Democrats Responsible for High Gas Prices in US
Power Line | Jun. 6, 2008
For several decades, the Democratic Party has pursued policies designed to drive up the cost of petroleum, and therefore gas at the pump. Remarkably, the Democrats don’t seem to have taken much of a political hit from the current spike in gas prices. Probably that’s because most people don’t realize how different the two parties’ energy policies have been.
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:
ANWR Exploration:
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration:
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration:
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity:
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
So now you know WHO to BLAME next time someone brings up the subject.
. . . more
Thursday 12 Jun 2008 | Banescu | Energy, Politics |
I have absolutely no love for Democrats (or any other kind of liberal, for that matter). However, I just can’t totally agree with the idea that Democrats are responsible for high gas prices. There are a number of factors that determine the price that consumers are forced to pay for gasoline, or any other kind of petroleum derived energy product. One factor is the bidding in the futures market. The futures market is in a way “price fixing”. That is… a set price of a commodity is fixed for a future date. Someone powerful enough to control a reserve of oil will just sit on it, not drill for it, and just wait until the price goes up for that commodity. More “bang for the buck”. The whole process of how prices are set for products is very confusing, and most likely is made that way to confuse the public and limit their knowledge of the process. The answer to “how do we provide the products necessary for a comfortable lifestyle to the public”, is free enterprise. Competition is the answer. During America’s “Gilded Age”, its citizens invented all sorts of solutions to the technical needs of a growing country. It was a time of “American Genius” This was before we had “liberals” in control of the country. This was before some phony conservative and left winger, in unison, were screaming for H-1B visas. We have the genius to create new technical innovations in our native born and bred Americans, the who descended from the folks who made our nation work during the “Gilded Age”. Bringing in immigrants from third world countries because they’ll work for a lot less money, only drags our nation down. Look at India. Does it look like an advanced nation? Why bring in the people who made India a backward country into America to provide technical skills? Lets develop our own kids, right here. Lets provide the technical advancements that will provide real competition to the oil companies for our nation’s energy needs.
Anton. The “Gilded Age” also brought us corporate corruption on a grand scale that included the price squeezing of farmers (family farms BTW) by the railroads and those that controlled the commodity markets as well as wholesale land fraud, the vertical integration of Standard Oil and even more extensive corporate influence over the Federal Government than we have now. Such inflence led, in part, to the Tea Pot Dome scandal after the arranged election of arguably the worst President in American history, Warren G. Harding*. Not exactly free enterprise, at least not as I understand it. We will never know the extent of Harding’s acutal involement in the corporate theft of billions of barrels of oil from the U.S. government because his wife burned most of the records when he died. It is not too much of a stretch to believe that the Great Depression was at least partially the result of all this managed enterprise and corruption which you, Anton, so blythely label as ‘free’.
The Progressive Movement, of which the modern Democrats are the heir, was spawned in an attempt to correct these abuses (and others such as child labor). The Union movement grew because their were genuine abuses that needed to be corrected. That fact that it later became just as corrupt as the corporations against which it fought does not change the fact.
I fear you are practicing a version of ideological presentism in your historical analysis. It is no more correct or attractive coming from a ‘conservative’ than it is from a ‘liberal’.
*Harding was put up for the Presidency by his handlers because he was eaisly controlled and ‘looked like a President’. He at least carried on his trysts with his mistress (smuggled into the White House by the Secret Service) in the cloak closets instead of the Oval Office.
Michael Bauman. I have absolutely no illusion that there no corruption during America’s “Gilded Age”. However, I feel that nobody in their right mind can argue that the technological advances that were made during that time have remained unmatched. People all over the world want to get into America to enjoy the advanced lifestyle that we enjoy, even the complainers. Exactly how corrupt President Harding was remains really unknown. However, it was during his presidency that America enjoyed much greater prosperity than during many other times, certainly greater than Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. It is just appalling how Roosevelt aided the genocidal Soviet Union during his presidency. Many millions of innocent Orthodox Christians were murdered because Stalin was able to survive and continue to unleash the Bolshevik reign of terror. The aid given that regime by the U. S. government, under Roosevelt, made it possible. I can go on and on. President Wilson had a mistress, which made it possible for him to be controlled. How about Bill Clinton? What did he do that otherwise perhaps he wouldn’t have done if not for his sex scandals? Probably all politicians are corrupt to some degree. However, when the people of this country were free to invent and follow their dreams, in addition to corruption,some incredible technological advancements have taken place. Liberals love to use these technological advances, to their advantage. For example, I see lots of liberals driving like maniacs and enjoying their cars. It seems that a lot of rich liberals love to fly their private jets as well. These same liberals also just love to complain.
Anton, you covered a lot of ground.
Point #1
The Industrial Revolution is really what you are talking about. They dyanmics of that are complex. IMO, political ideology had little to do with it, rather the other way around. As the energy of the explosion dissapated, other ideologies could come into play.
Point #2
England and the United States and other western ‘Christian’ powers have a long history of sacrificing Christians in other countries to cozy up to the tyrannts because the tyrannts have the muscle and poltical power. It is still going on today under Bush. Jesus told us what to expect from the world. I don’t mean to excuse the behavior, but it has little to do with whether a particular leader is considered ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, Christians are expendable, Jews are expendable. To me it is the clearest proof that the U.S. is not, nor has it ever been a Christian nation. We are a secular nation with a Chrisitan flavor.
Point #3
You say “when the people of this country were free to invent and follow their dreams, in addition to corruption,some incredible technological advancements have taken place.” I hold that there was no political or ideological support for the freedom you see in the late 19th, early 20th century. The freedom was there because of the sheer size of the country and the inability of even the most determined monopolizer to control it all. The political ideology was decidedly not in support of individual ability and opportunity. Until the Progressives came along, the prevailing political ideology was in support of corporate power. Social Darwinist acutally–blacks, Indians, women, Irish paupers or any one ordinary need not apply.
You accuse the liberals of enjoying the fruits of the capitialism they seem to want to destroy, yet you seem to want to take advantage of the individual and human rights fought for by the Progressives (which, as I pointed out are the forebearers of modern Democrats and Liberals) and read that back into the economic history of the time. Doesn’t work for me. Ordinary people have far more freedom now than at any time in history. What we lack is the will to exercise it. In the U.S., we are seldom forced into giving up our liberty, but we are seduced into abandoning it by fear; a fear that ideologs of all persuasions excel at promoting. Christianity alone can overcome that climate of fear or should I say, Jesus Christ has already achieved the victory if we choose to participate.
Even if they don’t start there, all political ideologies ultimately result in either tyranny or anarchy simply because they are of the world. I have no faith in any of them or patience for ideological history of any stripe. Some ideologies are inherently destructive such as communism simply because they leave no room for either the sacred or the human–they are demonic. Others are initially more benign but as they continue to ignore both the human and the sacred they begin to drift into oppressive, mindless legalism and jingoism–more interested in power than anything else–they too become destructive. The Progressive momement certainly did that. The Capitalist Ideology of Progress and Prosperity (as opposed to the simple capitalism of economic activity) truncates and distorts both the sacred and the human when we allow it to because it becomes an idol. Ideology is an attractive temptation simply because it provides easy answers to everything. Just follow the formula and all will be well in the world. Utopian nonesense redolent of the heresy of chiliasm IMO.
Concern for the human while acknowledging and gaining strength from the sacred, or as Jesus put it: “Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” should guide our behavior. When we allow ideological battles to obscure what God calls us to do right now, we each die a bit and we each slide a little further from Him who is the only lover of mankind.
Anton writes: “However, when the people of this country were free to invent and follow their dreams, in addition to corruption,some incredible technological advancements have taken place.”
It seems that you’re talking about this as something that occurred in the past but not today. Speaking of technological advancements, how about computers, the internet, cell phones, CDs and DVDs, new communications technologies, all of modern medicine, etc., etc.?
Anton: “Liberals love to use these technological advances, to their advantage. For example, I see lots of liberals driving like maniacs and enjoying their cars. It seems that a lot of rich liberals love to fly their private jets as well. These same liberals also just love to complain.”
Thanks, next time I fly in my private jet I’ll remember not to complain.
But really, what’s happening is that the political right is falling apart. Their issues largely don’t appeal to people. People don’t want Social Security privatized. They don’t like the war. Most people think abortion should be legal. By a huge margin they didn’t agree with the right about the Terri Schiavo case. They are tired of the “scandal of the week” coming from the Bush administration. And so on.
Republicans know they are in trouble. One Republican member of the House said that if Republicans were dog food they’d be taken off the shelf. Many other Republicans are disturbed by recent mid-term losses of what previously were safe seats. Yet other Republicans, Newt Gingrich included, are very worried about being clobbered in the upcoming election. This is what Republicans are saying about themselves.
At this point it’s difficult even to know who is on the “right.” Is McCain? Huckabee? Paul? Bush? Is it “right” to favor the war in Iraq or to favor withdrawal? Is it “right” to be concerned about civil liberties post-9/11, or to favor ever-increasing governmental powers of surveillance and detention?
All of this stuff about how Democrats are somehow responsible for every bad thing is just the shrill cry of a political movement that is on the ropes. Glenn Greenwald puts it this way:
As the Right comes to accept that their political movement lies in ruins — as evidence of their rejection by the country becomes too compelling to ignore — the desperation and frustration level increases and much of this rhetoric will become more extreme . . . and the reaction is likely to intensify as that movement grows more impotent and marginalized.
Anton,
Oil prices are not high simply because of bidding in the futures market. Speculation may be contributing to some extent, but the price increase from $20 to $135 over the past several years has not primarily been caused by speculation or the futures market. The problem is almost completely related to supply and demand. At these oil prices, nobody but the Saudi Arabia is sitting on idle capacity. All other OPEC members and private companies are producing flat-out as fast as possible to take advantage of high prices.
There is a real supply problem. Part of this is due to the incompetence of and/or effect of Marxist governments on state-owned oil companies, which control much of the world’s reserves. But the Democrats are to blame when it comes to limiting domestic supply. They are further to blame when they block the growth of all other alternatives that can supply large amounts of energy efficiently. Solar and wind power do not count because they cannot supply close to what we demand. Ethanol is inefficient and terribly detrimental to the environment and food supply. I would add that this is where a lot of people say something like “But ANWR is only three years’ supply so it wouldn’t help anyway.” This is nonsense and indicates a lack of understanding of the market. If the U.S. could boost domestic production by just 500,000 to 1 million bbl/day from ANWR and other unexplored/undrilled resources, the pad between supply and demand would grow enough to make a difference in the oil price. So feel free to assign blame to the Democrats.
We will either address the supply problem or prices will continue to increase and take care of the demand, with much economic pain and suffering.
Mr. Holman #5:
Yes, the Republican Party is in tatters, at least for the moment. Not long ago (2000 - 2004) the Democrat Party was in tatters, facing historic losses in Congress and losing presidential elections against a rather uncharismatic opponent. The American people are increasingly fickle and impatient. This is perhaps because neither party is addressing some of the most serious challenges facing this country. Perhaps this is because nobody wants to tell the truth: We are in for some serious pain due to our profligate spending and the degradation of our educational system. Maybe Barack Obama is correct, and people are so tired of debating issues that they will all just rally around his extreme-left positions so we can, as he puts it, “stop having the same old arguments.” If he is correct and Americans have become so tired of the debate inherent in the democratic political process, this country will quickly give up its freedom.
This is all very fascinating, but does nothing to satisfy our demand for energy.
The Democrat Party has stood against increasing the domestic supply of every source of energy capable of significantly satisfying demand. Greenwald’s conjecture aside, pointing this out now is not a case of overheated rhetoric any more than it was when Republicans pointed this out ten years ago and in every year in between.
Jim, what you are telling me is the ‘people’ don’t want the responsibility of freedom. They’d rather have someone do it for them, no matter how much it costs.
D George writes: ” . . . pointing this out now is not a case of overheated rhetoric any more than it was when Republicans pointed this out ten years ago and in every year in between.”
It’s one thing to advocate for offshore drilling and quite another thing to say that Democrats are “responsible” for high gas prices. World production of oil is something around 70 million barrels a day. If we were getting a million barrels a day out of new offshore wells, that would add slightly more than one percent to current worldwide production, not enough to have a significant effect on prices.
Also, what’s missing from the equation is the risk and potential cost of damage to the environment. If something goes wrong out there and we destroy a fishery for 20 years, how much is that worth?
Michael writes: “Jim, what you are telling me is the ‘people’ don’t want the responsibility of freedom. They’d rather have someone do it for them, no matter how much it costs.”
No, I think they just don’t trust the Republicans or the political right any more. (Which doesn’t mean that the Democrats are in any sense worthy of trust.) The Republicans largely ran the show for a while and people didn’t like the results. Unfortunately, the Democrats were largely spineless and didn’t serve as an effective opposition.
At this point even the Republicans expect to lose several more House and Senate seats. Their presidential candidate is routinely criticized by conservative politicians and pundits. Even Rush Limbaugh said that if McCain got the nomination it would destroy the Republican party, and his brother David said bluntly that McCain isn’t a conservative. Ann Coulter has ripped into McCain regularly, and even said she would support Clinton over McCain. Surprisingly (or not) a number of conservatives have come out in favor of Obama. Quite a change from four years ago.
As I mentioned, it’s not even clear what the “conservative” position is on several important issues, and it certainly isn’t clear who conservatives are supposed to vote for this time around. Limbaugh predicts that many conservatives will simply stay home.
Mr. Holman #9:
“If we were getting a million barrels a day out of new offshore wells, that would add slightly more than one percent to current worldwide production, not enough to have a significant effect on prices.”
I disagree. One percent does not sound like much, but it is significant relative to the narrow gap between supply and demand. That extra percent would bring the price down significantly. How we raise that production matters, too. If we raise it domestically, there is very little risk premium on that production, and the revenue stays here at home instead of going overseas.
In so far as the Democrats (and some Republicans) have obstructed (using fillibuster when they were in the minority) the increase of domestic oil supply, and the increase of domestic supply of any known feasible energy resource capable of significantly satisfying demand, the Democrats share in responsibility for high energy prices.
When it comes to energy, the Democrats continually come up with the wrong answers. Ethanol has contributed to food price inflation and carries the cost of severe, but not widely publicized, environmental degradation. Using gas to run power plants, a Clinton-administration favorite, is ridiculous given the constrained supply of domestic gas and the reluctance to permit LNG terminals. Nuclear power makes much more sense, and is extremely safe with current technology, but that is obstructed by the Democrats as well. Then the idea of punitive “windfall” profit taxes on domestic oil producers is so stupid, again guaranteed to have the effect of suppressing supply, that it is hardly worth bringing up.
“Also, what’s missing from the equation is the risk and potential cost of damage to the environment. If something goes wrong out there and we destroy a fishery for 20 years, how much is that worth?”
The environmental risk is certainly not missing from the consideration. In fact, the U.S. government and citizenry obsess about the environmental risk. The technology employed by the oil industry for offshore drilling is space-age and leaps and bounds beyond what was used back in the 60’s (that is what comes to mind for most people - the Santa Barbara spill). The risk is very low using modern technology and with the application of modern regulations, and in the event of an incident the technology available for contaning a spill and remediating damage has improved greatly too.
“No, I think they just don’t trust the Republicans or the political right any more.”
I hope you enjoy it while it lasts. The Republicans made some mistakes, and the Democrats employed the fillibuster to great effect. We’ll see if they can govern. Given the lack of economic common sense and desire to implement policies that were tried and proved to fail in the 1970s, I’m betting they’ll run the economy and social stability into the ground if they gain complete control.
Jim, Everything carries potential risk. This comment from you does not add anything constructive to this discussion:
What if, what if, what if? What if a giant meteor strikes New York and destroys Wall Street? What if you catch a strain of drug-resistant TB when you go to the supermarket and an illegal alien sneezes on you? What if my water heater relief valve malfunctions and my house blows up? What if the CO2 created by the jet-setting AlBore and all his radical leftist friends really does tip the world over into massive warming? What if hypocritical liberal millionaires who don’t follow their own hysterical predictions and continue to “pollute” at 50 to 100 times the rates of ordinary Americans finally wake up and apologize to the world for their hypocrisy and stupidity?
What is the risk of you getting into your car and driving? What is the risk of you taking a shower?
But since you raised the issue here’s a llittle tidbit that should assuage your fears:
Get that? I know, facts and reality mean little when folks just like to “emote”, but I gave it a shot just the same.
When the day comes that all the easily extracted oil is gone (we have plenty of oil, most of what’s left is very hard to get out), do I tell my grandchildren that oil is finite? Do I tell them that shale and tar sand oil is expensive to extract? Or do I tell them to blame everything on the Democrats?
While all of the Democrats are to blame, there are also many liberal Republicans, including President Bush, who did little to help in these last few years. However, they have finally woken up from their stupor and are now DOING SOMETHING to help and take care of the energy crisis created by Congress.
Meanwhile the statist, communist, radical-leftists, and delusional Democrats continue to block any meaningful and effective solution that has been presented. They’re ignoring reality and plunging this country into another recession, strangling our economy, and sending us all to the poor house. So yes, David, you can BLAME the Democrats with a clean conscience, they’re really showing us how much they “care” for all of us and this country’s future.
Chris B. writes: “What is the risk of you getting into your car and driving? What is the risk of you taking a shower?”
Slight risk to me, close to zero risk to my neighbors.
Chris B: “But since you raised the issue here’s a llittle tidbit that should assuage your fears:
Even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.
Get that? I know, facts and reality mean little when folks just like to “emote”, but I gave it a shot just the same.”
Well, emote on this: in 1969 an offshore oil well blowout released somewhere between 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil — somewhere around three million gallons of oil — that formed an 800 square mile oil slick and polluted 35 miles of California coastline.
Here’s a list of 15 other offshore oil well blowouts, one of which released 3.5 million gallons of oil:
http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/i-blowout.htm
It seems to me that this is an issue that a reasonable person could be concerned about.
D. George writes: “One percent does not sound like much, but it is significant relative to the narrow gap between supply and demand. That extra percent would bring the price down significantly.”
It would bring the price down somewhat, but temporarily. With worldwide demand for oil increasing several percent a year, a one percent increase in production ultimately wouldn’t do very much. And there’s no guarantee that other oil producing countries wouldn’t simply reduce production so as to keep prices higher.
D. George: “The technology employed by the oil industry for offshore drilling is space-age and leaps and bounds beyond what was used back in the 60’s (that is what comes to mind for most people - the Santa Barbara spill).”
Most of the offshore oil spills occurred long after the 1960s, some in the 2000s.
Oh dear, poor Jim wants a world without risks and dangers. He demands perfection and absolute safety in all things. As he keeps dreaming and hoping for magic to provide the energy he depends on to live, maybe he should tie pillows on his feet lest he should trip and crack his skull, stop eating any food that might make him sick, breathe air that might give him cancer, drive a car that might get into an accident, handle any cutlery that might cut him, step into the sunlight lest he get skin cancer, and use any power tools that might chop off his thumbs. It’s tough being a liberal-minded fantasy wonk… Reality is just too much for them…
Chris B. writes: “It’s tough being a liberal-minded fantasy wonk… Reality is just too much for them…”
So if I understand correctly, the “conservative” position is that the risk of a major oil well blowout a couple of miles from shore is not even worth thinking about. Thousands of dead seals and sea lions, tens of thousands of dead and dying oil-covered birds, fisheries destroyed for years, clam beds gone, tourism on the coast vanishes for several years, coastal hotels and resorts go bankrupt, fishermen lose their livelihoods and the boats, etc. And the “conservative” response is — what? Oops? Stuff happens? Don’t be a wimp, suck it up? What, me worry?
And all of this is to make sure that we all can consume as much oil as possible, as fast as possible, at the lowest possible price.
Let me ask you a question: in what sense is all of that “conservative?” What exactly is being “conserved?” Not the environment. Not the oil, a finite resource.
The problem is even that’s not going to happen. If oil companies got the green light to start drilling today, many say that it would be 2030 before any significant production started.
But more important, your view of the oil companies and the economics of oil is completely flawed. You seem to think that the mission of oil companies is to produce as much as possible so as to keep prices low. It’s not. They have absolutely no interest in low prices. A recent article in Business Week — hardly a “liberal” journal — noted that “Big oil companies can continually miss their [production] targets or even target no growth and still shine on Wall Street due to the peculiar nature of commodity businesses. Less supply of a commodity means higher prices. Higher oil prices mean more profits for the oil companies.”
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/
db20080319_269345_page_2.htm
So even if oil companies were pumping offshore today on both the east and west coasts, it is highly unlikely that that would have an effect on prices, because they would simply reduce production elsewhere so as to keep prices at the current level.
But in your view of economics — apparently the “conservative” view — companies want to flood the market with their product so as to drive down prices. Farmers want to increase wheat production so that they can paid less for wheat. Diamond mines want to flood the market with diamonds so that they can get paid less for diamonds. And oil companies want to make huge capital investments and increase production so that they can get paid less for oil. Who’s in fantasy land now?
Oil company executives were recently hauled before the senate judiciary (?) committee in order to give politicians sound bites for the evening news. I heard some of these sound bites on NPR, and I’m sure it gave liberals everywhere a frisson of indignation. Lost were the testimonies themselves, which you can read here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3347. If you want to start to understand the oil/gasoline industry this would be a good place to start.
Jim, your last comment is hopelessly confused. As you will learn if you read the testimonies, this is a very competitive industry. Moreover, most of the price of gasoline goes toward crude oil purchases. US oil companies control only about 5% of worldwide crude oil. Oil company profits account for only about 10 cents per gallon. Even if you outlawed oil company profits you would only lower the price 10 cents.
The purpose of opening offshore drilling is to give the foreign crude players more competition which, as D. George continues to point out, makes a huge difference in a tight demand market.
In regards to the environmental issues, here as in forestry, you do not avoid environmental problems by outlawing domestic production. You merely move it somewhere else in the world where environmental standards are lower.
No, farmers want to increase wheat production so they can increase total revenue and therefore total profit, not so that they can maximize % profit.
Mr. Holman #16:
“So even if oil companies were pumping offshore today on both the east and west coasts, it is highly unlikely that that would have an effect on prices, because they would simply reduce production elsewhere so as to keep prices at the current level.”
This comment indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of economics. The facts are simple. Supply and demand drive prices. There is no cartel of private companies, and there is no conspiracy at work.
This can only be true if the private oil companies have formed a cartel, and that is not happening. It is illegal, and the government has repeatedly investigated the oil industry for price-fixing (and price-gouging) and has come up with nothing every time.
Companies do not cut back on production to keep the price high, because other companies will gain revenue as a result. If I am an oilman, and I shut in production in an attempt to raise prices, it is solely my loss and the rest of the indstry’s gain. If I continue to be stupid like this, I will be bought out by a better operator who sees more potential value in my property than I do.
The quote from Business Week is misleading. The gain from higher prices that oil companies realize today is the benefit from past investments in oilfields, not from voluntarily slowing down production. If they cannot find places to develop (invest in) today, they will lose market share and their revenues will ultimately decrease. This is a challenge as state-owned monopolies control the vast majority of reserves, and increasing domestic production is hampered by government policy.
An increase in domestic production, or even the demonstration of intent to do so, would signal to Saudi that they risk losing market share if they don’t do all they can to meet demand. That is one thing that scares the Saudis to death because it happened to them in the 1980s. The Saudis will be as pleased as punch if we do stupid things that suppress domestic production like implementing “windfall profit” taxes, keeping our domestic resources out of play, or go Marxist and nationalize the domestic oil producers and refiners as at least two Democrats have suggested in the past several weeks.
Tom C writes: “No, farmers want to increase wheat production so they can increase total revenue and therefore total profit, not so that they can maximize % profit.”
So why did OPEC decide to keep production at low levels for such a length of time?
According to you, OPEC was acting against their interests by keeping supplies short.
Somehow, I’m doubting that’s the reality.
JamesK, they are acting against their long-term economic self-interest. Higher oil prices make alternatives more attractive and feasible for one thing as well as encouraging use of other supplies that are marginally more expensive to produce.
However, it is in line with their political interests as without the oil, they would be nothing politically on the world stage or even in their own country.
Of course none of this addresses the issue of refining capacity which is severely lacking because of draconian environmental regulations and the total lack of any reasonable or feasible energy policy by the feds of either party. Just another example of the ideological bankruptcy of the political oligarcy in this country.
James K and Jim Holman -
You guys are both confusing the political aims of a cartel with the economic incentives of companies in a free market.