Wrong Way HearingLast week the Senate Judiciary Committee called upon many oil industry executives to defend themselves on the matter of high oil prices:
It's good to know that I can always depend on my elected representatives to get things completely wrong. It's not a simple matter of choice to reduce oil prices. And even if it were, the companies represented at the hearing are a small minority of producers in the world oil market. Extractive commodity prices are set by demand and by expectations of future demand. If the price fell artificially, there would be shortages, and shortages would be dangerously worse than high prices. I do not hold the oil companies completely blameless. They have been asking the government for permission to expand their production (whether that be more refineries, drilling in ANWR, the outer continental shelf, etc.) for years. It was an error merely to ask. They should have insisted on setting a crude oil price at which development would have been allowed. Think about drilling in ANWR. If we had a free market (we don't), that land would be bid for both by oil companies who want to drill, and by environmentalists who want to preserve it. There would exist some price of crude oil above which the oil companies' expectations of profit from that development would be enough to overcome the potentially high cost of the land (as bid up by environmentalists). Then it would be developed. The environmentalist lobby is very influential. They have prevented the development of this land without regard to its economic value. But this is wrong, morally and methodologically. Whatever value the undisturbed wilderness has — whether you think that's a little or a lot — ought to be rationally weighed against the value of the alternative uses of that land. If we accept arguendo that it wasn't worthwhile to drill in ANWR with crude oil at $25/bbl, that conclusion may no longer hold with crude oil at $125/bbl. The case for development is, in fact, five times stronger than before. By blocking the oil companies from increasing production, Congress is responsible for the trouble of ordinary Americans struggling to afford gasoline. The oil companies are trying to increase production, but Congress isn't letting them! When people damn oil companies for high prices, they are literally blaming the victim. When they encourage Congress to enact a windfall profits tax, they are praising the villain. It's clear that no single development (such as ANWR) will make a large difference in the price of oil. The market is too big and the new production would be a tiny fraction of the total. But that's not a reason to block it! Everything happens at the margin. To Senator Durbin:
To Congress generally:
To environmentalists:
© Kyle Markley
— Posted 2008-05-26 22:58:20 UTC —
permalink
| ||
Comments: 13
Your analysis would be spot on except for one problem: the "environmentalists" who want to keep ANWR as is are actually the not the Sierra Club or WWF or other organization, but rather the people of the United States (via our representative form of government). Due to the fact that the people already own ANWR, there is no need for the people to competitively bid on it versus the oil companies or other entity. If the people decide that we derive more value from ANWR by selling it, rather than by leaving it as is, fine. And at that point, the Sierra Club, et. al., should be welcome to bid on it.
By analogy under your reasoning, if anyone ever wanted your house when it becomes more valuable to them than you, you should be required to put it out to the highest bidder. To do otherwise would be keeping you house without regard to its economic value. Which, according to you is wrong, morally and methodologically.
You are confusing public "ownership" with genuine private ownership. If I as a citizen had any actual ownership in ANWR, I would be able to sell my stake and/or buy stakes from others. I can't.
I do not argue that anyone should ever be forced to sell anything against their wishes. Ownership includes the right not to sell, for any reason or for no reason.
When I paid for my house it became mine. The environmental lobby never paid for ANWR. Congress is sitting on it and making political (not economic) decisions about it.
You are right. Let's put every single government owned piece of property up for sale. Let the bidding start for the Washington Monument.
Cap'n, I believe you just made Anonymous's point for him/her.
I'm not opposed to all government ownership. Although courthouses and military bases and the like could be leased, I don't think it makes much practical difference whether such places are leased or owned.
The land consumed by monuments and the like is negligible, the impact is tiny, here too I'm willing to say it doesn't matter.
National parks and forests? Wilderness areas? Sell 'em! Such things have nothing to do with protecting individual rights; the government has no legitimate interest in them.
#4, I don't get it. Congress controls ANWR but no one owns it. I identify that as the problem.
Captain Arbyte,
Lest you forget about how good the government is at managing these public lands. With the exception of the raw sewage thats regularly dumped into the Willamette ( a public water way) and the killing through heat exhaustion of sea lions I can think of no other mismanagement of public lands that government participates in.
Maybe you need a refresher in US government: the people own it! And yes, Congress, via our republican form of government, controls it. It is the job of Congress to make POLITICAL decisions. I'm not sure why you are upset that they are doing just that.
The government has plenty of interest in things other than protection of individual rights. Among others, there is providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.
Adm'r Ar'word
Are you prepared to be held personally responsible for your ownership? If so please report yourself to the local Federal authorities for prosecution...
1. You killed 6 sea lions by trapping them and letting them die of heat exhaustion
2.You pooped in a public water way then thought it would be better to build a tram then fix the problem.
3. You destroyed/altered the ecosystems of thousands of acres of land in your possession so subsidized companies with political clout could profit.
The list goes on and on, you are a very bad owner and should be sent to jail for a long time.
Congress is dumb. People are dumb.
High oil and gas prices are good for our long term economy. They are good for the environment. I'm generally anti-tax, but gas should be taxed to account for its externalities.
Right now we subsidize oil to keep gas cheap. We subsidize ethanol. We subsidize alternative energy. Those subsidies are coming from elsewhere in the economy. They are perverting natural market forces. If congress were smart, it would dump all those subsidies, and raise gas taxes. Then "clean" energy could compete on its own merits (or, maybe not compete yet).
Anyone who could afford gas at $3 but cannot at $4 is doing something horribly wrong. Perhaps they are paying the piper for having bought a vehicle they couldn't afford. Sorry, dumbass. Be smart next time. Let me guess -- those are the same dumbasses who bought more house than they could afford and now want us to bail them out for that too.
Dumbasses. They make me so mad. Where's John Galt when you need him?
Ah, another person who needs a refresher course on US government. You may want to pay particular attention to sovereign immunity.
PS. I don't live in Portland. I'm pretty sure I've never even pooped in Portland on a rainy day.
I've changed my mind about national monuments. Big ones, at least. Here's why:
Selling the mining rights might make sense. Selling the land itself it tremendously shortsighted.
The comment period has expired.