OR: More News From the Out of Touch
Published on October 11, 2004 By CrispE In Politics
"I think the price is above what's justified by the fundamentals of the marketplace," John Snow said. "It's out of line with the fundamentals, and there will be a movement back toward the fundamentals, which means a lower price."

John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, is George Bush's point man on the economy who seems to think (noting the quote above) that oil is overvalued relative to the supply and demand in the worldwide economic system. The oil market this morning reacted to this revelation by rising by as much as another 1% and there is no sense among the traders that prices will slip any time in the near future. Once again we see Bush advisors who don't seem to understand the problems created by an increasingly tenuous and dangerous international situation.

It is interesting that Mr. Snow seems to be echoing the Saudis who are a seemingly broken record of "we will increase production, we will increase production, we will increase production." However the truth is that the Saudis and OPEC have seldom had U.S. interests in mind when it comes to the oil situation. Remember when OPEC said they wanted to produce to a oil target of between $20 and $25 per barrel?

Now, you should understand by now from living in a free market economy that when oil is over $50 that OPEC companies make twice as much money, right? I mean, does it make sense if you could sell your house for $200,000 that you would want to sell it for $100,000? How about a car company that sells you the new Porsche Boxster for $50,000 when someone will pay $100,000 for it?

A deeper problem exists though in the perception that the Bush administration has that government should simply be a tax reduction system. It was noted in the debates last week that Bush has not vetoed a spending bill in 4 years. It was not noted that tax reduction, at first good for the middle class in terms of the marriage penalty tax elimination has not helped the middle class since with the exception of those with large families. My own return increased by $40 last year.

Meanwhile, the government runs billions more into debt, increasingly lowering the dollar's value around the world and making oil even more expensive. But, the Bush administration got passed even more tax reductions for businesses just today.

When you look at the concept of government as a business it is not unlike any other. That is, it has a range of product and services and in order to be successful it must be responsive to the people that use it's products and services and to the shareholders (that is you and me).

The first key to success in that sense is respect for the taxpayer. But this administration, when challenged on the budget or on spending acts as if you are not entitled to your opinion. How dare you challenge the White House on the budget? Don't you know we are in a war? Don't you know that we are the boss and that you are just a user of governmental services?

You might get the idea that it is the citizen who is the terrorist when we don't give blind support to the Bush policies that have led us where we are. More and more economists tell us that oil prices over $50 is disasterous for us. More and more know that without cutting the deficit we will pass on trillions of dollars of debt to our grandchildren and wreak any chance of social security lasting much longer.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is supposedly working on more tax cuts for W's political base, the ones with incomes over $200,000.

Does anyone see how disasterous this would be?


Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Oct 12, 2004
Reply #56 By: Myrrander - 10/12/2004 12:00:47 PM
No, *GEORGE BUSH* has *NEVER* done *ANYTHING* *WRONG*

NOT *EVER*

*insane laughter*


Never said he has never done wrong. But as far as I'm concerned Kerry is NO better! And just an FYI I'm not using that many " I use * instead.
on Oct 12, 2004
pictatorus:

No, higher oil prices aren't a boon to anyone but the oil companies and producers. You see, higher energy prices means people don't drive, don't spend on consumer goods and thus the economy fails, not succeeds. No one wants a bad economy. Remember when Clinton got taxes raised in 1993? Republicans and Conservatives were screaming bloody murder that the economy would fall into depression. Limbaugh claimed that it would be worse than the depression.

As I am sure you remember, the 1993-2000 period for stocks was the best in 4 decades. But Clinton inherited a deficit of $400 billion from W's dad. Sound familiar?
on Oct 12, 2004
It is not the Saudi's driving the price of oil, and not really benefitting all that much since most of their oil is in long term contracts. It is the spot market, which is way overpriced, that is driving the spot market price, and making a lot of speculators happy. So no amount of negotiations beween Saudi and Snow other than increasing production (Which Saudi Arabia did) can affect the spot market price. And the increase did not quell the market run up due to instability in Venezulea, Nigeria, and the Gulf.

Unless those 2 countries go up in an inferno, the price will start to come down. To $25? Probably not anytime soon, but Prices in the $30s are to be expected in the next 6 months barring any other instability arising.


The saudi's don't control the oil price, though please read my lips. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WITH SPARE CAPACITY. The reasons they arent controlling the price of oil is as follows: First, they would lose money if the price of oil fell, and second because when they released oil for the US before, at the US's request, it did not help.

Now, Prices lower t han they are now are not to be expected. Higher prices are actually to be expected in the near future. With any luck, we will not have a "terrorist" attack as is being predicted by some BUSH administration officials, but if one does happen, except prices to sky rocket to at least $65. Really, the price of oil is low, considering demand is growing exponentially because of India and China. I don't think we will ever see oil below $30 again without intervention by the US reserves.
on Oct 12, 2004
As I am sure you remember, the 1993-2000 period for stocks was the best in 4 decades. But Clinton inherited a deficit of $400 billion from W's dad. Sound familiar?


Good thing the Dot Com bubble had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with that!

Also the US Deficit has existed since the days of FDR, it has never gone away!!

- Grim X
on Oct 12, 2004
Also the US Deficit has existed since the days of FDR, it has never gone away!!


This has also been addressed, because you are counting the interest on the debt. If you dismiss this, then the deficit was eliminated under Clinton, under which the revenues actually outpaced expenses. The debt grew however, because of accumulating interest.
on Oct 12, 2004
sandy2:

Actually, the U.S. has spare capacity, but has always kept what probably is 100's of millions of barrels in the ground in case we ever had to rely solely on them. The amount is unknown because much of it is offshore between Canada (the Yukon) and Alaska. Both countries claim the territory.

That being said, wells currently in operation can produce 83.4 million barrels per day (when fully running) but the demand for next year is expected to be higher than that. So why would the price come down? That's why we need to understand that now is the time to fully develop alternate fuels.

on Oct 12, 2004
Also the US Deficit has existed since the days of FDR, it has never gone away!!


Excuse I meant Debt, and even if we outpaced the Deficit we still paid nothing on the Debt which Clinton could have done with the Surplus or he could have invested it into something that would have help to pay off the debt or act as a counterbalance to the interest on the debt.

Our Debt has existed since 1940 and has only grown since than.

Still the Dot Com Bubble had a lot to do with the increased revenues. UNLESS you think the Dot Com Bubble had nothing to do with increased revenues or do you?

- Grim X
on Oct 12, 2004
Grim:

Actually, we have had a national debt pretty much since the beginning of the Republic with the debt rising over 1 trillion for the first time in 1981. However, it is easy to lose sight of the immensity of it now at 7.5 trillion because of how large the number is. A better way of looking at it is that every man, woman and child (if billed equally) owes over $25,000 each. Another way of looking at it is that the bill for the interest is $350,000,000,000. That's a lot of bucks! We didn't have that much debt total until in the 1950's.
on Oct 12, 2004
Grim:

Actually, we have had a national debt pretty much since the beginning of the Republic with the debt rising over 1 trillion for the first time in 1981. However, it is easy to lose sight of the immensity of it now at 7.5 trillion because of how large the number is. A better way of looking at it is that every man, woman and child (if billed equally) owes over $25,000 each. Another way of looking at it is that the bill for the interest is $350,000,000,000. That's a lot of bucks! We didn't have that much debt total until in the 1950's.


My solution, if it is not possible to pay it off now, is to prevent it from getting bigger and keep on paying interest on it. Eventually, 7.5 trillion dollars will be much less ,with inflation. The best thing to do would be to pay it off, but whatever.
on Oct 12, 2004
My solution, if it is not possible to pay it off now, is to prevent it from getting bigger and keep on paying interest on it


Excuse I meant Debt, and even if we outpaced the Deficit we still paid nothing on the Debt which Clinton could have done with the Surplus or he could have invested it into something that would have help to pay off the debt or act as a counterbalance to the interest on the debt.


I think we agree on the interest part and agree on the debt part though 7.5 Trillion is still a large chunk of change.

Another way of looking at it is that the bill for the interest is $350,000,000,000. That's a lot of bucks! We didn't have that much debt total until in the 1950's.


You might find this interesting D o T Debt List from Present back to 1940 [LINK]

- Grim X

on Oct 12, 2004

Reply #65 By: sandy2 - 10/12/2004 6:47:23 PM
Also the US Deficit has existed since the days of FDR, it has never gone away!!


This has also been addressed, because you are counting the interest on the debt. If you dismiss this, then the deficit was eliminated under Clinton, under which the revenues actually outpaced expenses. The debt grew however, because of accumulating interest


Sorry but you can't just dismiss the interest. Money owed is money owed! End of sentence!
on Oct 12, 2004
Grim:

I got the data I used from the national archive. It's a pretty impressive site.Link

on Oct 12, 2004
You see, higher energy prices means people don't drive, don't spend on consumer goods and thus the economy fails, not succeeds.


CrispE, that is exactly the argument conservatives had against Kerry's plan to increase the fuel prices via increased taxes.

My question is, if higher fuel prices are bad for the economy, as most conservatives agree (and as do I), why did Kerry think it was such a good idea?
on Oct 12, 2004
pictoratus:

Are you referring to Kerry's proposal back in the mid-90's to add 50 cents to the gas tax? That was designed as a way to slow consumption while using the money to rebuild infrastructure (roads and bridges at that time) when economically we were going gangbusters. Now, we have an electrical grid that can be disrupted by wayward pigeons and an interstate system that the last time I took it through 4 states (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) I had to get an allignment done.

BTW: I did not support the Kerry proposal in the mid-90's because I knew that oil (which at that time was around $15 per barrel) would rise and then the tax would be very counterproductive.
on Oct 12, 2004
Reply #73 By: pictoratus - 10/12/2004 10:24:22 PM
You see, higher energy prices means people don't drive, don't spend on consumer goods and thus the economy fails, not succeeds.


CrispE, that is exactly the argument conservatives had against Kerry's plan to increase the fuel prices via increased taxes.

My question is, if higher fuel prices are bad for the economy, as most conservatives agree (and as do I), why did Kerry think it was such a good idea?


Because Kerry is an *idiot*!
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6