If so, then the rising price would not be the result of speculation, would it?
The evidence does not suggest speculation as the significant or primary cause for the increased price of oil. This is not to assert speculation plays no role in the price increase. Rather, speculations contribution is minimal or minor compared to other factors influencing the price and the evidence suggests those other factors are causing the price increase.
People who are having to decide between buying food and buying fuel to get to work probably don’t agree with you.
How much will it take out of my food budget if I’m making $12 an hour? Or are you suffering from the delusion that most American households have six figure incomes?
That may very well be a factor, but I think all the saber rattling by Israel and Iron is probably the most important factor at this time.
A penny here, a penny there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money. Every nickle counts!
Well, since the US became a net exporter of oil last year, Obama could step in to curtail that, increasing the domestic supply available. Conservatives wouldn’t object to that, right?
What has worked in the past to reduce gas prices at the pump has been to hold congressional hearings on the elimination of government subsidies to the industry. Conservatives would be in favor of that, right?
Middle manager thinks he can fix everything that’s wrong with his industry, or make the president do it. Yeah, sure.
Gas prices have yet to impact me, because I have always made decisions which minimize the impact gas has on me. I have, since I was 18, lived close to where I worked, walked/biked/bussed to local businesses, and probably some other things which impact my use but which I cannot imagine off the top of my head. I am not prepared to accept adjusting national policy yet again to subsidize even further people who want to work in Boston but live in New Hampshire.
Of course fuel prices do affect the cost of goods in general, but I have confidence that the conservatives are correct that the pricing mechanism of the market will handle that just fine.
Most of these are things that Obama is already doing, and which no Republican would touch with a ten-foot pole.
1) Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security.
Absolutely. And the only way we can possibly do this is by replacing oil products (which we don’t have much of, and the people who do have much of tend to not like us very much) with something else.
2) Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Opposition to cap-and-trade is nothing but anti-capitalist rhetoric. It’s simple free-market economics: You want to use the air, you pay for the air.
3) Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment.
There’s no specific targeting going on. The closest thing that’s happening to this is the Republicans trying to target low rates on the companies, to punish the rest of us.
4) Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success.
Again, Obama is the only candidate who realizes that the government needs to be actively pushing research into new technologies.
5) Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate.
Like, by government funding research so industry can innovate in alternate energy. Right on.
6) Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”.
If they want that, then let’s help them, by imposing new regulations that will make it harder to be the next BP.
7) Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace.
The first bad idea of the lot. This is a direct contradiction of point 6.
8) Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA.
OK, another bad idea, and probably unconstitutional: Gas beds cross state lines, and therefore state regulation of them is impossible.
9) Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases.
OK, I don’t know anything about this, so I won’t comment here.
10) Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
Well, at least on the right track, but natural gas, while better than oil in some key ways, still isn’t all that great a fuel. Better to focus on electric vehicles, but I suppose I’ll take what I can get.
11) Get real about the promise of alternative fuels.
The reality about them is that we’re going to need them, preferably sooner rather than later. Which even this guy recognized, just one bullet point previously.
I really hope I’m being whooshed.
He probably meant petroleum based products…like refined gasoline. We are, afaik, a net exporter of that sort of stuff, mainly because, having huge refineries we don’t import refined fuels, and we do export them. That would be my guess as to what Hentor meant, anyway, FWIW.
-XT
Well, maybe, but of course exporting gasoline to Canada and Mexico isn’t really relevant to the market price of gas when the crude it was refined from came from…Canada and Mexico. Stop selling us gas and we’ll build more of our own refineries. Besides, restricting export of gas would run afoul of NAFTA, which is what gives you guaranteed access to that crude in the first place. So I’m still hoping it was a whoosh.
I agree. Like I said, that’s my guess. Based on the fact that there is another new thread on this misconception in GD, I’d say it’s a good guess as to what he meant…or, perhaps his own misconception of the issue.
-XT
Each day I wish vainly that folks would not bother to listen to nobodies from nowhere with no real academic or research credentials who are “popular” just because they have a blog. I don’t know why I would listen to anything this guy says more than any random person on the street.
Blogs aren’t worth the paper they are written on.
You know, too, the problem with journalists’ reporting… they majored in journalism.
What in the world are you talking about? Fracking does not help us drill for oil? Are you crazy? We’ve been using hydraulic fracturing for oil wells for a long time. Have you perhaps heard of the state of North Dakota?
Presumably the U.S. is a partner in the energy business because it receives taxes and royalties from the energy industry. Presumably setting the industry free from the government is code for reducing regulations. Voila, they can now be done simultaneously.
Actually, this is exactly how the industry is primarily regulated and has been since it’s beginning over 100 years ago. You probably haven’t heard a lot of complaining about it since it seems to have worked fairly well.