Someone should come up with a chart showing how much cleaner air now is and how many fewer auto accidents there are now that people are driving less since San Fran Nan took over the House.

**********************
back I go to The Underground.

Wait and see what the price rises to if the Democrats increase their seats in the House. Their plan is to nationalize the oil companies. Government control of all sources of energy, to be rationed to those in need and deserve the benvolence of the leftist power brokers is a sure way to keep control of this supposedly free nation.

This stuff isn't coincidental.

OK, I'm a gonna be a bad guy here and say that, yes, it actually is pretty coincidental. Other than directly increasing gas taxes, implementing certain policies that, say, curb drilling and so on, there's very little in the way that any politician can do to directly affect the price at the pump.

The meme, Peter, is that Democrats control OPEC. Or something. Get on message or suffer the wrath of the hilariously irrational!

Careful, Peter, you get too far off the reservation and who knows what might happen.

But, But, BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED.

Honestly, it is rather like the arguments that Bush, with 8 months in office, should have fixed all of the national security problems he inherited. Or that the dot com burst that happened before he was elected was somehow his fault.

Max, Hyper, remember the goose and the gander.

Oh, dammit, hyper beat me to it.

Sorry Peter, nothing personal, it's just too easy.

Indeed, Scuzzy. It's almost as if the whole us/them, right/left, liberal/conservative dichotomy is just a way for the real scoundrels to keep us regular folk distracted.

Naaaah. Couldn't be.

Could it?

It's imperative to pull crap like this out of ones ass when one is a submissive conservative.

I think there really are a lot of people so clueless and brain-dead to actually believe that although republicans had complete power for 6 years and have filibustered at a record rate since 2006. Gas prices are the fault of Democrats.

John Stansbury, just exactly how stupid do you think the readers of Wizbang are?

Careful, Peter, you get too far off the reservation and who knows what might happen.

Funny, that's the same thing my liberal friends said to me when I left the Democratic Party. Funny also how they're so open minded and tolerant that they can no longer talk to me because I went over to The Dark Side. But oh well, here we are.

I'd also add that I have reason to believe that if I were wrong on an issue or a point, my fellow conservatives would reasonably, rationally and respectfully demonstrate how I was wrong using facts, history and sources. (Ex: If I'm wrong here, they'll show me how.)

I believe there are liberals that are like this, too. (Though their numbers are dwindling at a faster and more alarming rate than polar bears, for sure.) I know of two such folks around here, and they shall remain nameless.

*Like good little troopers, lining up to defend Nan*.. sorta

I always use the barometer of how many liberal lefties come out from under their rocks to comment demonstrates the truth of the article. This post is very truthful. Democratic leadership is an oxymoron to the nth degree. ww

...And just as I say that, dr. lava demonstrates exactly why I left the Dems....

Thanks dr. ,your timing was muy perfecto!

Pelosi claimed that it was a Republican congress that was causing gas prices to rise:

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/Rubberstamp.html

You can't have it both ways - either she was wrong then, or they're deliberately driving the price of gas up.

I have a rooster that crows every morning, and guess what, 10 minutes later the sun comes up.

Yep, he's one powerful rooster.

Same argument John, see how silly it looks?

Perhaps it's indicative of the pervasive attitude in the West that everything is under our control, and that we run the show. Gas prices, terrorism, stock markets--they must all answer to the mighty government!

Drilling gets you four cents a gallon.

Really, are you guys truly this stupid?

You made your "point", albeit poorly and childishly and sans facts. Can it.

"The meme, Peter, is that Democrats control OPEC."

OPEC doesn't control the price of gasoline. They control the oil production from the countries who are members of OPEC. They are a factor, but they do not control gasoline prices.

But you already knew that.

"Drilling gets you four cents a gallon."

Increasing domestic supply of oil would do much more than four cents a gallon. As evidenced in the last couple of weeks, the market doesn't listen to the governmental reports you claim to cite.

No, the market listens to people using less gas.

"No, the market listens to people using less gas."

Now you're starting to get it. It also listens to people using more gas, too. Which is their prerogative.

It also listens to people drilling for more oil in more places; or serious talk of doing so.

...And so should it be their prerogative to pay for it.

What crisis? Gas costs almost as much as it does in Europe or Japan, where people typically earn less disposable income?

This market adjustment should accelerate alternative fuel technologies, which will have the happy corollary of decelerating funds that flow to terrorists. Win, win--once the lease on your Tahoe is up, of course.

Peter:
"Other than directly increasing gas taxes, implementing certain policies that, say, curb drilling and so on, there's very little in the way that any politician can do to directly affect the price at the pump."

Well, 'directly increasing gas taxes, implementing certain policies that, say, curb drilling and so on' can affect the price enormously, don't you think? The market takes into account how seriously our gov't is about oil dependency.

Speculators listen to that, Les, and unfortunately the market is tied to speculation. It shouldn't be, and this might cause Congress to do something about it.

What do serious people think about the impact the oil in ANWR and the Gulf would have on the market? I don't know, but I haven't read anything that seems remotely credible asserting a drop in the price of gas greater than four cents per gallon as a result of drilling in presently restricted areas.

OK, this is really pedantic, but I find it baffling when people do graphs like this and don't even bother to get their facts straight. The current average gas price in the United States is $3.86. It hasn't been over $4 for over a month. (reference here). Why make up something so petty? It's not as if you're going to look at a graph showing prices at $3.86 and go "well, that's not too bad, but if it was over $4..." And

And while you're at the site, use the "historical graph" feature to plot gas prices alongside crude oil prices. Notice how closely they mirror one another?

You can blame the Democrats in Congress for a lot of things, but blaming them for the worldwide oil crisis is probably a bit much.

MikeW, I'm sorry, what does your comment have to do with Nancy Pelosi's carnal relationship with Satan?

Hyperbolist -

You make a big mistake when you figure government reports are infallable. They're always based on a set of initial assumptions - and it's assumed that the conditions used as the starting premise are set and unchangeable, that events not considered in the reports won't affect the end result... and in a lot of cases it's a roll of the dice whether the conclusions they come up with are decent forecasts of what will actually happen.

"Yeah, ethanol! From corn! For fuel! Great idea! Nothing bad can possibly happen!" -- and did the government predict that CORN prices would skyrocket? Gee, not in the proposals... so it didn't, it COULDN'T happen!

So what happens when events don't go the way the government forecasts? Should they be forced to conform to the government model?

Now - think about Pelosi's strident refusal to even consider the possibility of drilling. Do you think the psychological impact of THAT was considered in government pricing forecasts? You don't think there's even a SLIGHT possibility that her shrill blathering had an effect on the market? Or Bush's announcing he was lifting the ban could cause the price to drop as surely as Pelosi caused the price to rise?

Government reports do not create reality. At best, they reflect it - and occasionally warp the image into something unrecognizeable. So I'd say your 4 cents a gallon forecast is irrelevant.

But something I've mentioned before - I don't particularly WANT oil prices to drop much further. They did in the early '80s - and alternative energy ideas were pretty much abandoned once oil got below a certain price. I'd PREFER things stay at the irritating level, not the painful one, so companies will see alternative energies as being a possible profit source, worth exploring and implementing.

Otherwise - if the price of oil drops far enough, there will be no incentive to research stuff that'll work, and no incentive to build an alternative energy infrastructure. I'll take a SWAG here and put the oil per-barrel price right about where you get $3.00-$3.25 a gallon gas. Below that, people will start thinking they've got a bargain, and the pressure will be off government to implement a workable solution.

"You can blame the Democrats in Congress for a lot of things, but blaming them for the worldwide oil crisis.."

Crisis?
'What crisis? Gas costs almost as much as it does in Europe or Japan, where people typically earn less disposable income?'

If this is the painful level, how do you propose keeping it at a merely 'irritating' level, JL?

And what's your forecast for how much oil/gas will cost if the ban was lifted by Congress, and what is the source of that information?

I don't take government forecasts as infallible. I do, however, require a reason to disbelieve something.

And no, there is no gas 'crisis'. Gas is no longer cheap, that's all. Work around it.

Well, 'directly increasing gas taxes, implementing certain policies that, say, curb drilling and so on' can affect the price enormously, don't you think? The market takes into account how seriously our gov't is about oil dependency.

Well, les, I think that I can respond to first sentence by saying "it all depends", particularly on the action taken. If, for instance, the gov't raised the Fed gas tax from its current 18-cents a gallon (I'm fairly certain that's the tax anyway) to 20 cents, then yes, that's seen at the pump. But that's a pretty negligible effect at the pump, honestly--state taxes are far worse in many states like mine (.38 cents a gallon).

However, I agree that, yes, policy can have an affect on the price of a barrel of crude. How significant that effect is on the price per barrel is obviously debatable. Given how much untapped oil we have off our shores, in Alaska and in other places inside our country,I'd have to say that, given the depth of that supply and the ability to convert it to gas, yes policy would have an effect on a price of crude. How much? I honestly don't know, but I imagine its significant enough to drive oil down...way down.

Before this becomes a Hooson-esque like response, all I want to say is that the current oil pinch is toocomplex, too complicated to be explained off by an overly simplistic chart that shows what happens since so-and-so has been in office. It's just not honest, and the kind of argument best left to liberals. We're smarter and better than than that. And we can KILL the Dems on this oil/energy issue if we stick to our guns--the facts alone are enough to gut them.

What crisis? Gas costs almost as much as it does in Europe or Japan, where people typically earn less disposable income?

They also drive less because of the abundance of mass transportation (due to the larger density of people per hectare), so you get to balance that out a bit.

I don't have a plan, Hype - because I can't control a whole lot of factors. There's an insane amount of variability in the futures market. OPEC could decide to flood the market again, to get oil and gas down to late '90s levels. Get gas down to $1.30 a gallon, and you'll see pretty much all alternative energy put on hold, as well as a lot of drilling that isn't profitable under $50-60 a barrel. OPEC's still making money, and when the stuff on hold gets abandoned, they can start jacking the price up again. Maybe they'll do a better job holding the line on prices, and just keep oil at about $80 a barrel then...

Iran and Israel could mix it up, closing the Straits of Hormuz - that'll cause the price to zoom to incredible heights, probably causing the world economy to crash.

Rebels hitting Nigerian pipelines have caused prices to spike by $10. We could get another Katrina-scale event in the Gulf - that'll jack the prices around also - but it's hard to foresee when one of those will come along.

See why I say government forecasts aren't reality? At best, they're a guideline - but nothing in them is carved in stone.

"I don't take government forecasts as infallible. I do, however, require a reason to disbelieve something."

Then you believe they're essentially infallible, because you don't look for reasons to disbelieve, and you discount others who don't believe the way you do.

Whenever someone points at a government report and says "THIS will happen because the report says so" - you're buying every assumption that report is based on. It's pretty clear that the report apparently ignored any influences on the price from factors not considered - and you cannot ignore the effect the statements by our politicians have on the market.

Hell, our COMEDIANS have caused runs on certain commodities. You can bet that the toilet paper shortage of '73 wasn't forecast in any government report of paper usage.

So - 4 cents? You REALLY want to take that as a hard and fast projection, locked down and immutable from variation from factors that weren't considered by the authors of the report?

"What do serious people think about the impact the oil in ANWR and the Gulf would have on the market?"

Do these "serious people" happen to have the same ideology as those who predicted the surge wouldn't work? 'Cause you know...they're track record on predictions isn't so good.

"And no, there is no gas 'crisis'. Gas is no longer cheap, that's all. Work around it."

Tough words there, sailor. Are you willing to say a similar thing to people demanding a bailout amidst our current housing "crisis"?

Better yet. Are you willing to say the same thing to independent truckers who've had to put their trucks up for sale because they lost money just starting up their trucks? How about airline employees who lost their jobs because of high fuel prices?

To their faces?

Better yet. Are you willing to say the same thing to independent truckers ..

Better yet, is he willing to say it to the voters if he is an elected official?

Tom--yes, I'd say the same thing to them, if they weren't conned into signing their mortgage agreement. Sell the house. Can't? Lower the price until you can.

Nobody has a right to a specific job, or a specific lifestyle--all you're entitled to is a lifestyle above a certain threshold. Adjust. Go back to school. How is it anybody else's problem if you can't afford to put gas in your truck? You guys sound like socialists.

Hype - have you ANY idea just how much food is transported by truck? Or consumer goods? Or medical supplies?

Independent truckers (in fact, truckers of all sorts) are vital parts of our logistics chain.

"all you're entitled to is a lifestyle above a certain threshold."

Pray tell - who is supposed to supply us with that particular lifestyle, and what's the threshold?

Man, I hate to say it but your ideas and reality just don't quite mesh - and it's not reality that's at fault.

"Tom--yes, I'd say the same thing to them, if they weren't conned into signing their mortgage agreement. Sell the house. Can't? Lower the price until you can."

Great, we're in agreement then.

"Nobody has a right to a specific job, or a specific lifestyle--all you're entitled to is a lifestyle above a certain threshold. Adjust. Go back to school."

Once again, we're in agreement. Sounds like you actually make some sense.

"How is it anybody else's problem if you can't afford to put gas in your truck?"

Here's where the wheels fell right off your Common Sense Wagon. I'll try to keep it simple for you. In case you haven't realized it, high oil, and subsequently, high gasoline prices are everyone's problem, and increasing the domestic supply of oil will actually do something interesting to the price of oil and gasoline. It will lower it. You know, one of those basic economic principles they taught in Economics 101.

Sounds like you also don't realize high oil prices affect a large number of other industries (including the ones JLawson mentioned), besides just the shipping and airline industries. It also affects rubber and plastics. Just think of the litany of products made in those two industries alone, and what happens to the price of those products when oil prices are high. I'll help you out again. They go up.

"You guys sound like socialists."

See, you're confused again. You have us mixed up with people like Maxine Waters, who threatens to nationalize (since you're confused, that means a governmental takeover) every market that irritates her. We, on the other hand, sound like people who want to lower costs whenever possible without governmental interference--you do realize of course, that the ban on drilling is a governmental restriction, don't you?

Since when does attempting to increase the supply of something in a market sound like anything but what a capitalist would do? I'll answer that myself. Never. Since when does attempting to remove unnecessary governmental restrictions to allow businesses the freedom to operate properly sound like anything but what a capitalist would do?

Once again, I'll help you out. Never.

"Man, I hate to say it but your ideas and reality just don't quite mesh - and it's not reality that's at fault."

JLawson, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

"Nobody has a right to a specific job, or a specific lifestyle--all you're entitled to is a lifestyle above a certain threshold. Adjust. Go back to school."

I actually do have a quibble with this. We're entitled to the lifestyle we make for ourselves, no matter what that may be. It isn't confined to some vague, socialistic "certain threshold".

We have a right to a decent education, health care, clean air/water/shelter, respectable clothes, and whatever else dignity requires. I guess that would be the threshold of living to which everyone is entitled, at the expense of the rest of society.

That's not Marx talking, that's Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Filthy pinko!

Anyway, these discussions about gas prices, for you guys, hinge on drilling for oil in presently restricted areas, whereas your congress doesn't want to allow oil companies to do that. Elections are in November--make your case (with specific numbers provided by people with no ties to oil companies or environmentalist groups--the bias would be obvious) as to how drilling in ANWR/the coastal shelf will reduce the price of gas, and who knows, maybe the GOP won't lose as many seats as projected. Until then, if you can't afford more expensive commodities, and if you can't afford to maintain your standard of life, adjust to the circumstances. Get a second job, a smaller car, put a kidney on eBay--whatever, none of my business how you pay your mortgage.

Whatever. For someone who claims to have read anything pertaining to economics, you sure do have a fundamental misunderstanding of it and how it's applied in the modern United States.

No, I understand it okay. I just don't think it's the only important thing that ought to be considered by policymakers. This is one way of getting around oil company lobbyists masquerading as climate change skeptics. High fuel prices should also drive up the price of commodities from China, perhaps slowing their economy and benefiting domestic manufacturing. I'm a proponent of globalization, but not unchecked--high transportation costs will curb it, allowing local markets to benefit (potentially).

I have been expecting high fuel prices for awhile. Some of my friends/family thought I was nuts, but now they commute an hour to work in cars that get 20 mpg and will have a hard time paying their heating bills this winter. My disposable income is the same as it was when I started this job a year ago. Frankly the indicators were there, and anyone who blames the price of gasoline today on Congress refusing to lift drilling bans is scapegoating Democrats--not that I really care, spineless pack of twats they are.

The Economist had a very good article on the end of cheap food last year. Worth a read, if you can find it. Gas and commodity prices have only snuck up on those who don't read, or those who only read things that reinforce their notion of what the status quo is (or ought to be).

We have a right to a decent education, health care, clean air/water/shelter, respectable clothes, and whatever else dignity requires. I guess that would be the threshold of living to which everyone is entitled, at the expense of the rest of society.

Direct quote on dignity from Smith, please. Not you paraphrasing.

Anyway, these discussions about gas prices, for you guys, hinge on drilling for oil in presently restricted areas....

No, no, no, my dear hyperbolist. That's because that IS where the oil is, not in the oft repeated spew of Pelosi & Co. that cry 'the oil companies have 68 million acres of leased and unused space in which to drill, they should drill there!' Yes, drill where there the yield is little to be had and at a great (and unprofitable) cost. Not even Forrest Gump would think that makes a lick of sense.

Just a thought, but this is a very good resource that has oodles of energy information, especially crude:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/

Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979 (1791), pp. 469-471:

[T]he commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without [For example] leather shoes [are] a necessary of life in England. The poorest person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them.

So: insofar as the poor are unable by their own means or willpower to acquire those goods and skills required to exist in society without shame, they are useless; and thus, for reasons of pure economic utility, Smith argues that whatever custom dictates to be a social necessity (as well as the obvious biological ones) is something that must be provided by the state. So, what does contemporary American custom require one be able to to do in order to exist without shame, as a useful member of the machine?: literacy, first and foremost, and a respectable degree of health.

Pinko!!!

Four negative votes for providing an academic reference for an academic point. Um... thanks, geniuses?

"Four negative votes for providing an academic reference for an academic point. Um... thanks, geniuses?"

Oh, I'm sure the voting had nothing to do with the last word in your comment, Wile E. Coyote.