Your hard-earned gas money at work

Post Reply New Topic

Fuel cells are more efficient than batteries. Besides, the batteries tend to have a limited life and to be more expensive, in addition to the car having a shorter range between refueling.

That's actually what the radical Left wants you to believe.
I don't get my oil price information from just the oil companies;
rather, the figures are freely accessible all over the web.
Your argument has conspiracy theory written all over it:
"That's what they want you to believe!"
Oh ya, well what if third party stats from multiple sources show it's true??

Ragtime, the fact is the US uses up about a fifth of world oil production but has only a tiny fraction of the world's proven oil reserves. The US simply can't drill its way out of dependency on foreign oil. If you don't like how much you're paying for fuel (and hysteria not-withstanding, prices at the pump in the US are among the lowest in the world) then you'll have to consume less (and no, not filling the SPR isn't going to make any difference)

Under the assumption that we entirely ceased consumption of oil from all other sources, no ANWR wouldn't be able to provide for us. But no one has actually proposed that, rather that ANWR oil resources be used to supplement our current oil imports and production and decrease the extent to which demand is outpacing supply, thereby halting or at least slowing the climb in gas prices.

How does taxing gasoline at a higher rate solve the problem of it being too expensive?

Electric cars have a lot of problems with them, and I doubt they are really a viable solution to this issue. BTW, the electricity used in those cars is still produced largely by burning fossil fuels... just it's coal in a power plant far away so the people driving electric cars don't feel guilty about polluting. They aren't quite as "clean" as some people I've talked to seem to think they are.

Well, no, but proponents of that solution do not seek to reduce the price of gas but rather to deal with gas based externalities such as the pollution caused by it, and/or to promote other technologies in a manner that demands less government command and control which will be used to help big corn or some other group. You are right in that the tax situation would have to be changed in order to truly take care of the problem, but that still does not mean his solution is bad.

I believe the concept of price elasticity was covered in about the first or second unit of my high school econ class. Given the relatively inelastic demand for gasoline, I think anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics would concede the senselessness of trying to correct for pollution externalities with higher taxes on gas. You would need some massively high taxes, which would cause far too much difficulty as the short-term demand is nearly inelastic, only long-term adjustments can be made and in the meantime people are saddled with excessive fuel costs. If you're going that way, better to subsidize other technologies (I personally favor nuclear and hydrogen) and make them cheaper, and then switch away from gas.

And I have seen several people whining about the high cost of gas propose that same solution. Apparently we are supposed to "punish" the oil companies for earning a profit. Well, earning profit is the purpose of a corporation, so what do you expect them to do, run at a loss so we can have cheap gas?

I know about price inelasticities, and I know that gas is especially inelastic however, the issue with a gas tax is to impact the long-run use of gas and not so much the short run. The issue of "massively high taxes" seems to ignore the point of a Pigovian tax, which is to alter behavior. The idea of a gas tax is not ludicrious though, it is one promoted by economist Greg Mankiw, a popular textbook writer, and a Harvard economist, and let's be honest, how is the market supposed to deal with costs? Prices. How are we going to switch solutions? When it becomes worth it for us to do so. Higher prices on gas will mean that people will do more searching for gas efficient or non-gas using solutions.

Actually, your solution is the worse of the 2 solutions. Who controls the subsidies? The government. If the government controls the subsidies, then who gets the subsidies? Those favored by the government. Now, isn't that a huge public choice problem? Of course!

Now, that is true, and it is sort of stupid to promote cheap gas and expensive gas. I was not arguing from that perspective at all, only that, I thought a Pigovian tax was not as bad of an idea as you seem to think it to be.

Pbcoll, you may not be able to believe this (because it's true, and truth usually trips you up),
but I can manage my fiances without your... "expertise", shall we say.
Why don't you sit over there in England, sip your tea, munch your crumpets,
and let America write its own policy?

Silly, that's always the solution as far as Liberalism is concerned! Whenever there's a problem in the country,
it's because the government hasn't got enough of your money yet. And raising taxes will always fix the problem!
I mean, look how well it's worked so far!

But in all seriousness, I agree with your rebuttal. No one is suggesting anything more than us tapping our own reserves.
Meanwhile, Bush asks Saudi Arabia to increase production. How about WE do it, Mr. President! That's one of the many things about Bush that angers me.

OK, that's true enough, but very few of the people I've seen advocating this solution realize that it means higher prices now (and indeed higher prices for quite a while, as moving to a different energy source for cars won't happen overnight). I understand your points, but considering how profound an impact energy costs have on all aspects of the economy, I think the lesser evil is to find a way to make other options cheap enough to be worthwhile, rather than making gasoline so expensive that we become desperate for anything else. Really, even if the Pigovian tax solution results in a switch to some other energy source, it will be at a higher price than we are currently paying for gas (pretty much by definition of the Pigovian tax, considering its method of getting people to find another solution) and I don't think that's the end resolution to this issue that most people are seeking.

The public choice problem is an issue, especially with the power of the agricultural lobby, but there must be ways around it. Perhaps the authority over this could be delegated to a committee of scientists and engineers? Of course, that would require that Congress acknowledge they are unqualified to make these decisions in an informed manner, something they are unlikely to do. Really, if those favored by the government lobby enough, they'll get their subsidies regardless of what Mankiw recommends regarding price incentives. We may as well subsidize these other sources (especially nuclear and hydrogen) to make them more palatable as well. Besides, nuclear power plants typically are pretty much under government control, something like that generally isn't considered safe to leave on the free market.

Actually, the notion of a gas tax was best developed by conservative economist Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor.

i don't think that'd work. all that would do is punish the people when the oil companies and car manufacturers are the ones who have not stepped up to the plate on delivering a vehicle that's either fully electric or efficiently hybrid (carrying around an extra motor train like the prius results in heavier weight and more gas burned when it's on fuel and its efficiency doesn't even match that of the small 80's toyotas).

Well, that is because you are talking about morons in support of the idea, and not actual thinkers. Well, the issue with that solution is, as I have stated, a public choice issue. Yes, it will take a higher fuel cost, I know, but that is still not an absolute reason not to do it.

Yeah..... I doubt it. Look, all of your solutions are going to have people who like power, to give up this power, so that they cannot exercise it for their benefit. It just wouldn't work. The additional issue also falls down to how much planning the government should engage in, in the economy.

Well, the people are the ones who choose to buy SUVs and less efficient cars in many cases. I mean, we can argue that the companies are not doing their part, but companies, by their nature seek profit, so if they aren't doing something, then the issue seems to be that they don't see profit arising from the effort, unless we postulate some conspiracy.

Wouldn't the optimal solution be to allow the market to determine the gas price and let the market come up with alternatives on its own (as in no subsidies or taxes from the government). Gasoline is not as inelastic as many people seem to believe after all.

As I said, the lesser evil is, at least in my opinion, to make other options more feasible rather than waiting for gasoline to be so expensive that there is a genuine crisis so that people will turn to other energy sources in desperation. No, higher costs are not an absolute reason not to try your solution, but they certainly are not a point in its favor either.

Well, nuclear, which is probably one of the best potential solutions (if not the best) more or less requires government involvement as I doubt a private entity would be permitted to enrich uranium. Anyways, I could argue from a Smithian view and claim that energy is a part of our modern infrastructure and therefore should be provided at least in part by government. Your solution also involves government intervention, in case you hadn't noticed. It also requires that "people who like power" refrain from exercising that power. The arguments from corruption you have employed against my solution can be nearly as readily applied to yours. Agriculture will get their subsidies regardless of what economists say, we both know that. I just want to try to move some of that pork in a more productive direction and hopefully at least ease the transition to different energy sources that we will eventually have to make.