You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Filling tanks, funding dictators
2006-05-03
FREE-MARKET purists are getting a lot of mileage out of scoffing at all the hysteria about rising oil prices. From a strictly economic point of view, they've got a point. Even with crude selling at more than $71 a barrel and gasoline at about $3 a gallon, the U.S. economy continues to expand. It grew at a healthy annualized rate of 4.8% in the first quarter, and there has been no sign of a slowdown since. Oil is a much smaller part of the economy than it was during the oil shocks of the 1970s, and retail prices are still half of what the more heavily taxed Europeans pay.

Eventually, if oil prices keep rising, it may put a damper on the economy, but the odds are, if history is a guide, that prices will soon plunge as demand decreases (people drive less) and supply increases (oil companies dig more wells). Libertarians fret that political meddling will only interfere with the beneficent work of the invisible hand.

If oil were a commodity like any other, the free-marketers would be right. But it's not. Most oil reserves are controlled by governments, many of which conspire through the OPEC cartel to manipulate the market. These governments aren't the kind that any sane person would want to see in control of such a vital asset. Their power can only be countered by action from our own government.

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.

In short, although high oil prices may not be a cause for economic panic, they do represent a big strategic headache — and one that requires a serious governmental response. But what? Most of the "solutions" being debated in Washington, such as sending taxpayers a $100 rebate or imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies, would do nothing to address the crux of the problem: How do we defund the dictators?

That is not an issue that the United States can solve by itself. Although we are No. 1 when it comes to oil demand, our use represents only 25% of the global total — and falling. The U.S. should try to forge a consensus among major consumers, including the second-biggest oil guzzler, China, on how to wean our transportation infrastructure away from gasoline, which would have the additional benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But, but, we are EEEvil amerikkans!!! /liberalspew
In the meantime, there are some unilateral steps we can take: Drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Ease restrictions on building new refineries and pipelines. Eliminate the 57-cent-a-gallon tariff on ethanol imports made from Brazilian sugar cane. Increase federal funding for research and rollout of fossil-fuel substitutes such as hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol (produced from grasses and agricultural waste) and plug-in electric engines.

The most important step would be to increase the federal gasoline tax, currently a paltry 18.4 cents a gallon. Congress should enact a sliding-scale tax that rises as oil prices fall and vice versa.
Ya, like Congress would every give up any of our money.
That would shape demand, which would in turn shape prices. The goal would be to create a "floor" at, say, $50 a barrel, which would avert the kind of precipitous price collapse that in the past has eviscerated investment in alternative energy sources and kept low-cost oil producers such as the Saudis and Russians in the driver's seat.

The tragedy of American politics is that it's still not possible to take this small, sensible step, even as our worst enemies, from Tehran to Caracas, grow more rich and powerful at our expense.
This note from Instapundit:
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.
Posted by:DarthVader

#11  The biggest problem here is yet unsaid.
Just what is all this "Wealth" going to be stored as?
Cash money tends to evaporate in many different ways, from being devalued, burnt, stolen, or simply that those pieces of paper are no longer honored. (Zimbabwe comes immediately to mind)

So you need to convert it into another form, land is good, but the value depends highly on what you use the land for.(House prices are ridiculous these days, raw land in the boonies is cheap.)

One of the worst uses would be to build buildings and rent them out (No matter what the "Rent" is,) this solves nothing but to make land worth more pieces of paper. Not good.

Best would be to farm, (Includes any kind of livestock) producing some kind of foodstuffs for humans and their pets (Big Market here)

"Toys" including Houses, Cars, Boats, (Hell, Locomotives if you so desire) wear out, need maintenance, and eventualy have to be replaced.
Kind of makes the Amish/Mennonites/Kibbutz/Collectives/Communes etc look positively brilliant in retrospective.

So just what constitutes "Wealth"? it ain't pieces of paper unless you can swap them for real "Things" fairly quickly.(NOT gold,silver, jewels, etc, I remember reading stories of the russian nobility trying to trade gold bracelets, jewels etc for a bushel of potatos, with no takers.)

Food is wealth, the ability to make food is a lifetime of wealth, the ability to live off your own land is better than Bill Gates Billions, but only at certain times.
Problem here is that nobody does it but the extremely poor, and it has a stigma attached to it.

Solution, I don't have one, there needs to be both land ownership and usage, mixed with the current crop of "Intelligent Things" such as computers, Highline electricity. Superinsulated homes, safe drinking water, Medicines and Doctors that actualy work, and do not bankrupt you to use them, safe food preservation (Fammines DO happen) Rapid Cheap Transport, and standardized trade.

We have all these now, but seem disinclined to use them correctly where one reinforces another, instead using them haphazardly, it still works better than at any other time in history.

End rant, no I do not advocate going back to the "Good Old Days" which were neither "Good" nor really anything other than selective memories that glorify the good, and forget the bad, but for a more inteligent usage of what's available before the next round of famine, disease and death that roll around entirely too frequently.

Any ideas? Preferably ones that do not require Dictatorship to make them work, but appeal to human interest to get them rolling?

I favor some kind of "Intelligence Test" for all kinds of Government leaders, from Kings, Dictators, Presidents, Cabinet Leaders, or Tribal Chiefs. But then the problem again arises "Who bells the cat?"

I dunno, it's late and I'm tired, probably a bit incoherent too.

'Night all.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-05-03 23:30  

#10  AH: Of course, you could look on 9/11, the WOT, and the current unpleasantness in Iraq and Afghanistan as unintended side effects of massive oil importation from fascists.

9/11 cost a few hundred thousand dollars to stage. The Bali bombings cost perhaps tens of thousands of dollars. The terrorism problem isn't caused by oil money. It's caused by tens of thousands of terrorists supported by Islamic charities and tolerated by Muslim governments as long as they turn their attention outward. But the figures involved aren't huge. If every Muslim contributed $1 a year, these terrorists would have a billion-dollar annual budget. And Muslims don't need $70 oil to contribute $1 a year.

Note that terrorists also have their own ways of raising funds, such as protection rackets, bank robbery, bank and credit card fraud, and so on. Simply getting a job is also a possibility - many of the 9/11 terrorists were college-educated. A Jordanian suicide bomber whose hands were found handcuffed to a steering wheel in Iraq used to handle luggage at a California airport.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-05-03 22:19  

#9  Donkeys just voted down measures to make new refineries possible.

Little bunnies with chemical toxins and all that BS.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-05-03 18:41  

#8  five years isn't really very long.
Posted by: 2b   2006-05-03 16:59  

#7  The whole topic of energy independence deserves far more discussion and exposition than is apparently available on the internet. One thing that is fairly clear to me is that no possible measures can improve the current situation (i.e. high oil prices) within the next five years, outside of widespread economic collapse. Every proposed widespread measure will take longer than five years to have an appreciable affect.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-05-03 16:19  

#6  Previous problems with biomass conversion (aka waste organic materials "Molokai Hawaii had a biomass power plant. Hawaii imports oil for power so this was a direct application of plants to displace oil, and includes efficient use of cellulose, with serious unintended consequences. ... I toured this facility which purchased fuel from the locals. The island was rapidly becoming stripped of all vegetation. The elders were very grateful when this power plant failed. Now, vines grow in the control room, popping glass covers from meters. The jungle reclaimed the site and Molokai is green again...Caution is advised for free-market biomass. Local environments and economies could be severely impacted."
Of course, you could look on 9/11, the WOT, and the current unpleasantness in Iraq and Afghanistan as unintended side effects of massive oil importation from fascists.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-05-03 16:06  

#5  Restrictions on ethanol "There's a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff, plus a 2.5% ad valorem tax, on ethanol imported from Brazil, the world's other main producer, while there is a 51-cent-per-gallon government subsidy for ethanol mixed into fuel. It's a combination that critics say insulates domestic ethanol producers from competing against cheaper imports."
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-05-03 15:57  

#4  Increase federal funding for research and rollout of fossil-fuel substitutes such as hydrogen, cellulosic ethanol (produced from grasses and agricultural waste) and plug-in electric engines.

I debunked electric cars yesterday (they require four times as much oil as gasoline powered cars), hydrogen is at least as bad and if ethanol from waste organic material is such a great idea why is no one doing it already, plus it won't scale short of clear felling uncountable millions of acres of trees.

Otherwise, energy consumption is so integral to economic activity that the only way a glut will result is when there is a massive economic collapse or there is a massive increase in energy from another source (coal and nuclear are the only alternatives. Take your pick).

I'd also add, the continuing inability of otherwise intelligent people to grasp this truth makes me more and more convinced that the only way out is the massive economic collapse.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-05-03 15:27  

#3  NS: Fund research. Impose a protective tarriff on petroleum.

Both of these are industrial policy.

NS: Remove government restrictions on production and distribution of distillates,
Remove protective tarriffs on petroleum substitutes,


Do restrictions and tariffs currently exist?
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-05-03 14:14  

#2  What industrial policy?

Remove government restrictions on drilling,
Remove government restrictions on production and distribution of distillates,
Remove protective tarriffs on petroleum substitutes,
Fund research,
Impose a protective tarriff on petroleum.

The only thing I find remotely like an industrial policy is fund research. But that will probably be wasteful pork that will bge necessary to get everything else. This is the correct national security policy for the reasons laid out in the article.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-03 13:37  

#1  This is an industrial policy recommendation. The record of such policies has not been good. As Boot himself points out, the net effect of high prices today will be low prices at some future point, as consumers drive less, in smaller cars. The oil producers had better salt the money from the boom years away - the hangover will be huge when the glut materializes.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-05-03 13:27  

00:00