| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Clinton: OPEC 'can no longer be a cartel' |
| 2008-05-06 |
| Carefull, Hill. You may have to work with these folks in the future. Unless you are planning something like drilling in ANWR, of course. Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. You forgot to mention that it's all W's fault . . . . "WeÂ’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil theyÂ’re going to produce and what price theyÂ’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN. Sorta like the UN. Except they talk about how they are going to explain avoiding meaningful action. "ThatÂ’s not a market. ThatÂ’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC. Hard to do without some serious backup. Like having nuclear online and drilling in Anwar. But what do I know. Clinton has cast herself as a warrior for working people against the oil industry and malicious "speculators," and made that -- along with her push for a gas tax holiday -- central to her closing message in Indiana. It's a potent message, like the attack on "Wall Street money brokers," with deep roots in American politics. It' It's also very hard to figure out what exactly she means by the threat to break OPEC. Can you say "Presidential Nomination"? UPDATE: The Obama campaign points out that Clinton has not signed on to cosponsor a bill that aspires "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal." That'll work. About as well as my telling my neighbor what he should do. UPDATE: Clinton's campaign says she voted a version of the bill in 2007 and has long favored filing a WTO complaint against OPEC. That WTO complaint and $4 will buy you a gallon of gas. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #7 And get rid of these 95 different summer blends - that should ease capacity. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2008-05-06 23:46 |
| #6 Boneheads. Its odd the Democrats pass legislation preventing us from developing VAST oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico and also preventing construction of new refining capacity. THEN they scream and caterwaul at big oil for making money because of these market twisting rules and regulations/restrictions. We should let em drill anywhere they find oil. We should be doing everything we can to encourage oil companies develop domestic capacity. I think a tax incentive on finding domestic oil would do a lot....come to think of it how about giving them exemptions on environmental regs to allow them to expand refining capacity. Also stop the AQMD silliness of having different gasoline blends for each major city. How about one or two blends, that would help the price of oil and help buffer the refining capacity. |
| Posted by: Ebbatle Protector of the Leprechauns7911 2008-05-06 22:22 |
| #5 DB - thanx for the response. That's essentially what the article said. I wasn't sure if taking off $.18 a gal would really do all that. Instead of threatening the oil co.'s the gov't should be providing them incentives to finding new & realistic alt fuels. |
| Posted by: Snash Oppressor of the Mohammatans aka Broadhead6 2008-05-06 21:15 |
| #4 I'd like to see the public rise up and DEMAND the Donks bend and allow ANWR drilling, Gulf drilling, CA and FLA drilling. That won't happen til there's critical mass of outraged drivers and peopel suffering price increases. Start now! Letters to teh Ed in local papers, letters to your congresscritter, unpleasant questions at voter gatherings. If we don't do it now (election time), we'll wait two years. Op DrillNow! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-05-06 19:14 |
| #3 Broadhead6, reducing the gas tax lowers prices thereby (theoretically) increasing consumption thereby increasing prices. Most likely this is what would happen. We have a finite refining capacity and when consumption reaches that capacity there ain't no more. Scarcity would drive prices even higher in the short ter until consumption again is reduced to below refining capacity. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-05-06 19:03 |
| #2 For Pets's Sake lets forget about ANWAR, an oil there is at least ten years away because there is no infrastructure. We should be drillin in our half of the Bekkan Formation in N. Dak and in the TWO new fields in the Gulf of Mexico... we could get oil form them by August! |
| Posted by: Uloluck Lumumba9816 2008-05-06 17:21 |
| #1 Saw an article the other day in the Cinci Enquirer or some such about reducing the fed gas tax as a bad thing? They had several economists saying that getting rid of the fed gas tax even for a short period of time would hurt the consumer in the long run - I couldn't understand it? Maybe one of you can explain or my original assumption is that the newspaper itself was just wrong. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-05-06 17:00 |