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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (3946)	12/28/2008 9:24:21 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

There's no middle ground with this guy. If Friedman had his way every American would take public transit. He forgets to mention that the cost of goods would skyrocket as companies that have to ship their goods or use larger gas hogging vehicles raise their costs to keep up with rising taxes. But Friedman doesn't care about that he wants Americans out of their cars. Oh..............except himself and his elitist friends that is.

To: puborectalis who wrote (3946)	12/28/2008 10:06:36 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

So, you posted an article, did you have a point or was I supposed to wade through it all and guess what your point might have been? Give me a clue so I could respond... I'm not going to read a lengthy article just because you slap it in front of me...<g> TIA GZ

To: puborectalis who wrote (3946)	12/29/2008 6:07:06 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

Tom Friedman's Gas Tax David Henderson I think people make the worst cases for their policy proposals when they write or speak as if they think there is no credible intellectual argument against their position. A case in point is a column in today's New York Times by regular columnist Thomas Friedman. In it, Friedman makes his case for an increase in the federal tax on gasoline. Friedman writes that we're in a play where gasoline prices go up, pressure rises for more fuel-efficient cars, then gasoline prices fall and the pressure for low-mileage vehicles vanishes, consumers stop buying those cars, the oil producers celebrate, we remain addicted to oil and prices gradually go up again, petro-dictators get rich, we lose. Then he adds, "It always ends the same way -- badly." Notice two interesting things. First, by using the "addiction" terminology, he neatly avoids having to counter the claim that we use as much gasoline as we do because it's low-price. Using a resource intensively when it's price is low is hardly the sign of addiction. Second, to say that it ends badly, Friedman needs to know when it "ends." It's obvious that he thinks it ends when prices are high, but the reality is that it never ends or, at least, hasn't ended yet. Moreover, in the last 25 years, the price of gasoline has been at or near $2.00 per gallon more often than it has been at a price of $3.50 or more, all inflation-adjusted. Friedman doesn't seem to understand that to make a case for a tax on the grounds he wants to make it, that is, that it would enhance our prosperity, he needs to make one of two arguments. Either he would need to argue that using gasoline imposes an externality that is so large that the current disproportionately high gasoline tax is too small or that for a given amount of revenue raised, the deadweight loss per dollar raised from an increase in the gasoline tax is less than the deadweight loss per dollar from raising other taxes. Friedman doesn't even try. econlog.econlib.org The Cupboard Is Bare writes: Some thoughts while reading Friedman's article: " — and then do nothing to shape consumer behavior with a gas tax so more Americans will want to buy those cars." When I read that, it gave me a bit of a chill and I began to feel like a rat in a maze. It is not the role of government to "shape" my behavior. "There has to be a system that permanently changes consumer demand, which would permanently change what Detroit makes..." Allow car companies that don't meet the needs of the American consumer to fail. That would permanently change what Detroit makes. "A gas tax reduces gasoline demand and keeps dollars in America, dries up funding for terrorists and reduces the clout of Iran and Russia at a time when Obama will be looking for greater leverage against petro-dictatorships. It reduces our current account deficit, which strengthens the dollar. What is unseen are the things that Americans will have to forego in order to pay the tax. "...says the Johns Hopkins author and foreign policy specialist Michael Mandelbaum. “A gasoline tax would do more for American prosperity and strength than any other measure Obama could propose.” The gasoline tax will hurt the poor the most, as they are going to be the ones least capable of buying a new car. How does one set aside money to purchase a new, fuel-efficient vehicle, when one also has to pay a high gas tax? What does that do for American prosperity? "I know it’s hard, but we have got to stop “taking off the table” the tool that would add leverage to everything we want to do at home and abroad. We’ve done that for three decades, and we know with absolute certainty how the play ends — with an America that is less innovative, less wealthy, less respected and less powerful." Taxes make us less wealthy. They also reduce innovation by making less money available to manufacturers for R&D. As for being less respected and less powerful, it's my belief that too much government intervention has done that. econlog.econlib.org