of even modest proposals, ranging from expanded domestic drilling, to increased use of nuclear power, to common-sense rules allowing more adequate refining capacity — all factors that would increase supply and reduce prices. Now Democrats have the audacity to stand in front of gas stations and say prices are too high. That should move the outrage needle. Gas prices are soaring today as a consequence of collusion — not among oil companies but between Democrats in Washington and their special-interest cohorts — creating an axis of obstruction. Ideas have consequences. And American consumers are now paying the price for a liberal agenda. Around the same time Mr. Dole was seeking the whereabouts of America's collective outrage, Mr. Clinton vetoed a bill authorizing drilling in ANWR that would have boosted domestic production. He said it would take 10 years to realize the benefits. Time flies and here we are a decade later without these increased domestic supplies. Environmental extremists and the Democrats have conspired to shut down the growth of new refinery capacity in the United States as well. Without these new supplies, we're forced to import more gasoline and other refined products. Last year, when the House passed a comprehensive energy policy bill, 196 House Democrats sided with liberal special-interest groups to oppose legislation that would have streamlined more refinery construction in the United States and increased the supply of domestically produced products. This same axis of obstruction also opposed legislation to expand the use of nuclear energy, further reducing the demand (and price) for other petroleum-based products. Taken together, these and other decisions slashed the supply of new domestic petroleum sources without offering other offsetting products — actions that forced old-fashioned economics to produce new-fashioned price spikes today. One savvy political strategist told me last week that when it comes to gas prices he'd never seen a bigger gap between what could be done about a problem in the short run and what the public thinks can be done. Americans believe gas prices are the responsibility of greedy oil companies — period. This seems like another example of what public-opinion expert Andrew Kohut points to as a public "short on facts, but long on judgment." But there's another big gap — this one in voter knowledge about the impact of Democratic coziness with environmentalists. Exposing this breach must be part of any response by the White House and Republicans in Congress to the current energy crisis. House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio began to close the gap this week when he said, "Nancy Pelosi and her Capitol Hill Democrats can't hide from their chronic negligence of addressing America's energy needs. By constantly opposing responsible policies that would have increased American energy supplies and lowered gasoline prices, one has to wonder what it takes to get Democrats engaged in this critical issue. 'No' is not an energy policy." >>> The Democrats must really be cackling - they block any responsible energy policy and then get to blame the Republicans for energy prices. Talk about getting your oily cake and eating it too. betsyspage.blogspot.com washtimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/4/2006 10:45:25 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Talking Business And Politics With ExxonMobil By Captain Ed on National Politics Captain's Quarters I had the opportunity to take part in a conference call earlier this evening with several fine bloggers and Ken Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs at ExxonMobil. As you might imagine, Mr. Cohen has a busy job these days fending off calls for federal investigations and explaining free-market economics to anyone who bothers to listen. The purpose of this conference call was to allow bloggers an opportunity to ask Big Oil questions about their issues and to get some perspective on the volatile energy market. Cohen started off with a very short statement, preferring to move quickly to a Q&A rather than a prepared presentation. He spoke of the lack of education most consumers have about the nature of the energy markets and the effects that politics and global tensions have on pricing. Oil is a commodity, just the same as oranges, pork bellies, and a range of other products. When traders sense potential issues for future production, they buy more and drive prices up so that they can take advantage of better pricing now. The volatile nature of the major oil exporters -- only Norway is a stable democracy [er, so is Canada! see update II] -- creates a hair-trigger sensitivity for traders. Cohen also acknowledged that the industry underestimated the growth curve in Asian economics. India and China have over two billion people between them, and both nations have begun massive modernization in their economies -- and that depends on ever-increasing demand for energy, especially oil. The supply has also increased in that time but not nearly at the same rate, driving prices ever upward. It took a long time to get to this stage, and a lot of what drives prices flew under the radar during that period of time. With prices relatively low, public interest in market forces didn't exist, and the oil companies grew complacent in informing their consumers of these issues. When the inevitable crises hit over the past year, people did not have a good basis for understanding why prices suddenly and dramatically jumped. That explains part of the hysteria, but not all of it. Cohen noted in response to questions that his company earned 9.7% profit as share of revenue, a good performance but hardly spectacular. Even some newspapers do better than that. In the extended section, I have included my notes from the Q&A. I may also add more from the presentation provided to us by Cohen as background for the conference. The information certainly gives a different perspective on the notion of a monolithic corporation with the power to bend the market to its will, and should provide enough information for research and debate in the days ahead. I look forward to your comments! UPDATE: Other attendees: John Hawkins, Mary Katherine Ham, Flip Pidot, Lori Byrd, Rob Bluey, Pat Cleary, Kim Priestap, and Peyton Knight. And a big round of thanks to Amy Ridenour, who went way out of her way to get me included in the call. UPDATE II: Lexhamfox reminds me that Canada also qualifies as a stable democracy -- d'oh! He also suggests Mexico, but the corrupt nature of the government and politics there could put "stable" into question. Why did it take so long to get back to the offense, rather than being defensive? Took us a number of years to get into this situation (high prices), not a good understanding of how we got here. When prices remained low, no one cared about the underlying market forces that eventually caused these. Opinion leaders literacy on energy is appallingly low. In the past, took more of a hygienic approach, now understand that they need to be proactive about education. They plan on being aggressive about it now. Boycotts on oil companies to lower prices – how effective can this be? One county judge has called for a boycott on one service station, a franchisee. Cost to the station is $1.70, after taxes ~ $2.25 per gallon or so. EM produces only 3% of the world’s crude, produces 2.5M bbls/day, buys another 3.5M bbls/day; they’re hostage to the commodities market. Boycott will do nothing for the price of gasoline, but it will hurt the 51 people employed by the franchisee. Maria Cantwell’s ignorance; how do you deal with ignorant lawmakers? Must start with finding easy comparisons with other commodities: oranges, wheat, pork bellies, etc. The market determines the price. Oil does not move on long term contracts any longer. We know about supply & demand, but why the big price spikes in the span of a few weeks? If I knew that, I’d be on a resort island relaxing. The spikes come from speculators in the commodities market. EM does not participate in speculation – they only buy real barrels at market price. Unanticipated for the past two years was the rapid pace of growth in Asia, and the energy needs for that growth did not get forecast. Political risk in exporting countries also plays into the psychology of the commodities traders. Gasoline also is a commodity (not just oil), which is why the prices at the station can change so quickly. The prices reflect the expected cost of the next shipment, not the current one. How much do the boutique formulations play into pricing and supply problems? Impacts flexibility; the smaller number of plants and the growth in formulation differences mean that refineries cannot make up capacity for another refinery when it goes off line. That also impacts the gasoline commodity market. Temporary waivers allow for much greater flexibility. If ANWR were on line and producing, how much of an impact would that have on pricing? We’d have to know the state of the rest of the world and the actual production level of ANWR; still need seismic assessments to prove the reserves. It’s an investment, one of many, and it would be very valuable if predictions are borne out. Payout ratio is around 20%, so 80% goes to R&D and reinvestment. How much more could it be? We could be looking at a surplus if we expand the refining capacity – we could be seeing a lot of gasoline. Building a new refinery is a Herculean effort. If everything goes perfectly, it takes 5-6 years before it comes on line. It won’t work on prices immediately. The approach they take is to expand existing capacity. It’s quicker and cheaper. Current political rancor – similar to when we last enacted windfall profits taxes? Yes, similar, although the situation is different. Then we had actual product runouts. This time, prices now send a signal for more expansion. Consumers and automakers are getting signals for increasing efficiency. It shows the beauty of the market approach. Has EM exploring hydrogen and other fuels? EM had been the biggest investor in solar, but pulled out because the tech platform couldn’t deliver mass energy production. Can try to use current technology and expand it (wind, water, solar), or look for a new technology for development. They take the second approach. They partner with Toyota, Caterpillar, General Electric, and others on alternate energy projects. Any advertising/PR campaigns planned? Yes, looking at it as a good way to improve energy literacy. What about Bush’s call for more hearings on energy prices? Frustrating from someone with energy literacy? Have to get started on the literacy program. Oil is the most heavily regulated of the industries. Investigations on gas prices are a constant. We don’t gouge. How many FTC employees work full time on gas prices? Will supply. They have a division doing nothing but supervising gas prices. The media has not covered the pricing effects of nationalized oil companies. Can you describe your strategy to get the media to focus on that part of the problem? Starting to see more awareness of the psychology of the market in the media, will continue to pursue it. The real effect doesn’t hit the actual supply but the psychology. Schumer’s call to break up the oil companies – reaction? The majors now own fewer gas stations than earlier. They own less than 8% of the ExxonMobil gas stations in the US. It’s not a concentrated market. EM has 12% of the refinery capacity in the US and 8% global – not nearly enough to control pricing. The economics of the downstream: 85% of revenue went to buy crude oil, 12% went to keeping the doors open, and only 3% went to the bottom line. Right now margins are good. Profits as a share of revenue came to 9.7%, a middling performance in the Fortune 500 (#140). captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/5/2006 10:15:31 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Running on empty on gas prices by Jonah Goldberg Townhall.com May 5, 2006 I'd planned on ignoring the inferno of idiocy raging in the nation's capital over gas prices, but it's looking like an eternal flame. First came the Democrats. For more than a decade their leading lights have extolled higher gas taxes, and hence higher gas prices, to pay for everything from school roofs to the development of alternative energy sources that would usher in the economic Shangri-La of "energy independence" - whatever that is. "Look how enlightened Europe is! Gas prices there are two or three times ours," they'd holler. In 1993, when the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House and the economy was believed to be in much worse shape, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the rest of the Democratic leadership pushed gas taxes as the solution to our woes. Now even Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) - who voted for gas tax hikes in 1982, 1990 and 1993 - believes that "high gas prices are going to be the final nail in the GOP's coffin this election year." So the Democrats want to repeal federal gas taxes in order to bring the price down at the pump. They say the repeal would only be temporary. No kidding! Instead of forming a bucket brigade to put out this bonfire of buffoonery - as is their historical obligation and divine writ - Republican leaders threw their own rhetorical gasoline. The GOP leadership called for the 12th investigation since 1979 into allegations of "price fixing" and "collusion" by American oil companies. These investigations have all concluded much the same thing: Market forces determine the price, not some cabal of tuxedo-wearing fat cats. At a time when - (a) the second-largest oil producer in the world - Iran - is engulfed in nuclear messianic nationalism; (b) Iraq is, shall we say, a somewhat unstable oil producer; (c) we have few oil refineries, and many of them are undergoing maintenance that was postponed because of Hurricane Katrina; and (d) China's economy grew at an oil-sucking 10 percent in the first quarter while our own grew at an astounding 4.8 percent, - the brain trust in Washington is stunned, stunned, that gas prices are going up. It must be a conspiracy! No doubt we can soon expect a major investigation into the disturbing reports that bears are using our woodlands as a toilet. All of this brings to mind T.S. Eliot's observation that no causes are truly lost because no causes are ever truly won. Although poverty is the natural human condition whose only proven remedy is the market, whenever enough voters get mad at the market, politicians can be counted on to play up popular paranoia about powerful "unseen forces" exploiting ordinary folk. Why, this week, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) even conjured the specter of those old devils, the "robber barons." "Sadly," she declared with barely suppressed glee, "we are now living in a new era of robber barons." Pelosi, who is more of a student of polls and left-wing blogs than history, probably doesn't much care that the modern stereotype of the robber baron as rapacious economic predator is more a product of the collectivist spirit of the New Deal than of the 19th century. "The Robber Barons," an error-filled 1934 tract written by a socialist named Matthew Josephson, was intended to pump up Depression-plagued readers with bile about "economic royalists" blocking social progress. Josephson was inspired by Honore de Balzac's witticism that "behind every great fortune lies a great crime." The statist playbook, it seems, is never out of print. But we should not blame Democrats too much for their opportunism, cynicism and populism. As the party out of power, they are expected to seize on GOP weaknesses like jackals upon a wounded fawn. And their party is dedicated to the proposition that the state should always meddle when it feels it can do "good," regardless of what it did last year or even yesterday. It is the congressional GOP that should be booed and shamed from the public square for the harlot it has become. Before the pyre of pandering even ended, the Republicans launched their fire sale, offering to sell off their remaindered principles at bargain basement prices. It was almost like they were paying voters to take their intellectual integrity off their hands. ("We're practically giving it away!") They even tried to proposition voters with a $100 bribe to stop whining about "obscene" gas prices, rather than point out the real obscenity: overregulation that has kept American oil in the ground and prevented any new refineries or nuclear power plants from being built in 30 years. The $100 gimmick died from terminal boneheadedness, and even the House majority leader conceded, in an all-too-brief flash of sanity, that it was "stupid" and "insulting" to voters. If this is what we can expect from congressional Republicans during a booming economy, heaven help us when the next recession comes. Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online. A fantastic podcast with Jonah is now available for free from the Ashbrook Center. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com

To: Sully- who wrote (19611)	5/10/2006 9:53:48 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Is thinking obsolete? by Thomas Sowell Townhall.com May 10, 2006 Amid all the hysteria among politicians and in the media over rising gasoline prices, and all the outraged indignation about oil company profits and their executives' high pay and lavish perks, has anybody bothered to even estimate how much effect any of this actually has on the price we pay at the pump? If the profit per gallon of gas were reduced to zero, would that be enough to reduce the price by even a dime? If the oil company executives were to work free of charge, would that be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even a penny a gallon? Surely media loudmouths making millions of dollars a year and the multibillion dollar TV networks they work for can afford to get some statistics and buy a pocket calculator to do the arithmetic before spouting off nationwide. But this is the age of emotion, not analysis. Politicians are even more hypocritical. The government collects far more in taxes on every gallon of gasoline than the oil companies collect in profits. If oil company profits are "obscene," as some politicians claim, are the government's taxes PG-13? The very politicians who have piled tax after tax on gasoline over the years, and voted to prohibit oil drilling offshore or in Alaska, and who have made it impossible to build a single oil refinery in decades, are all over the television screens denouncing the oil companies. In other words, those who supply oil are being denounced and demonized by those who have been blocking the supply of oil. Given the vast amounts of gasoline sold across the length and breadth of this nation, and given the mega-billion dollars involved, whether or not some corporate executive has an inflated pay scale is unlikely to explain the price of gasoline. It may allow some people in the media to vent their emotions and some politicians to create a bogeyman, since they can't play St. George without a dragon. But cheap demagoguery cannot explain expensive gas. When the two most heavily populated nations on earth -- China and India -- have rapidly growing economies and rapidly escalating importations of oil, how could that not affect the world price of oil? After all, the price of oil is determined in the international markets, contrary to conspiracy theories that keep turning up whenever gas prices rise. Those conspiracy theories have been investigated time and again, without uncovering anything. But it is still a clever political ploy to ask for more investigations when gas prices rise. If nothing else, it distracts attention from those who have been blocking all attempts to enable us to use our own oil. Nothing is easier, or more emotionally satisfying, than blaming high prices on those who charge them, rather than on those who cause them. The same thing happens when stores in high-crime neighborhoods charge higher prices than stores in safer neighborhoods. Both crime and precautions against crime add to the cost of doing business and this adds to the prices. But seldom, if ever, do those who decry the high prices blame those prices on the crime, vandalism, and violence committed by local inhabitants. Where the stores are owned by a different ethnic group, such as Asians in black ghettoes, it is virtually guaranteed that the store owners will be denounced for "gouging," "discrimination" and whatever other political rhetoric will rouse the emotions. People with no experience in business, no knowledge of history, and utterly ignorant of economics do not hesitate to leap from high prices to greedy profit-makers. Many of these ignorant people are on nationwide television and some are in Congress. Many, if not most, of the great American fortunes -- Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford -- have been made by finding ways to charge lower prices, not higher. In the early 20th century, the A & P grocery chain became renowned for both its low prices and its high quality. Its profit rate never fell below 20 percent during the decade of the 1920s. That's a higher rate of profit than the oil companies make. The relationship between prices and profit rates is not as simple as media hype or political demagoguery claims. Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics. Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com townhall.com