Posturing and misinformation are perennial maneuvers in the political game, and among the primary tools politicians use to divert the public's attention from what the White House, Senate, Congress, Mayor, Dog Catcher, etc. has done, or failed to do to fulfill the desires that all of them purport to share-- namely the security, prosperity, and freedom from rabid dogs of their country, state, county, city, or whatever little kingdom they rule. The goal of most of this posturing is to assure us, their constituents, that no matter what has been done in the past, THEY REALLY CARE about our problems, so we should keep sending them back to their respective positions of power. We expect this of our political leaders. It's part of the theatre of it all, and we enjoy the mild entertainment value as they jump through various hoops trying to convince us that they are "in touch" and ready to feel our pain.
A recent spasm of pain sharing that has been spewing from Washington lately is their heartfelt consternation that the evil oil companies are actually making money, showing a profit, and (shockingly) seeing a return on their investment. Democrats and Republicans alike are rushing to assure us that they know how hard it is to pay the bill at Chevron, and they're ready to jump into action, although it's the Senate Republicans who are offering us their "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006." It's a proposal of dubious merit, and extremely limited economic sense, that seems to want to punish oil companies for making money, while at the same time expecting them to produce more oil, (as long as they don't make too much money at it.) Such notions generally come from the liberal end of the political spectrum, but this time the Republicans are needing the political boost. No matter how little their proposed actions make sense economically, or whether their actions will have any positive effect at all, they're up for reelection soon, and this is an opportunity to show they care more about the little guy than the rich. The rich in this case being the people who provide the gas we use to go to work, drive to the beach, take our kids to soccer and generally function in the modern world. They are the evil people who risk their capital to find, extract, process and deliver a product we all choose to buy. (And yes, we do choose it. Most of us have alternatives. They may be uncomfortable and time consuming, but if we really don't want to buy gas, we can invest our time on the bus, rather than our money in the gas tank.)
Let's set aside for a later discussion the fact that it takes people with money, and the willingness to invest it, to employ most of us little guys. Let's stick to the basic realities of economics. In a free market society, if it becomes a sign of evilness to make a profit when market conditions are right for it, and the government decides to put a stop to such outlandish behavior, where is the incentive to invest? If we want companies to find more oil, build more refineries, and develop alternative sources of power, we need to stop acting like they're the bad guys, and allow them the luxury of some incentive to produce these things.
I don't intend to spout like this often. I'd generally rather just pass on things from other people that I find worthwhile, but I find this whole topic rather frustrating. It shouldn't be in bad taste to make a profit in a capitalist society, unless we're doing it illegally. John Hinderaker at Powerline feels my pain. He's written a point by point response to the "Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006." Read the whole thing, especially the remarks by Representative Mike Conaway about how much profit the oil companies actually are making right now, and how it compares to other US industries. I found it soothing to read some economic common sense. May it be the same balm to you.
Hat tip: Instapundit
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Evil, Thy Name Is Profit
Posted by Kat at 4/27/2006 03:08:00 PM
Labels: economics, Gas Price Relief and Rebate Act of 2006, Politics
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
The free market economy is not being held up as the only way an economy can function. What Kling is explaining is, since we are in a free market economy, how it will function successfully. If you want an economy to work, you can't keep changing the rules. You create disincentive to production of anything good, including alternatives to oil, if once you have risked your investment the government can decide that they don't think you should be allowed to profit from your risk.
ReplyDeleteAbout the question of 50 to 100 years from now, I think you are missing Kling's point about the government artificially reducing the price of gas. One of the ways that alternative fuels are going to be made more readily available is by the scarcity of oil driving alternatives into a more competitive position in the marketplace. By trying to shelter people from the price of gas, the government is in effect encouraging them to keep using oil-based fuels. However when Diesel is at $3.50 a gallon, and Biodiesel is at $3.55, it becomes a lot more attractive to the consumer to consider the environment and other factors, like whether we want to be dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs. (Just as a side note, every kind of fuel has some sort of environmental impact, some more benign than others.)
On another side note, the best way for the government to encourage investment in alternative fuels is to provide tax incentives and to reduce hindering regulations, not to punish the companies providing the resource that we currently use to keep our country functioning. When good alternatives are available, and competitive, the market will naturally transition to the one's that best fill the needs of the time. If gas gets scarce, the price goes up, and the other options come to the fore--that is, if the market is allowed to do its job.
Have a glance at the articles I linked to in More On Economics And The Price Of Gas. I think they're relevant to this discussion. I understand your point about the long term, but I think Hinderaker does look at long term goals. He simply thinks that the market will solve them better than government interference, and in the meantime knows that the country needs to function, and would function better without having to rely on Iran and Venezuela. Either way we're burning fossil fuels for a while longer. Innovation, unhindered by a meddling bureaucracy, is what will bring the most rapid and least jarring transition to using alternatives.
ReplyDeleteYour are Excellent. And so is your site! Keep up the good work. Bookmarked.
ReplyDelete»