I can't figure out if Democratic thinking on economic issues is driven more by ignorance or outright contempt towards capitalism. The latest example of this bizarre attitude is on display in the drilling issue:
Let's take these one by one. "Investments" is nothing more than politician-speak for government spending. In order for this to be worthwhile you have to believe that the government is better than the private sector in identifying alternative sources of energy, which is highly dubious in the extreme. A profit-driven enterprise accountable to both the shareholders and the bottom line is going to do a far better job than the government, which is accountable to basically no one.
Perhaps more outrageous is the proposed crackdown on oil speculators. Those that speculate on the price of oil essentially make bets as to its future worth. If they are wrong they stand to lose money. It is therefore in their interest to be as accurate as possible. So basically they are providing a service by providing insight into future prices and allowing people to plan accordingly. Cracking down on such activities is basically the same as shooting the messenger.
The last point, meanwhile, simply indicates the suspicion and mistrust that exists between Democrats and the private sector, and an assumption that businesses are always out scheming.
Lastly, Harry Reid's potential demand that oil companies be forced to sell oil drilled in the U.S. for exclusively domestic consumption is beyond silly. Oil should be sold and consumed where it makes the most sense, as evidenced by market signals. If the oil can be exported overseas for a higher return than consuming it in the U.S., so be it. To do otherwise would be to leave money on the table and leave us all poorer.
Although Senate Democrats are slowly easing away from opposition to offshore drilling, it’s clear that the majority party is not giving it away for nothing.Oil drilling by itself should be something that everyone can agree upon. Gas prices are high, so in order to reduce them you need to expand supply or reduce demand (which higher prices are already doing -- the wonder of the marketplace). Expanding supply through increased drilling should be a no-brainer. Instead, Democrats are demanding a price for acceding to such policy, in the form of "investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration."
One idea floated by Reid would require that whatever oil is drilled in newly opened areas would need to be sold in the United States.
Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration.
“If they were showing in good faith that they were drilling on some of the 68 million acres they have now, it might change some of our attitudes,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
Let's take these one by one. "Investments" is nothing more than politician-speak for government spending. In order for this to be worthwhile you have to believe that the government is better than the private sector in identifying alternative sources of energy, which is highly dubious in the extreme. A profit-driven enterprise accountable to both the shareholders and the bottom line is going to do a far better job than the government, which is accountable to basically no one.
Perhaps more outrageous is the proposed crackdown on oil speculators. Those that speculate on the price of oil essentially make bets as to its future worth. If they are wrong they stand to lose money. It is therefore in their interest to be as accurate as possible. So basically they are providing a service by providing insight into future prices and allowing people to plan accordingly. Cracking down on such activities is basically the same as shooting the messenger.
The last point, meanwhile, simply indicates the suspicion and mistrust that exists between Democrats and the private sector, and an assumption that businesses are always out scheming.
Lastly, Harry Reid's potential demand that oil companies be forced to sell oil drilled in the U.S. for exclusively domestic consumption is beyond silly. Oil should be sold and consumed where it makes the most sense, as evidenced by market signals. If the oil can be exported overseas for a higher return than consuming it in the U.S., so be it. To do otherwise would be to leave money on the table and leave us all poorer.
No comments:
Post a Comment