Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to USA Today:
Concerned that oil is nonrenewable, Tim O’Neill wants government to “Rally the nation to find a way to reduce dependence on oil” (Letters, July 25). This advice, alas, is at best redundant. The market itself is “rallying the nation” on this front. Oil’s higher price reliably inspires consumers to use less of it and, simultaneously, prompts entrepreneurs to search for alternatives. And the higher this price rises, the stronger these inspirations become.
Any further “rallying” by government would not only be overkill, it would risk infecting a natural market process with the poison of politics.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 16 comments }
This is a perfect example why libertarians like Don just don't win elections. High oil prices are a huge concern to the public and I get the impression Don is even against wearing pins on our lapels that say "rally the nation, decrease our dependance on oil!"
Don is just selfish. He doesn't give a wit about the welfare of the little guy.
It seems like a libertarian like Don would be for the idea of lapel pins, as long as we don't impose a criminal penalty and refrain from throwing people in jail for not wearing one; a stiff fine would certainly be a pro-market force that people like Don would could embrace.
I just don't understand his objection.
Well, but the original article isn't about lapel pins, it's about 'getting government to rally ….'. Typically that means creating a Federal Bureau of Public Ethusiasm for Change Administration (FBPECA), and an associated oversight board in every other branch. Lapel pins are fine, so long as everyone pays for their own.
George Bush made this point (he stammered through it) a few days ago.
John Stewart made fun of him.
Economists have failed so much in educating the public.
Of course you don't understand; your DNA is most likely missing its freedom and liberty genes. Fear not, lover-of-all-things-collective, most people are missing them. This makes you one of the normal ones!
Move along now, please; nothing to see herebut us freaks.
I knew colleague who wore Sir Oswald Mosley’s “Lightening Bolt” on his lapel. No one noticed for decades until I died laughing when one of his students introduced us. I think I shall go shopping for sed lightening bolt—a little farce and solidarity combined! The only thing better would be if we could get Chaplin’s XO pins from The Great Dictator.
Don is right. We don't need any tax on gasoline to raise revenue funding some statutory program of R&D to free us of dependence on oil. Markets naturally operate this way without any direction from central authority. If the hardpressed little guy is really an issue, we can increase the EITC or something, but ordering him to adopt some centrally conceived alternative to oil won't actually help him.
It’s pretty simple; Don is saying market forces take care of shortages. How is that selfish?
Rudy
How is that selfish?
Oh come on Martin! If Don really cared about the plight of the little guy, he would be all for a program that could be proposed to solve the problem at no cost to himself!
But he's not for that!
He doesn't care!
(of course, it goes with out saying that s the proposed program won't involve something really grimy and dirty like drilling)
He is all for this program. He's for the market. The price of gasoline rises. Consumers and entrepreneurs go looking for less costly alternatives. The Congress of the U.S. is ill-equipped to propose some monolithic program to solve the problem, but markets can and will develop many different solutions applicable to many different circumstances.
jpm has tongue in cheek
"Rally the nation to find a way to reduce dependence on oil
Tim O'Neill – Lowell, Ind."
Oh lord, praise the blinding unique brilliance of this man! Why didn't someone think of this before?
But then you have the brilliance equaled….nay…surpassed in the next commenter:
"Peg gas charge to need"
Karen Arnold – San Rafael, Calif.
//Has this chick never heard of Karl Marx?//
Gas prices are taking a severe toll on those who have to drive for a living, such as truck drivers.
We should think about charging different prices to different vehicles based on necessity.
Food transporters would pay less for gas than drivers of private vehicles.
Automobile drivers who are not carrying passengers in their vehicles would pay more than carpoolers.
This would be a lot of regulation, but it might get some traffic off the roads — not only for the environment's sake, but also to alleviate some of the gridlock."
———
I am afraid, I am very afraid, that no one will recognize my need.
…or, perhaps we *will* recognize your need, vidyohs, and you'll simply disappear one evening.
–Twentieth Century Motor Works employee
"We should think about charging different prices to different vehicles based on necessity."
What we have now is people with different necessity are willing to pay different amounts for gasoline. This is known as a demand curve. This supply and demand thing seems to have been working rather well for quite some time. Let's stick with that. Rationing: let's not go there.
Shawn,
You mean I won't have to take my rusting old tin body off to the Emerald City?
Neeeeeat!
LOL
{ 2 trackbacks }