March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
April 27, 2006
/ 29 Nissan, 5766
Once GOPers surrender their principles and understanding of markets, what's the point of their existence?
Do my eyes deceive me? Am I reading that President George W. Bush has joined with the Republican leadership to call for investigation of the oil companies in light of soaring oil and gas prices? Oil hit $75 a barrel recently and apparently transformed the Republicans into Democrats, Democrats of the Charles Schumer and Jean-Francois Kerry variety.
Actually if they are going to haul in the oil executives for investigation I suggest they get to the root of the matter and haul in famed economist Milton Friedman. Let him bring his Nobel Prize along for display. Prof. Friedman is the fellow who, roughly 50 years ago, revived the world's awareness of markets, and he has been explicating the consequences of markets ever since, first from the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago, and more recently from an office in the Hoover Institution, the conservative think tank named after who else? Herbert Hoover. His old adversary John Kenneth Galbraith once erupted in oratorical excess on the TV show "Firing Line," that there is any such thing as a "market."
Well, we now know that there is. One of the reasons for the robust economy in so many places around the world today is the existence of markets, which establish the value of resources, effectively allocate those resources and establish sustainable profits for product. With the booming economies in places such as China, India and our own country, oil is now relatively scarce, and the price buyers are willing to pay for it is high. Yet, despite the sudden increase in oil prices, the profitability of oil long-term is not exorbitant. Though it may astonish the Democrats who are now playing the demagogue's game with the oil companies and the Republicans who apparently wish to join them, investors know that oil's return on capital is not terribly high. In fact despite the surge in oil prices in recent months, BP, the world's second-largest oil corporation, reported a 15-percent decrease in profits for the past quarter, as a consequence of lower output, a refinery shutdown and increased taxes.
The oil industry is a high-risk operation. As Boone Pickens, one of the industry's most perceptive entrepreneurs, has been saying for several years now, the production of oil has probably peaked. The world can pump 85 million barrels a day. The world consumes 30 billion annually and will thirst for more as the years go on. That means prices will go up. Moreover, with a madman running Iran and a would-be Fidel Castro running Venezuela, it is not clear we can count on the aforementioned daily production of 85 million barrels.
The politicians may think the answer is to drag businessmen into investigations, but that is not going to produce oil. It may produce votes for the politicians from the electorate's economically illiterate but not much else. What is needed is more oil or at least a steady contribution to Boone Pickens' 85 million barrels. That means opening up areas where we know oil exists, for instance, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It means encouraging the creation of more refineries. We have not built a new refinery in the United States in 30 years. It means encouraging alternative energy sources, the best being nuclear.
Unfortunately these three recourses have all been thwarted by environmentalists, most of whom are Democrats save for the occasional melancholic socialist. One wonders why the Republicans have not made energy growth their response to the high energy prices that are troubling the electorate. Instead of haranguing the oil companies, one would have expected the Republican leadership and the president to unite in blaming the Democratic environmentalists while calling for wider oil exploration, more refineries and the development of a real alternative to fossil fuels, namely nuclear. Instead the Republicans have continued to forsake their principles. Yet what do they expect to get for this abandonment? Owing to their excessive spending there already is fear that the Republican vote will stay at home this autumn. Now with the Republicans adopting the economic illiteracy of the Democrats there is even more pressure for the Republicans to stay home.
I do know how the president could lower oil prices immediately. Suspend all federal taxes on oil through the summer driving period. That would put a smile on the electorate's face and it is not nearly as irresponsible as denigrating markets.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Bob Tyrrell is editor in chief of The American Spectator. Comment by clicking here.
© 2006, Creators Syndicate