Consumer Reports have a brand-spankety new survey out, and it says that Americans can tell that gas is expensive. Oh yeah, and that they might do something about it. Survey says that four-dollar gas™ has 79 percent of us car-shopping Yanks wanting a "car with better fuel economy," and 74 percent driving less to keep costs down. Even though the respondent-identified $4.32 per gallon "tipping point when drivers would further drastically curtail driving" is only upon those of us on the left coast, a full 80 percent of prospective buyers are considering a "diesel, flex-fuel, or hybrid vehicle." Too bad those numbers aren't broken down between those three very different options. So America has taken notice of pricey gas, but the real question is who do Americans blame? And the answers are as unimaginative as you might expect, with the federal government (77 percent), oil companies (75 percent), foreign oil producers (70 percent), and Middle East conflict (68 percent), taking the rap for pain at the pump. When asked what the feds should do to fix the mess, 90 percent say "increase support for alternative energy development", 84 percent say "negotiate lower prices with oil-exporting nations", 83 percent say "encourage conservation through tax incentives for alternative transportation", while 81 percent want to "allow more drilling in the U.S. and offshore." Interestingly, "Putin-style nationalization of oil firms" and "wholesale invasion of the middle east" weren't polled, suggesting there might not be convenient solutions to scapegoats number two, three and four.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Doubt many are considering diesel since its much higher than regular.
Why is that by the way?
how about the federal RESERVE instead of the federal GOVERNMENT. well, when it comes to devaluing the dollar, i guess you can blame them both. thanks a bunch!
It’s kinda nice actually. Far less police on the streets and way less traffic. I go out for a nice aimless drive in the evenings and on the weekends. Just out for a cruise. Traffic is noticably lighter then it used to be. I also notice others for what appears to be just out for a drive. Windows down or top down, music going.
Fuel is still cheap. It might start to feel expensive at about the $8 price point. Maybe.
An all electric car is the ultimate statement for fuel burning replacement. Next step would be bicycle. Next is walking.
Pick you up one of these dare devil, fate tempting machines for a good time:
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/trackbikes.htm
I would have picked something at random, since the real reason — devaluing of the dollar is not listed.
In my wifes country, the gas in their local currency is _THE_SAME_ as it was a year ago — which equates to $6 per gallon today. A year ago with the exchange rate being different was just over $4. Does that tell you something about the value of the dollar?
To boot, my wife is from a third world country.
It’s the $, stupid!
Upon first reading this entry’s title, I wondered, “How is that a changed habit?”
Ummm, nationalizing may “force” the “new” oil company to reduce the prices… but someone is going to catch the losses… and once a government not accustomed to easy $$$ gets a hold on them… you will end with gas at 4$ again.
Another thing is how you nationalize, you buy the stock or just expropriate it and ay whatever you “think” it’s worth. Try the first option with Mobil… it will suck the government funds dry.
Otherwise, you can get down here to one of your oil supplier countries, where gas costs US$ 0.17$ per gallon of 95, and our oil company losses US$ 10 billion each year because of this.
Sadly, we don’t have the Americans purchasing power… if so…I would be driving a 2008 Tahoe with 2 turbos, nitro, hot cam, LS6 heads and intake in the engine =)… Prius and demás bullshit be damned.
Why can’t people figure out that the U.S. still gets off easy when it comes to fuel cost.
Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan… We all pay more for gas.
Oil prices are high due to simple supply and demand. Demand is crazy high, and the supply seems to be static.
if in doubt, ALWAYS follow the money trail…
just like robstar said…
whose fault is it? the govt.
who needs to fix it? the govt.
ugh, why do we always look to the federal government to fix everything when they consistantly do such a terrible job at pretty much everything?
Not all the countries pay a lot for gas. I pay US$ 0.05 per liter of 95 octane.
I reached my tipping point a while ago. But instead of waiting for the government, or anything else for that matter I just did what we Americans are SUPPOSED to do: take care of it myself, FOR myself.
All I can say is: Keep eating all that fried food America!
–chuck
I’m confused by the question. Since when is the price of a good “someone’s fault.”
I saw a sweater last week that I thought was expensive. Whose fault was it:
– the sheep?
– the sheep shearer’s union?
– the sheep feed manufacturer?
Let’s get back to cars, OK?
@toxicroach
read this:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/112_0807_diesel_revolution/index.html
If so much of the blame for the run-up of oil is because of the low dollar, then I say, yes lets blame the feds, in fact let’s be clear and just blame the current Bush administrastion and its failed policies.
Ive taken a little economics, but Im no expert. But here’s why I blame Bush et al.
The tax cuts for the rich, the sellout of our mfrg sector to the third world, the illegal and expensive war…all have created the most fragile economy in years. Yet for some reason we had this inflated stock marktet, inflated housing bubble. And those two things were the only ones that Bush could point to as successes. Home ownership!! Surging stocks!! Everyone (with assets) is making money!! But the failed monetary policy of low interest rates and a devalued dollar are what allowed this to continue. Every time the Fed has had to lower rates, the dollar has sunk. And it has to keep lowering rates to counteract the failed Bush economic policies.
failed economic policies -> lowerd dollar value -> higher oil and gas prices.
Bush’s fault.
If you have a degree in economics and can show me where I am wrong, by all means do so, we would all appreciate your illumination.
I get kinda tired of people talking about how expensive gas is. I accept that it’s mostly because the US$ isnt worth shit. What has got me worried is buying fuel oil next winter. Ok, I understand diesel is ‘spensive because it is being re-formulated to meet EPA specs. But what has this got to do with plain ol’ #2 fuel oil?
I agree that it’s the govt’s fault. ‘They’ should have seen this coming and occupied Saudi Arabia by now. But help is on the way. Attacking Iran will change things.
Every opinion counts – unfortunately some of them are very stupid. Well at least the dumbest of us now knows that gas is expensive and no longer cheaper than a gallon of water. Too bad people can’t look at themselves and realize maybe gas wouldn’t be so expensive if I didn’t drive a 8mpg SUV for the past 5 years as a normal car. Maybe if the 5,000,000 others like me had a decent mileage car and over those 5 years got decent gas mileage and we would have more gasoline, diesel, and oil available as we wouldn’t have used as much. Unfortunately selfish says – people will hardly ever point the finger at themselves and realize that they were part of this problem.
I think they should somehow arbitrarily drop the price of gas to 50 cents a gallon–a gummint eclat, whatever–so that everybody runs out and buys nine-liter V10s and three-ton SUVs and drives their fat asses off.
Use the stuff up, for godsakes. Get those wells to make the giant sucking sound. Pump it up, pump it out, spread it around, hell give it away.
Do you think somebody might be moved to solve “the energy problem” when the last few barrels are going for $150,000 each, for use in perfume-making? I do. Nobody went into space until there was some kind of reason to. Nobody designed supersonic aircraft until we had to. Nobody will develop true alternate-energy vehicles until we’re all walking, or close to it.
“Americans Change Habits, Blame Others For High Gas Prices”
Huh? Blaming others seems like the standard old American habit to me.
“how about the federal RESERVE instead of the federal GOVERNMENT. well, when it comes to devaluing the dollar, i guess you can blame them both. thanks a bunch!”
+
“whose fault is it? the govt.
who needs to fix it? the govt.
ugh, why do we always look to the federal government to fix everything when they consistantly do such a terrible job at pretty much everything?”
Everyone in the USA thinks the USA is only one suffering
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/business/fuel.php
None of the above posts bring up the real reason for high gas prices: Peak Oil.
It is the delusional thinking that business as usual can continue or cheap oil will come back that is making the situation worse.
Peak Oil changes everything. The auto industry will never be the same again. As the supply of oil fails to meet demand prices will go higher and higher to destroy some demand. Many will be priced out of the market and car/truck sales will fall.
Those car companies not ready with fuel efficient product will suffer and some will fail.
Whose fault is it? It is those who refuse to admit Peak Oil is happening. Peak Oil aware have been warning of this situation for years. They have been ignored or worse.
Trouble is there is not much that can be done at this late date except panic type changes that will be very painful.
I’m kind of surprised that the speculators everyone keeps talking about didn’t take some shots, as well.
I’m currently on my third deployment of Iraq. When I get home I’m buying the fastest thing I can afford. Fuel prices be damned. I refuse to buy into global scale socialism (i.e. we should pay what the rest of the world is paying for fuel). There is (was) a reason why numerous immigrants come to america and it’s not because we stoop to what the rest of the world’s doing. I see way too much America bashing from American posters. How about some ideas? Am I crazy to believe in American know-how and ingenuity? We can have our cake and eat it too, but not with a self-defeating attitude.
The phrase “having your cake and eating it too” is intended to describe an impossibility. We cannot have our cake and eat it too no matter how many times you deploy.
The richest most spoiled people in the history of the Earth now whine. Gas is expensive they say. They voted for the envirowhackos to stop the production of energy and now we have an energy shortage. Do you think that stopping drilling and exploring for huge amounts of oil have something to do with it? Or stopping all nuclear plants and hydro might be part of it? The windmills will save us!
“The richest most spoiled people in the history of the Earth now whine.”
Oh yes, the U.S. is SO evil. We accept (by far) the most immigrants, we give (by far) the most foreign aid, and we fight (by far) the most wars that aren’t even our fights…..yet we’re still labeled decadent and spoiled.
So we use 20 percent of the world’s oil. We deserve it. We have every right to whine. Because the U.S. can’t do all the good things it does without cheap oil.
In reality, the rest of the world is spoiled. And we spoiled them.
reclusive_in_nature>
I agree! Fast is fun! Your zx-14 is awaiting you :) they are on sale here marked down from $12,500’ish to $8400 !!!
dejal, nice link. Seems like America is becoming more like Europe, while Europe is getting flung back into the 19th century. That really puts everything into perspective. Many Americans haven’t had to change their lifestyle much. People just like to make a big deal about everything.
Okay, I am going to play along, and argue like the rest.
Gas is still cheap. There is no problem.
BTW, Healthcare is cheap, as well.
The only problem is that people spend WAY too much money on things that are of NO value. Seriously, this is not hyperbole, NO VALUE. Sports, resturaunts, travel, jewelry, candy, boating, fancy shoes, fancy clothes, crappy toys, electronics, software, cars, trucks, financial services, magazines, books, education, and I could go on.
All those things should be much, much cheaper, and I propose that we nationalize some, and simply ban the rest.
I heard the real reason prices are high is because of being buying oil stocks or futures or something because of the dollar being low. Anyhow, I do not believe blaming is the answer. There may be no answer, plain acceptance is inevitable, or deny deny deny, it may work for a long time.
Gas prices are high, for sure. But on the other hand, they are low. How can I say such a thing? Because we still waste gas. How many unnecessary trips do people still do? How many millions of gallons are wasted just because people can’t be bothered to keep their tires pumped up properly?
Right now, we are enjoying the best European (soccer) Cup ever. Over here in Germany, where gas is $9 per gallon, people of various nationalities celebrate each win of their team by driving through town, honking their horn. It goes on until 3 AM, several times a week. I don’t get it: it’s still cheaper to celebrate by driving around instead of drinking and dancing in a pub? Either beer is too expensive or gas is too cheap.
Interesting poll!
1. the real culprits are consumers, more than anybody else. But nobody likes to blame oneself now, does one?
2. At least, said people are doing something about it. I’ve always argued that the only way of promoting necessary changes to limit polluting externalities was to hit peoples’ wallets.
A gas tax 5 years ago would have helped in this regard, and would also have given the U.S. a much greater leverage on other polluters/oil consumers such as China. Instead, that money goes to private companies and foreign (mostly hostile) governments. Oh well.
we give (by far) the most foreign aid
I’d rather not start a political argument, but this is true only in absolute numbers, and not per capita, which is the unit that matters if you want to give “generosity awards”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
As for the arguments about war, I won’t even start.
Martin Schwoerer : Right now, we are enjoying the best European (soccer) Cup ever. Over here in Germany, where gas is $9 per gallon, people of various nationalities celebrate each win of their team by driving through town, honking their horn. It goes on until 3 AM, several times a week. I don’t get it: it’s still cheaper to celebrate by driving around instead of drinking and dancing in a pub? Either beer is too expensive or gas is too cheap.
It doesn’t have to do with gas prices… or beer for that matter. Sports fan, hooligans, tifosi, torcida, or whatever it’s called is not a rational thing. And let’s be clear… in those circumstances, you got to celebrate ’cause your team won, so to the hell with the fuel economy BS.
Here where gas is US$ 0.05/liter, people do the same. And beer is 10 times the cost of gasoline, and they drink lots of it too.
It is terrifying to consider the impact that high fuel prices could have on the upcoming Presidential Election. It seems that the Federal Government is to blame for high gas prices according to many Americans…I’d be far more interested to hear them explain WHY that is!!! Of course none of them will be asked to specifically support their opinion because most probably couldn’t. But the government is supposed to do everything for us, right? Feed us, provide healthcare, provide housing…so they must be responsible for rising gasoline prices! While I’m at it, they really should just give us all vehicles and fuel at no cost!
Just like Boortz says, this is the “I want my mommy election” and blaming the government for any and everything fits right into that mentality. I used to find this amusing but now it’s actually getting scary! I hear Australia is a nice place to live, maybe I’ll start taking a look…
People are definitely driving less…there is much less traffic during the evenings and weekends around here, particularly on the interstates. Which makes driving much more pleasant.
The country needs true leadership, but in an election year politicians just end up pandering to whining babies just to get into office. This is one area where China has another advantage – when the leaders decide on something, it gets done. And it gets done fast.
Governments aren’t responsible for everything, but they can influence behavior with a higher gas tax. Do it in exchange for a tax credit and/or lower income taxes so it doesn’t hurt consumption of other goods. And maybe tax imported oil more than domestic sourced (or North America in general) oil, like they do with ethanol.
98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others“Improving public transportation will do a great deal of good, creating jobs, revitalizing downtown areas, and reducing pollution,” Sager said. “It also means a lot to me personally, as it should cut 20 to 25 minutes off my morning drive.”
No degree in economics needed. It’s basic high school economics…
Decreasing Supply + Increasing Demand = Higher Prices
It’s a physical fact of nature called Peak Oil.
No boogeymen needed.
The free market is their most fair, most humane, most efficent way of allocating any resource, petroleum included.
No Big Mommy Government needed.
marc says: I’ve taken a little economics, but I’m no expert. But here’s why I blame Bush et al.
A little knowledge is dangerous, why open your pie hole! (I corrected your punctuation, that isn’t your forte either!) You blame Bush because you are a flaming liberal and have BDS, you can’t help yourself. Your are sick.. Dr. Wild Bill prescribes listening to Rush and Hannity and reading Ann Coulter and Michael Savage until you are healed.
reclusive_in_nature, thank you for your service in the fight for liberty!
My wife has a plan: “Kill ’em all. Take their oil.” The world is scared because they know we can do it.
I can tell you in the Chicago area there is absolutely no shortage of traffic, period. I went TO downtown “after” rush hour at 6:30pm or so & it was still bumper to bumper. Aren’t people supposed to be off at 5? At that time it was even worse coming OUT of downtown!
I am seriously thinking of picking up an 2004 ninja 250 if I find out it gets better gas mileage than my current bike. Should be fun and something easy to hand down to my brother who is currently working on his m/l class.
how about the federal RESERVE instead of the federal GOVERNMENT. well, when it comes to devaluing the dollar, i guess you can blame them both.
The free market determines the (lack of) value of the dollar. There isn’t much that the Fed can do to change the value of the dollar.
If you look at the M1 money supply figures, you can learn in about two seconds that nobody is operating the printing presses on triple shifts.
The dollar is declining because the free markets that determine its value have decided that at the moment, they don’t think much of what backs the dollar. That would be the US government, and the budget deficit and quagmire that it is mismanaging in Iraq.
In any case, it’s good that 68% of the public has figured out that there is a war premium being paid for at the pump, because that is obviously much of the issue. The war weakens the dollar, ties down the US militarily and financially, and creates uncertainty, all of which are fodder for speculative markets.
Combine that with low interest rates, and it’s no surprise that commodities of all sorts have been skyrocketing in price. Maybe I should start a Peak Rice blog and create a cult following for the doomsday food crowd.
WildBill, I hope and pray that you’re joking.
“A little knowledge is dangerous, why open your pie hole!”
“You blame Bush because you are a flaming liberal and have BDS, you can’t help yourself.”
First off, those are comma faults. In both sentences, you have two independent clauses separated by commas. You need conjunctions, buddy.
Don’t try correcting my grammar.
This is a blog. I don’t have time to bother with the subleties of grammar as I run to my computer in between teaching English lessons to my students.
Second, Bush and his Big Oil and PNAC cronies have gotten us into this mess. I’m proud to be a liberal. I’m proud that we liberals did not create this mess, and I’m proud that we will be given the chance to spend the next 8-16 years fixing it. You just keep on listening to the fear mongering by your friends Michael, Ann, Rush, Bill, and Sean while we clean up this oil-soaked mess you left us. Just keep listening to their propaganda, spin, and lies. Fortunately for the rest of us, America is waking up from this 8-year nighhtmare.
BTW, you did nothing to actually argue my logic. I’m heartened that this could potentially mean that your post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Even if it was, there are too many right-wing nutjobs that actually do think like that. Maybe one of them can argue my points with some reasoned logic and some hard facts? Anyone… anyone… crickets…
PCH,
You can make a good argument that the war is having a negative effect on the value of the dollar, but don’t let anyone make the mistake that quitting the war will turn that around. In the event of large global turmoil, the dollar becomes as good as gold if, and only if, there is widely held fear and respect for our military power and willingness to use it in a good cause.
If you want to see oil at $500 a barrel, just pull out the troops. No worries about filling the tank of your mercedes, you won’t be able to buy the parts for one anymore anyway.
Marc,
The idea that liberal ideology has done nothing to get us into the current mess is just laughable. Most of your posts on this thread have been so ridiculous that they did not warrant a reply. Wildbill’s argument was easily as logical and serious as any of yours. Get over it. Both sides of the aisle have plenty of responsibility for our energy crunch and economic woes which are only being pushed from “challenging” to “worrisome” by constant hype from the press and the left.
Note the reality. Unemployment lower than historical average. Fuel lines and shortages – none. We all know it’s not ideal, but let’s keep it in perspective that the present situation is best described with something like: “Things might seem okay, but…”
PS I am with you on the grammer thing on forums, if it’s easily readable, it’s fine.
If you want to see oil at $500 a barrel, just pull out the troops.
It’s the opposite. Everybody (except for Americans, apparently) knows that the US is a paper tiger unable to handle crisis while it is stuck in Iraq.
To be a superpower, you need to be able to react. A the moment, the US can’t respond to anything, and it is reminding the world every day how ineffective it is. Losing a war live on TV is not behavior well suited to maintaining superpower status.
Toward the end of the Vietnam war, at a time when everybody except Americans understood that we were losing, we experienced the exact same phenomenon of a weakening dollar and rising commodity prices. We’re just repeating history that apparently taught us nothing.
Withdrawing from Vietnam was the best thing that we could have done for the US economy. We need to learn from the past, and understand that our war creates massive opportunities for speculators. Markets don’t like uncertainty, and we are paying for that doubt at every fillup.
The free market determines the (lack of) value of the dollar. There isn’t much that the Fed can do to change the value of the dollar.
PCH101, you actually allude to what the Federal Government can do to change the value of the dollar in your own post. The federal debt is a huge factor in detemining the value of the dollar; both in terms of the monetary supply, printing more money to keep interest rates low and borrowing high at the same time, and in terms of foriegn investors’ willingness to buy our debt. If the feds could find a way to stop buying votes through handouts to people in New Orleans or any other place that suffers some very foreseeable catastrophe, the government might, no, definitely would not have the large stifling debt with which it has saddled everyone of us.
Personally, I would like to see people stand on their own two feet. I guess this makes me a greedy evil conservative, despite the fact that I spend a portion of my time and money helping others. You know what the result of this type of charity is as compared to government forced “charity”? People who actually deserve a break get one. The money, and time, actually go to the aid of the people who I am directing it towards, not to beaurecrats who administer the programs and ensure that little money goes to the people that are supposed to be receiving the help.
Now what was the original post about?
The federal debt is a huge factor in detemining the value of the dollar; both in terms of the monetary supply, printing more money to keep interest rates low and borrowing high at the same time, and in terms of foriegn investors’ willingness to buy our debt.
It is the Treasury that creates debt. The Fed prints money and (attempts to) set short-term interest rates.
That’s why the war is much of the culprit. The war costs money, which turned the surplus into a deficit and increased the overall debt. Investors don’t like the United States’ fiscal and political problems, and are punishing the dollar accordingly.
The Federal Reserve is not the problem. The underlying implication of the attack on the Fed — that a gold standard would fix this — is just wrong. (You aren’t making that point, but some others are.)
Gold standards produce endless cycles of economic depressions, not stability.
blunozer:
You’re just a lemming. Supply and demand? If supply is static and demand is now falling (and has been since the Katrina windfall for the oil companies [Oil exec says, “Honey, it’s your birthday, and there’s a hurricane forming in the
Gulf. What color would you like your Bentley to be?]), how can that be?? I think 90% of the population knows every excuse they come up with (S&D, dollar value, OPEC, lack of drilling, etc.) are just covers for the word GREED. The dot-com bubble burst; the housing bubble is bursting. The oil assholes’ day must be coming, if there is a God.
PCH,
Sorry, but everyone knows we have the most powerful military in the world -on paper.
However, if we consistently don’t win confrontations due to the lack of will. Our enemies and friends will rightly surmise that we are weak, and not able to do much other than blow up some stuff.
We presently have the ability to react to any crisis on the planet with enough military force to destroy any enemy without even resorting to nukes. PERIOD. It will be hard, and cause pain, but we have the ability. WHAT WE LACK IS WILL. Those who you are listening to, that say what we cannot do are assuming that we won’t CHOOSE to do things that we seem to not have the stomach for. What we can’t do is police any other countries, but what does that matter to a dead tyrant?
Leaving Iraq without victory will likely be the tipping point and cause our empire to begin decline. That would be a real shame when we are getting so close to being able to reasonably claim victory. Hell, we could have been at this point two years ago if we had presented our opponents with a united will to win instead of all this crap with people trying to take political advantage. The best idea would be to take all the folks who voted for the war, and then started whining about getting out and put them in uniform and tell them they can come back when they have won, and not before.
Let’s face it. The dollar doesn’t have a large advantage over the euro in any way except as a refuge in crisis. No one is willing to bet on Brussels in a crisis. We prove once again that we will not be cowed by violent thugs, and we will once again be seen as trustworthy leaders of the world.
Landcrusher…
“Most of your posts on this thread have been so ridiculous that they did not warrant a reply.”
I have only posted twice so far (and the second was just in response to WildBill). And I clearly took an extreme position, stating directly that I was open to other ideas. Yes I partly blame this administration. I’m not going to backtrack on that. CLEARLY, there is a lot more going on than even W can be held responsible for. The thing is, no one is really providing good evidence to either defend their positions or strike down otehrs. Peak Oil, yeah I believe in it too, but we dont seem real close to that yet, certainly not enough to justify this quick spike in prices. Increased demand? Actually, current lowering demand doesnt seem to be making much dent. Speculators, Yahoo business today has a good story about speculators. (Not that any of those reason are wrong, BTW.)
But my original post was just about ONE of those reasons, the top reason cited in the survey, government. They clearly do have some responsibility for this mess, and I think my explanation of ineptitude that created this cause and effect relationship is still sound. No one has yet to offer anything to convince me otherwise.
It is the Treasury that creates debt. The Fed prints money and (attempts to) set short-term interest rates.
PCH101:
Yes, the Treasury creates the debt, but it is the Federal Reserve that controls the flow of money. They can not just arbitrarily declare interest rates are x, they have to ensure that there is a supply of money (though not necessarily printed) available at that interest rate. So, when the government is borrowing money like crazy (I’d say a trillion dollars per year or there abouts is pretty darn crazy), the only way to keep interest rates low in general is to make more money available. When the increase in money suply outstrips increases in production, you have inflation. Of course, there are a number of other factors, but that would be a rather long discussion for a blog.
p.s. I agree that a gold standard would not necessarily be a good thing, but neither is unchecked government spending and borrowing.
marc,
My mistake, I may have lumped you in with some others and/or remembered stuff from some other threads. Still, blaming W? You didn’t just blame government, you went right after the target du jour – W.
First, for every economist who will disprove you, you can likely find one who will argue with him. You won’t solve anything that way.
Overwhelmingly, economists will agree that President’s, on their own, get much more credit/blame for economic change than they are due. Still, they love to argue over the margins. Then this discussion gets picked up in society as if it’s a big deal rather than a fine debate.
It really takes the Prez and Congress together to screw something up really well. (Before you throw out the obvious reply, note that conservative support for the republican congress after ’98 started to wane.)
Both parties have done little but add to the debt for decades. It has been a wonderful conspiracy. Only that devil Gingrich and his crew really ever did anything about it, and they had the internet boom as a tail wind to help.
The tax cuts raised revenues in a number of ways. you can argue about fair share and social values, but when you lower a rate, and increase revenues, then the rate was too high from an economic point of view.
Since you are a teacher, maybe you can ask around and find out how many teachers go ahead and retire early because their spouses have pushed them into the top bracket and even though they may love to teach, going to work just isn’t worth it anymore. I know people like that, so I think maybe you do as well. That’s what happens when a rate is too high. Seriously, if someone gives up a calling, like education, because the taxes on their labor are too high, how much less activity is happening in regular business? I can tell you, a LOT. Raise that rate back, and lot’s of folks who create wealth will quit or slow down. We aren’t talking about the rich, we are talking about the high earning families. We don’t tax wealth with income taxes, we tax work. Wealth is taxed as capital gains.
I have several ideas for new businesses that are currently shelved due to regulation and taxes. The risks are not worth the effort when the state will steal so much of my time and money. I am on the job market to go back and work as a salesmen, even though I am capable of producing more for our society. Maybe I am being lazy, or maybe those who “work for a living” yet pay almost no taxes are the ones being lazy. I don’t care which, the facts are I am not creating as many jobs as I could be creating because of taxes and regulation.
The tax cuts had nothing to do with the oil crisis except maybe allow people to buy more gas and transported goods instead of pay income taxes.
The war may be adding to the instability of the Middle East, but you know, the vote backing the war was as bipartisan as they come. So once again, going after W, ain’t gonna cut it.
As for low interest rates, there is hardly any agreement over the wisdom of low rates for so long, but if there is any consensus on the issue at all it takes the causes all the way back to Clinton and Greenspan. Once again, not W.
The stock market got inflated way back in the same period. Bush has not inflated the stock market. In fact, if anything, he has done a decent job keeping it from floundering for a good while (mostly as a result of – the tax cuts).
So there you go. A logical rebuttal, as requested.
BTW, I am no supporter of W. If you want to blame him for his actual screw ups, I won’t stop you.
WHAT WE LACK IS WILL.
No, what we lack are the abilities to achieve our present policy goals in Iraq and to resolve a new crisis were it to arise.
Sorry, but your view is highly Amerocentric and politicized. The markets are non-ideological — they survey the landscape, and look for results. The results of the Iraq war are a US budget deficit which has weakened its currency, an inability to create a friendly stable government that can function without considerable US investment and troop presence, and an unresolved internal conflict that the “surge” has not remedied.
These problems are all dialed into the value of the dollar and the horizons of the short-term speculators who drive current oil prices. The markets would reward us for leaving, just as they ultimately did with Vietnam. Had the US stayed in Vietnam, it would have followed the French into becoming a second-rate power.
Yes, the Treasury creates the debt, but it is the Federal Reserve that controls the flow of money.
And if you look at the money supply, you can see that it is basically unchanged.
There is a lot of confusion here about who does what. The Fed prints money, and they don’t print that much of it. The Congress and the President create the fiscal policies that determine our spending (the budget) and our deficits (tax policy.) The Treasury goes and sells the debt created by the fiscal policies and deficits of the Congress and the President.
In the scheme of things, the Fed isn’t doing much here to affect anything. They can attempt to set interest rates, but those are ultimately determined by the market. Of all of these players, they have the least to do with it.
It all goes back to the legislators and president who create the policies that cause the Treasury to borrow what it needs, while the Federal Reserve does what it can to control inflation.
Landcrusher, I appreciate your impassioned defence of trickle down economics. But Bush’s economic policies have been disastrous. There have been cases where dropping tax rates provided strong, lasting stimulus to the economy, under Reagan and Kennedy for example. (yes, a Democrat who cut taxes.) But recent US history is also filled with examples of economic booms spurred by tax increases. The golden age of the 90s followed the Clinton tax increases. It spurred record surpluses (since squandered, natch) and massive employment. It also spurred investment spending. There is this myth that when big business or wealthy individuals are taxed, they will not invest. Well that was certainly proven wrong.
I will admit to being in the tax and spend liberal camp. I can take the heat. I like having my social services (hello, I teach), my infrastucture (I think some people in Minnesota would have appreciated that too), and I think a good federal program CAN trump a private one, whose only motivation is profit (health care, Im lookin at you). But tax and spending cuts are often needed and can be helpful.
However, there are a variety of reasons why Bush’s tax cuts were bad policy. Not the least of which was their timing. There is no sense in going into al the other ways we are suffering, because this is about oil. Forget that the administration is made up of oilmen and women. Forget the sweetheart realtionship between the Bushes and Saudi Arabia. Forget that we are fighting (another Bush) war for oil. My singular point was about the low dollar. Some say (OMG I sound like FOX) that the weak dollar is the cause for the run up in oil prices. If that is accepted, then why is the dollar low? Who do we blame for the low dollar? The Fed has had to respond to this dismal economy by lowering intrerest rates and the US dollar has fallen in response. (It is this point that is the heart of my argument, but that I admit to having the least understanding of. Im not making the causal connection myself, other much smarter people have done so.)
These 8 years of disastrous economic policies (whoever you choose to blame for them) have resulted in unprecedented action by the Fed, leading to the low dollar, leading to high priced oil. If you dont think that Bush’s policies have created this mess, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Blame Congress, blame lazy people, blame whoever you want, but history will judeg Bush’s economic policies as some of the worst decisions by any president, right up there with Hoover, no? History will remember his failures, not the the mostly Republican Congress that went along with them.
“President’s, on their own, get much more credit/blame for economic change than they are due.”
Dully noted, but it has been a long time since a president yielded this much power. He and his mostly Republican Congress agreed on every bill for 6 years.
“Both parties have done little but add to the debt for decades”
Except for the 90s. Had Bush continued some of those policies, we could have had several more years of surpluses. But he squandered those in the first year.
“when you lower a rate, and increase revenues, then the rate was too high”
Agreed, but this is the crux isnt it? Bush singlehandedly brought about the massive lowering of rates, especially for top income earners and wealth holders. But revenues did NOT increase. So it was a failed policy. Big Time.
“the vote backing the war was as bipartisan as they come”
that’s a little disingenuous and you know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
Many, tho not enough Democrats stood out against this. The rest were playing along with the fear politics of the worst kind.
“As for low interest rates…if there is any consensus on the issue at all it takes the causes all the way back to Clinton and Greenspan. Once again, not W.”
Again, my point is that the Fed MUST respond to the economic crises at hand. I’m not saying that lowering interst rates is wrong, but that it was a necessary defence to the faltering economy, and for that I (as you have noticed) blame Bush.
“The stock market got inflated way back in the same period”
I wouldnt say inflated in the 90s, but a prolonged run-up due to a booming economy. This recent rise of the past couple years has been unprecedented because it has happened as the rest of the economy has faltered. (tho we have just entered a Bear Market, so this is changing.)
So thats all I got. Respond if you must, I know you disagree. And thats perfectly fine with me. As you said “for every economist who will disprove you, you can likely find one who will argue with him.”
If that is accepted, then why is the dollar low? Who do we blame for the low dollar? The Fed has had to respond to this dismal economy by lowering intrerest rates and the US dollar has fallen in response.
The Fed has little real world ability to set interest rates, particularly long term rates. It can try, but it can’t lower rates to levels at which that they can’t sell Treasuries.
If investors think that US Treasuries pay too little, they won’t buy them. If they don’t buy them, then we can’t support either the budget or the trade deficits. So it is imperative to us to sell them at a price that will actually get them sold on the market.
The Fed can try to influence things, but the market is much larger than the Fed or any other government. At the end of the day, the market is like a large ocean, and the Fed can either try to swim in it or eventually drown.
Marc,
I said nothing about trickle down economics. Nothing at all.
The economic theories that you can spur a boom with taxes are out of favor with almost every economist at this point. You may reduce a recession, you may get less negative results than others like me might think, etc. However, you can’t tax your way to a boom. No way. The correlations of economic prosperity following higher tax periods are not causation at all. One important point to look at is the total taxes vs. GDP. Even if the income tax is nominally high, it often isn’t effectively increasing overall taxes because it is not the only tax, an it isn’t necessarily being paid. One really big bonus to the internet boom was that sales taxes were being avoided all over the place. The other thing going on was record low energy costs until near the end. These had nothing to do with US policy, and everything to do with lack of regulation by our and other governments. Clinton was giving leases away to the oil companies who otherwise would have ceased drilling off shore due to high cost, low reward prospects.
I will forget Bush if you stop bashing him. I will not forget “war for oil”. If you are willing to agree to say “war for stability in oil producing regions,” instead, then I will drop that as well.
Could you be really brief and say exactly what Bush did that was bad for the economy? Specifically? We covered invading Iraq, he didn’t go it alone. Do you remember the vote? I think only a few complete leftists and pacifists were in the no camp. There were a couple guys who said the were not dovish, but just didn’t think it would go well. There were some really, really cowardly guys who used afghanistan as an excuse (see next post to PCH), in order not to be seen as doves.
Bush didn’t yield a lot of power at all. He has been really weak. You see strenghth, I see reluctance to veto pork laden bills. Reagan had a good reason to go along with the pork, but Bush wasn’t winning the cold war, or the war on terror, so he should not have gone along.
I disagree on revenue vs. rates. I believe the cuts have increased revenues from the affected demographic. I KNOW capital gains and dividend decreases worked. I believe the only way to say revenues did not increase is to say that we would have gotten more because we would have taken more, but that is just ignoring that less income would have been produced and/or reported if the tax had not been reduced. Also, the numbers that include the AMT reductions are completely bogus because once they fail to exempt people just one year the party will end on that scam pronto. People WILL change behaviour to avoid any tax that is too high.
Congress started taking us back into debt before Bush got on board. Bush inherited a recession, and a bubbled market based on poor books that Clinton’s gang had let stand for a long time. The single biggest mistake that hit our economy that can be blamed on an administration was allowing Enron to have mark to market accounting. Congress helped, but the admin gets the blame there.
The vote was not disingenous. I don’t let leaders off that easy. You vote it, you own it. That is the prime responsibility of Congress. What is disingenous are all the excuses now being made by the left who immediately started undermining the war they authorized.
Once again, if you want to know what the economists think, many of them, in hindsight of course, believe that the fed allowed the internet bubble under Clinton with too much easy money. Bush inherited that, and the Fed had to go along to ease us out of crises that rippled from that and 9/11. You can’t blame 9/11 on Bush. Sorry.
PCH,
We may agree on an inability to meet policy goals. My point is different. I am arguing military ability.
We can meet military goals. Nation building is not a military function, and neither is policing. Just because you ask the Army to do it, doesn’t make it a military mission. Soldiers change diapers, but that doesn’t make it a martial art.
The military can and will continue missions in Afghanistan and Iraq while deploying to yet another theater. Casualties and costs will increase. The soldiers will have to stay in theater for years rather than months, and the whiny doves in government will just have to STFU and sell war bonds.
I may be reacalled to duty, sacrifices will have to be made. However, WE CAN DO IT. Don’t doubt it.
The dollar will climb in value when the world realizes that once again, the USA will respond when our interests are threatened. If our allies can’t be bothered to help, then they will be marginalized along with their currencies. They may simply lose their sovereignty in a few more years when the wolf finishes his preparations and goes to knock on their doors. I for one won’t be bothered to once again defend our european allies who can’t even be bothered to defend themselves.
Landcrusher, you have gotten so far off topic. We’re both gonna get banned if we continue. Undestandably, politics and autos are inextricably linked, so at the risk of deletion or banning, I will make just one more response since you asked me a question.
“Could you be really brief and say exactly what Bush did that was bad for the economy?”
The thing is, it doesnt matter what policy I say, you will say that Bush is not the responsible party. Many will agree with you, many will agree with me. History will be the judge. It took me 5 seconds to find articles listing his failures. Heres one.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/cheney_brings_f_1.php
I had a harder time finding anything about his successes.
While I’m at it…
“war for stability in oil producing regions”
I’ll never say that, sorry.
“I believe the cuts have increased revenues”
Pure speculation. Proof? Im sure revenues in the Caymans increased.
“The vote was not disingenous”
Your statement that the vote was bipartisan is what I was calling disingenuous. My link showed how many Democrats did not support the war. There was nothing bipartisan about it. Maybe disingenuous is the wrong word. How about just wrong.
and how can you say you have not been talking trickle down?
and yes, I can blame 9/11 on Bush. It’s easy, you should try it. Start with the daily briefing and go from there.
thats it, I’m done. At least we agree there’s no room for the grammar police in blogs. I do hold the original articles and editorials to a higher standard. If I see one more pluralization with an apostrophe!!! Oy, if I only wrote this much in college.
I don’t think the problem is so much that you’ll get banned as it is that I, and I’m sure a lot of other people simply hit delete when we see eight or 12 posts in this thread sitting in our mailbox, and we know that it has descended into a terminally boring debating match between two or three people who are no longer discussing cars but politics, religion, guns, sex…no, wait, sex would be okay, but the others are such snores that we tune out.
Which I guess is inevitable. These threads often deteriorate to the point where, like the HooBird, they fly in ever-decreasing circles until they fly up their own anuses and disappear…
The Federal Reserve does set the Fed Fund Rate, the rate that banks pay to borrow money. How can they possibly do this except through the authorization of more money in the economy? I’m not talking printed money; money does not need to be printed to exist. When a bank borrows $10 million dollars from the Federal Reserve Bank at 2.5%, they don’t actually receive a shipment of $10 million paper dollars; it is just electronically transferred. The paper money kept in the vault is a totally seperate process. I am sure that you are aware of this,as I am aware that long-term interest rates (mortgages) are set by the bond markets. But, could you explain how the Federal Reserve can set a low interest rate and not increase the money supply. The lower the rate, the more money banks will borrow with the intent of loaning it out at a profit to individuals and businesses.
If supply is static and demand is now falling
Demand in the US is falling. Demand worldwide is growing. And oil is a global product.
Robstar :
June 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I am seriously thinking of picking up an 2004 ninja 250 if I find out it gets better gas mileage than my current bike. Should be fun and something easy to hand down to my brother who is currently working on his m/l class.
Hey Robstar- I just sold my best friend’s bike for him because he never gets to ride it. He lives on the road at least five days each week and drives a company-provided Ford Fusion (SEL V6, leather, not bad for a freebie) and they cover gas for it, too. So his bike never gets used except the occaisonal weekend ride and he asked me to find a buyer for it.
The funny thing is that the bike is a 2004 Kawasaki Ninja 250R! Pricing guides consider up to 6800 miles average for an ’04 under-350cc, but his only had 2200 on it and was in as-new condition. Retail value on KBB shows $2230, so I priced it at $2000 and hoped it would sell…
I posted it on Craiglist at 8:30 on Wedsnewsday night and by 10:00 on Thursday morning I had almost 30 email inquiries and 12 voicemails! By 2pm, I had the $2k in hand and the bike had a new home. I was NOT prepared for that sort of response, but it’s clear that bikes an increasingly hot commodity much like econocars.
I should have asked a little more….but the buyer was an 18-yr old kid and this was his first bike, so at least I did a good deed by pricing it where I did…
I wonder if you build any good karma for accidental/unintentional acts of kindness? =)
I respect every individual’s right to hold their own views and opinions and to speak freely as long as it doesn’t impede any other individual from doing the same. It doesn’t mean I’ll like it or agree with it…but everybody deserves the right to run their mouth. In other words, I support your right to “dish it out”, but you’re most likely going to have to “take it” in return. Turn about and all that…
I can’t stand Dubya and am often dumbfounded when I spend much time thinking just how much damage his administration has caused or allowed over these last eight years! The knee-jerk reaction for a lot of voters will be to vote for ANYTHING that is different from the current administration- in their simplistic, ill-informed naivety rejecting all things Republican will make it all better.
We have the most ‘moderate’ Republican candidate of my lifetime (33yrs) on the ballot and I’m ecstatic about the possiblities but also terrified that enough Americans could be foolish enough to squander our country’s greatest hope! He has the intelligence, common sense and most importantly- the BALLS to get us back on the road to recovery!
The sheer number of Obama-supporters who are “blind sheep” literally keeps me up at night terrified of how tragically wrong things could go in November. I have read/heard at least three different reports in the last few days citing that the majority of Hillary supporters are undecided now that she is out of the race. Their support didn’t automatically transfer to Obama as many expected.
Even though I expressed my disdain for bumper stickers in last week’s posting, I decided that some things are too important! My Mazda3 now has a McCain for President sticker on the hatchback window.