I drive a Honda

by Russ Roberts on November 18, 2005

in Prices

Here’s some wisdom from the floor of the Senate.  To find it in the Congressional Record, go here.  (When you get there, click on “Day of Session" right below the search field.  Then choose “Senate Pages” for November 16.  When you get the field that says: “Go To Page” type in S12928.)

What follows is an excerpt from a floor speech by Senator Dorgan who has proposed a windfall profits tax.  I think he meant John Maynard Keynes in the opening sentence part of the quote but it’s easy to confuse three-named economists with the first name John.  It’s even easier to make fun of pointy-headed academics:

John Kenneth  Galbraith used to say, in the long run,  we are all dead. But we go into this  winter, as consumers in this country,  confronting a fuel bill that has dramatically increased over last year, and  then reading in the newspaper in the  morning, wearing a sweater in a home  that you have to keep a couple of degrees cooler in order to afford to heat  your home, that ExxonMobil has a 75-  percent or 89-percent profit or all the  majors are showing massive profit increases. So while they sit there fat and  happy, racking up the profits, everybody else is trying to figure out how  they pay the price. How do you scrape  up the money to heat the home, to fill  the car, to fill the tanks so that your  tractor and farm equipment is ready in  the spring?  People say: Well, if that is a problem  for you, that is tough luck. There are a  couple of economists writing in recent  days—I won’t name them—who can tell  us everything about the future but  can’t remember their home phone number. You know the type. They are telling us what will happen here is if people can’t afford to pay the cost of energy, it will force them to conserve  more. Easy to say for one of these  economists who drive around town in  their Volvo or Mercedes cogitating  about the future. What about the people who have to use a car to drive to  work, have to fill the tank with gas but  don’t have the money to do so, or the  people who understand they live in the  northern part of this country where we  have tough winters and they have to  pay the heating bill and it costs a lot  of money and they don’t have it? What  about that?

I sure wish he’d name them.  I  hope he’s talking about the two economists who write here at Cafe Hayek.  But neither of us argue that high prices are good because they force people to conserve.  He’s confusing us with some environmental groups. We like high prices because they give the oil companies an incentive to keep looking for more energy.  That way the people we’re all worried about will have more oil and gas in the future. 

By the way, neither of us drives a Volvo or a Mercedes.  Must be two other economists who can’t remember their home phone number.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Senate Staffer

    I work as a staffer in the Senate and read your blog daily. Senator Dorgan has been pontificating on the sins of the oil industry for sometime now. From his proclamation that "there is no such thing as free markets" to the statement you posted today, he continues to prove his lack of economics prowess. But, maybe it's a good thing he is here. It helps us all rememeber that there are plenty of people like him out there. It helps us to remember and continue to fight against the not-so-distant past when the world truly was at war against a form of government that controlled all aspects of the economy, and thereby its people freedom. Thanks for your work.

  • Dee

    Dr. Roberts,


    In this post you say...


    "But neither of us argue that high prices are good because they force people to conserve."


    But on your invisibleheart.com website you say...


    "But high prices are good, too. When prices are high, some people will drive less, car pool, buy more energy efficient cars allowing the people who really want gasoline to have it."

    http://www.invisibleheart.com/
    </p
    >

    The next time you're going to be indignant could you aslo be consistent?

  • Wasn't that actually Keynes?

  • Randy

    It isn't so much hearing politicians tell people what they want to hear that scares me, but rather, its what people want to hear. Namely, that the government can solve their problems - any problem. That's the true fallout of the New Deal and the Great Society - people turning to government first. This can't end well.

  • spencer

    if their problem is a product of the free market, who else should people turn to?

  • It seems to me that demanding (the government force) the market meet your desired price is akin to the Fatal Conceit.


    I want gas. If I really "need" it then I will ask my brother for it. If I must get it from a stranger then I will appeal to his interests and offer something he wants in return. In the end I know I will get more gas from strangers by giving them pictures of dead presidents than I will ever get based upon the love of my brother.


    Liking/not liking the results of prices does not alloce limited resources for unlimited wants efficiently. I would like to be able to wander around my house buck naked, but wearing a sweater and using less energy for heat are the result of balancing what I would like to do with the resources I have.


    Personally I like the price to be the economically efficient price, whatever level that is. That will provide the optimal level of profit and consumer welfare.


    Now if any out there are willing to sell me gas at $0.05 a gallon call me.

  • Noah Yetter

    "if their problem is a product of the free market, who else should people turn to?"


    1. Even if there is no one else to turn to, government can't solve this problem. History has proven time and time again that government inteverntions into the market do not solve problems as intended.


    2. The nature of this problem is not what Senator Dorgan is characterizing it to be. The problem isn't that people can't afford to fill their cars or heat their homes, it's that they must now give something up in order to do so. Wants are unlimited, yet resources are scarce, this is the starting point of economic analysis. When gas hit $3 a gallon, some co-workers and I started carpooling. Seeing my utility bill soar northward of $100 (for a 900ft^2 apartment!), I set the heat at 60 when no one's at home. If prices contintue to rise, I'll eat out less, go without new clothes, see fewer movies.


    We have to make tradeoffs in life. No one is forced into a 30 mile commute, or living in the more frigid parts of the nation. If you don't like filling up your SUV twice a week, and paying a small fortune to keep your house at 70 while it's 10 outside, then don't! Make another choice!

  • Cris Sullivan

    I think what Noah said is pretty dead on.


    It seems that one of the biggest problems in America today is that we have relinquished so much of our freedom to a governmental paternalism that the thought of facing tradeoffs has become "unjust," in the same way that it would to a child.


    A five year old child does not face substantial trade-offs in her day to day life. Rather, the parents face the trade-offs for the child. We buy our children presents for Christmas, say, and then proceed to buy everyone else in the family presents from them. This gives the child the satisfaction of "giving" but without ever actually having to make any substantial trade-off.


    As we further paternalize the role of government(s) in our society, we seem to be developing ever more childish demands. I suppose this, again, goes back to the Fatal Conceit in some sense... Families function well with a family-model and poorly with a business-model. Businesses are just the opposite. I suppose the real question, then, is which do we want government to be?

  • Dee: high prices for a commodity in demand aren't good simply because people will use less. They're good because they will seek people adjust to a new equibrium in which the commodity costs more. Maybe those adjustments will be to take action to make the commodity cost less (e.g. by increasing its supply). Maybe those adjustments will be to use less of the commodity.


    The whole point here is that if the government tries to hide the fact that the world is now different, sooner or later, this government censorship will cause problems. Without the high prices, nobody will change.


  • Spencer: You ask "if their problem is a product of the free market, who else should people turn to?" The problem is not a *product* of the free market. The free market exposes that problem, but it didn't create the problem. Consequently, you shoot the messenger when you suppress the actions of the market. There are obvious injustice issues in shooting messengers, but more to the point, eliminating the message (higher prices) doesn't eliminate the problem (more demand than supply).

  • Sabbath~ Nov. 19, 2005

    Thank you Brother Don ~ I am pleased that you are a Member of the Humane Rights Agenda, which should mainly focus on Internet News Reporting on HUMANE RIGHTS and relatd issues.


    I am glad you actually have a good decent blog for creative expression of your ideas, analyses and opinions.


    I wish more people would instead of just making up a bunch of what amounts to political spam. Having a blog is more suitable for expressions and feedbacks.


    Anyways... I believe that the FDA is the biggest legal dope dealer inside the United States and they have far too much power, being a key part of the government, over our personal lives.


    I am in progressive recovery myself and see what a rip off and control freak that the FDA is for Americans.


    Harmony In the Heart of Humanity ~

    Peter S. Lopez {aka Peta} ~ Field Coordinator


    Sacramento, California, USA


    Yahoo Email: sacranative{at}yahoo.com


    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Age...>
    http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/sacranative


    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Dee

    Russell,


    I agree and I never said otherwise.


    I am not disagreeing with Dr. Roberts economic analysis. I am only throwing some water onto his firey, indignant rhetoric.


    It seems Dr. Roberts can forget his own arguments if it means he can feel morally superior.


    "oh the injustice done to economists that might not be myself! wo!" :roll:

  • Russ Roberts

    Dee,


    High prices don't make people conserve. The lower amount of gasoline available is what makes people conserve. Go back and read the quote more carefully: "But high prices are good, too. When prices are high, some people will drive less, car pool, buy more energy efficient cars allowing the people who really want gasoline to have it."


    Some (emphasis on "some") people will conserve allowing others to consume it. It is this allocational aspect of prices I was applauding, not the fact that high prices mean less consumption.


    BTW, I never try and feel morally superior. As a humble economist, I am happy to be considered merely morally equal.


  • JABBER

    Actually, Dee, I read Russ' tone in the post far differently. It seemed to me that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek as he tweaked the good Senator. I didn't read any "indignant superiority."


  • JohnDewey

    ExxonMobil, realizing it has insufficient uses for the capital it has generated, chooses to release it to owners. Those owners would likely reinvest that capital to develop new cancer treatment drugs or to build new water treatment plants or for a million other uses that ExxonMobil could not do.


    Senators Dorgan and Dodd think they know better than millions of investors how ExxonMobil's capital should be spent. How arogant are these ordinary men once they acquire the power to tax?

  • Dee

    Dr. Roberts,


    But, like you've said before, it's the lower ammount of gas that makes prices rise. No one has to know the ammount of gas avaiable has changed, they only need to know the price is higher. Or am I missing something about the informational role of prices?


    And you didn't seem to draw such a distinction in your post on invisibleheart. Your quote clearly says it's the incentive from higher prices that cause people to use less gas, not that they know gas is in shorter supply. I wonder why you disagree now.


    As far as your second point goes...

    "Some (emphasis on "some") people will conserve allowing others to consume it. It is this allocational aspect of prices I was applauding, not the fact that high prices mean less consumption."


    That's true, but irrelevant. You make it sound like a wash--that some will consume less while others don't. But, truly, the total ammount of gasoline consumed MUST be less than it was before (because the ammount of gas available is lower).


    Higher prices will send this signal better than any politican's plea and that's one reason higher prices are good. Remember?


    I don't see ANY distinction in the Senators speech between applauding high prices for enviromental or allocational efficiency concerns.

  • Randy

    Russell Nelson,


    Re; Eliminating the message... doesn't eliminate the problem....


    Well said!

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: