1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8448/barack-obama-and-sarah-palin-on-taxing-oil-companies-and-giving-the-money-to-others/

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin on Taxing Oil Companies and Giving the Money to Others

August 30, 2008 by

From the website of Barack Obama:
• Immediately Provide Emergency Energy Rebate. Barack Obama will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record‐breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple. The relief would be delivered as quickly as possible to help families cope with the rising price of gasoline, food and other necessities. The rebates would be fully paid for with five years of a windfall profits tax on record oil company profits. This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long‐term plan to provide middle‐class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief. The Obama energy rebates will: offset the entire increase in gas prices for a working family over the next four months; or pay for the entire increase in winter heating bills for a typical family in a cold‐weather state.

From “Sarah Palin, an Outsider Who Charms” (The New York Times, August 30, 2008):
One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.

Comment by George Reisman: On this fundamental issue, not just of oil and energy, but, wider, of morality and economics in general, there is no difference in principle between these two. Both advocate legalized theft, in the expectation of doing good.

Obama thinks he can do good to the oil companies’ customers by depriving the oil companies of the means to expand production, which expansion they would quickly undertake and achieve if not prevented year after year by his leftist, environmentalist cronies in Congress and the courts. It is that gang of cronies that is responsible for the high price of oil and, indirectly, for the very high profits of the oil companies. The more they restrict the supply of oil, and of competing forms of energy, such as atomic power, the higher they drive its price and thus the profits of its producers. Whoever is unhappy about the high price of oil and oil products should blame the leftist/environmentalist bloc in Congress and in the courts, and the environmental movement behind it. These are the parties actually responsible.

Obama also fails to see another major aspect of the absurdity of his proposal. Namely, that more money placed in the hands of poor buyers of gasoline and heating oil will serve simply to drive the prices of the limited supplies of gasoline and heating oil presently available still higher. This will make it impossible for people a little higher up on the economic ladder to afford them. Obama does not, perhaps will not, perhaps cannot, see that only more production can enable anyone to have more oil and oil products without others having less.

The first of the criticisms I just made of Obama’s plan applies equally to that of Sarah Palin. The two plans differ somewhat in the extent of their destructiveness. The destructiveness of Palin’s plan is limited by the fact that it can be applied only within the confines of the State of Alaska. But within the State of Alaska, it gives away more money to the individual recipient than does Obama’s plan: $1,200 versus $500.

A major consequence that both Obama’s and Palin’s plans overlook is that even insofar as the oil companies are presently prevented by drilling restrictions from using their funds for expanding oil production, their funds still perform a valuable economic function. Namely, they provide the capital for carrying on production elsewhere in the economic system. To the extent that the oil companies simply put their funds in the bank, buy Treasury bills, repurchase their own stock, or pay out extraordinary dividends, those funds are then available in the financial markets, all of which are interconnected. Their presence makes it easier for other businesses to obtain loans or sell stock and thereby have the funds to carry on their business activities.

Sarah Palin probably never thought of this when she dipped her hand into the oil companies’ till and withdrew $1,200 for every Alaskan. What she was actually doing in her ignorance was helping to make the credit crunch that the United States has been experiencing that much worse. She was helping to deprive businesses around the country of capital they would have had, if that capital had not been made available to be consumed to the extent of $1,200 for each and every Alaskan.

Obama and Palin are both obviously ignorant of economics. John McCain, who picked Palin to be his running mate, has admitted his own lack of knowledge of the subject. Knowing little or nothing of the subject himself, he could not be expected to realize that Palin knew nothing of the subject either. An examination of the record of Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, would probably turn up a more extensive record of comparable ignorance of economics, given his greater number of years in public life as a leading spokesman for the Democratic Party.

This is certainly frightening. What is even more frightening is that the whole intellectual world, including the press and the media in general, the professors of economics, law, political philosophy, history, and all other fields directly or indirectly bearing on politics, all are overwhelmingly characterized by the same level of ignorance and thus unable to identify it in the candidates. We now apparently live in a society and culture that has become comparable in its level of economic knowledge to a pool table, on which mindless billiard balls randomly careen and collide and no knowledge or understanding of any kind is present.

Copyright © 2008, by George Reisman. George Reisman, Ph.D. is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. His web site is www.capitalism.net and his blog is www.georgereisman.com/blog/. A pdf replica of his complete book can be downloaded to the reader’s hard drive simply by clicking on the book’s title Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics and then saving the file when it appears on the screen.


Stephan Kinsella August 31, 2008 at 12:07 am

Fantastic, George.

This is the problem with having a state in the first place. If you have one, it will be abused, manipulated, etc. in the service of such irrationalism. Or, as Mises says, in one of my favorite quotes:

No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power―whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government―could act in a way of which he himself disapproves.

Bruce Koerber August 31, 2008 at 2:50 pm

It is indeed a strange world where the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters pretend that they can speak from a position of omniscience and omnipotence. What could be a more obvious proof that the motivation behind it all is ego-driven, not the rhetoric that the motivation is caring for others?

To assume that the infinitely complex can be grasped and that justice can be administered in a righteous fashion (by a finite human being or a group of finite human beings) is a vain imagining and a sign that the ego has taken hold of all the senses (including the common sense) of that and those individuals.

If propagandized education had not removed subjectivism and natural law then people would easily understand that the subjective opinions of the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters have no authority.

In the classical liberalism civilization the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters will effectively be abolished because they will be shunned.

Brian Gladish August 31, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Of course, Dr. Reisman’s analysis is correct. The only thing I would like to add is that the oil leases in Alaska are on public land (hence the legislature has the ability to price them), and that the oil companies may be obtaining prices below what a private owner would charge.

The very existence of public ownership muddies the waters and distorts the markets. We cannot know what the prices of resources would be if they were only accessible by contract with a proprietary owner rather than through political maneuvering in a state legislature.

michael August 31, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Mr Reisman seems to forget who owns the oil lying beneath state-owned ands. That would be the State of Alaska. Is there any reason why property Alaska owns should be treated any differently than property owned by a corporation or an individual?

Also, he might observe that since the new leasing rates have been in place, oil profits in Alaska have increased! So there would seem to be little cause for concern.


Finally, the transaction is one between a willing lessor and a willing lessee. Third parties have no reasonable basis for aggrieved or outraged comment.

Chad August 31, 2008 at 5:55 pm

I would be very interested to hear Paulin’s opinions on the Federal Reserve and the merits of commodity-backed (vs. fiat) currencies at some point. I think those would speak volumes about her economic positions. If she ever has a public Q&A session, someone should ask her directly about those issues.

Also, I would like to find out more about the alleged bribery of Alaskan legislators by oil companies referenced in the New York Times excerpt. If true, then I would personally condemn such a practice. Despite my antipathy for the State, I do not care for private businesses bribing governmental officials to receive special treatment or favors, either.

Note that I am not approving of Paulin’s subsequent tax increase on oil companies and handouts to Alaskans by highlighting the bribery issue. I just think there may be two sides to that story.

Chad August 31, 2008 at 6:02 pm

CORRECTION: My post above should have had “Palin” rather than “Paulin” throughout. I must be subconsciously hoping she will be sympathetic to Ron Paul’s platform since she has made favorable comments about him in the past.

michael August 31, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Chad– Ms Palin is a classic “new broom”, cleaning up after one of the most crooked state governments in the country. You can google abundant materials on the degree to which industry– particularly the oil industry– had the legislature in its pocket.

That’s why Palin spearheaded the drive to change the law on oil concessions. The old one, written up under Frank Murkowski’s governorship, cheated Alaskans in favor of the oil field developers. Now there’s a new tax structure, including a new royalty schedule, that gives the owners of the oil (the Alaska citizens) a fairer shake. There are also a number of crooks, former legislators, now under indictment.

Not surprisingly, this has made her tremendously popular there, with approval ratings over 80%. Who wouldn’t love her? Everyone in Alaska will be getting a nice dividend this year.

The only surprise is that both governments, Murkowski’s and Palin’s, are nominally Republican. I guess there’s just no general rule.

Lawrence White August 31, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Oil is not the issue. The issue what we do after oil. The petroleum based economy is about to end. Kaput. The cost of oil has always included the environmental, geo political and health costs and we are finally realizing it. It is about time. We have gone on for decades knowing that we are risking our economy, destroying other nations to plunder their oil and killing the planet with our own exhaust, Yet due to our lazy, selfish lifestyles we have simply done so anyway.

Oil may indeed be the question but it is not the answer. If Mr. Obama takes these mentioned oil funds and places them into a pool with which to invest into the science of new fuels – then I am all for it. Governor Palin’s plan seems to be nothing for more than a bribe – and by her approval ratings it appears to be a very successful bribe. The plan must be to shift the economy to what we call “alternative fuels” and for that reason Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden seem to be on the right track.

Chad August 31, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Regarding Lawrence White’s comments, I am still convinced that if the petroleum based economy were to end five years from now, entrepeneurs and inventors in the free market would be able to come up with some viable (i.e., not taxpayer-subsidized), long-term alternative. The lack of government funding will ensure that only the most efficient and cost-effective substitutes to oil consumption will succeed which is in the long term interest of everyone. Either that, or we will all start walking and riding our bikes a lot more often.

Just in my lifetime, I have seen the invention and/or proliferation of music CDs/MP3 players, VHS/DVD/Blu-ray players, home video game consoles, mobile phones, the World Wide Web (not the Internet per se), digital cameras, personal computers, and probably a thousand other modern wonders, things one would have only imagined in a sci-fi movie or comic book when I was a kid. Some of the common technology we have today borders on outright magic to the older generations.

That being the case, I have no doubt that some inspired individuals or private companies out there can solve the energy crisis without overt government interference or guidance; the politicians just need to get out of the way and let it happen. One day we may all look back and laugh about gasoline-powered cars the way we now do about 8-track tapes.

Bruce Koerber August 31, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Dear Lawrence White,

If the ‘right track’ then which ‘buddy’ will be enriched?

Surely you understand that interventionism cannot occur without corruption and it is the ego-driven interventionist that assumes the moral authority to decide and this naturally benefits those who are closely associated.

To act like ‘Let’s be practical and assume that some interventionism is wise’ is a continuation of the fallacies of improper education. Humans are subjective and so the market process is the only means of economic justice. To act like ‘Let’s be practical and accept the fact that there are corruptions already in existence so let’s try to minimize their influence’ is short sighted not unlike the justification of Keynes “We’re all dead in the long run.”

Lawr ence White August 31, 2008 at 11:16 pm

How can it be called “intervention” when it is our own government – our tax money? You know – … “by the people…” etc.? “Intervention” occurs when we corrupt other country’s governments to benefit our lifestyle – not when our own government is working with us.

It is time that the taxes we pay as well as taxes and fees from the mega wealthy petroleum companies do something to benefit all of us and not just the oil companies alone. Without a balanced economy you have lopsided capitalism and ultimately that is no good for anyone.

Sadly many of the great technological innovations of recent years were hatched in American minds but had to go elsewhere in the world to be realized. We were too busy building SUV’s and playing computer games while grants and other funding for innovation were eliminated.

Of course this debate is moot if one believes that government itself is evil and that our form of democracy should be dismantled. I do not believe that to be true and therefore I will be voting with all my Viet Nam era veteran heart for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November.

Chuck September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am

Ok now first off we do not need more oil!! Oil companys have enough land for research and production that they dont even use. Second the Government of the U.S. secretly suppresess all new energy technologies due to oil. Mccain is tied to oil and so is Palin. No matter what we come up with, The big Oil will make sure it doesnt come forth. We are held hostage by the big oil companies. Sad but true!!!!

Bruce Koerber September 1, 2008 at 6:26 am

Economic intervention is the act of manipulating the economy as if finite human minds can comprehend the infinite intricacies of the market, including uncertainty.

rube goldberg September 1, 2008 at 6:43 am

LW, government itself is not necessarily evil, just inept and inefficient which leads to all kinds of evil.
LvM folks advocate the market and trust the unknown individuals within it, whereas LW, Chuck, et al, advocate the collective and trust the known individuals at the top (I’d guess that they deny advocating a collective). The former are in an evolutionary ‘survival of the fittest’ economy camp and the latter are in an command ‘intelligent design’ economy camp.
I don’t know what the motivations of the latter are, but the ideas are old, outdated, and proven to lead to failure.
They seem to hate the cozy relationship between ‘Big Oil’ and government, and conclude, well meaningly, but delusionally, that bigger government is necessary to solve the problem.

TD September 1, 2008 at 7:56 am

“Oil Companies”; “Windfall Profits”; To what oil companies is OBAMA! referring? Integrated oil companies, drillers, explorers, refiners, suppliers, gas stations? Jiffy Lube? Any company with “oil” in the name? Does he even know that there are a dozen different types of oil companies and that many have been unprofitable lately? Refiners haven’t earned a dime for a year – do they get a “downfall rebate”? When they turn profitable is it a windfall? Chevron just spent (invested) almost $250 million on ONE offshore platform that won’t produce oil for another 5-6 years. . . . after investing $100s of millions more – at what point will the profits made on the oil produced (if there are profits) be considered a windfall? Idiocy on parade. Immoral policy positions augmented by complete ignorance of both the subject at hand and the consequences of the policy. So much to look forward to.

michael September 1, 2008 at 9:59 am

TD– I think we all know what is meant when we refer to those oil companies earning windfall profits. Those are the giants who are now reaping the benefits from a worldwide increase in crude prices. Joe, with his little gas station on the corner, is not getting rich.

And a case could certainly be made to offer them further inducements in the way of royalty waivers, etc… if they could demonstrate a need for more funds to spur development. But that’s not been the case. All the majors are currently choked with unspent cash. Further, they are sitting on huge untapped reserves– in Alaska especially. They have no great current need for either the ANWR property or for incentives to explore further.

The companies that ARE in need of incentives are the ones working to bring down the cost of fossil fuel replacements. Wind, solar, tidal and geothermal. But they are pretty much edged out of the trough when it comes time for government to spur investment and R&D.

You have to recall the reasoning that lies behind government grants, rebates and tax breaks. It’s to spur the growth of struggling industries. Even President Bush gave such a break to our steel industry when they needed it (although that one has been counterproductive in instructive ways).

All nations protect young industries, usually in the form of trade barriers. Then, ideally, when the industry is ready to stand on its feet the barriers are lowered, so competition enlivens the economic mix. Sadly, governments don’t always follow the best courses of action.

When oil was young, it received many breaks from the government– and quite rightly. Later, after it was not only healthy but robust and even dominating, those breaks should have been phased out. Of course, lobbyists and insiders made sure that would never be the case. The same applies, in spades, to giant agriculture. No one needs less of a handout today… and no one gets more than they.

So, to everything there is a season. Right now I would be well pleased to see red tape reduced and incentives laid for the building of new refineries. Generators as well. The sticking point has been the huge costs of environmental remediation, and the approach currently being advocated is for the companies to be allowed to waive all the rules.

A far better use of taxpayers’ money would be to underwrite the cost of effective pollution mitigation. We should be electing leaders who endorse that approach.

Lawrence White September 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

“A far better use of taxpayers’ money would be to underwrite the cost of effective pollution mitigation. We should be electing leaders who endorse that approach.”

Nicely stated Michael.

However TD’s tears for the poor oil companies leaves me cold. Oil is a horribly bad product to use for fuel and it is making huge profits at our expense. How many “wrongs” does it take? As Mr. Obama stated “ENOUGH !” It is time that the government started to work for the people and not the just oil companies. Cheney’s private meetings with the oil lobby to formulate the energy policy of America is a disgrace and we are paying for it. If Mr. Obama will put the power of govt. into a national effort to free us from petroleum fuel it only hurts those who are sucking our economy dry. Everyone they will receive a benefit from cleaner air, a robust economy and cheaper fuel. Even those workers who run the stations and pump gas will benefit. As I stated earlier – “ENOUGH” of the greed and “ENOUGH” of this deadly and unnecessary petroleum product. Onward to the future.

Perhaps we have a big government because we are a big country. It is not the govt. that is bad. I served four years during a war for to defend our democracy. Instead it is some of the policies and some of the individuals within the government that suck. We can vote them out and change the policies if we will simply get to the polls.

Bennet Cecil September 1, 2008 at 10:29 pm

The oil belongs to the state of Alaska, so the state and the oil companies negotiate the lease payments . Leases should be sold at the market price by competitive bids.

If you check out the story, http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/325207.html, you will find that the government of Alaska has about $5 billion surplus, partly from the oil leases. If Alaska wants to invest the money, refund it to taxpayers or lower taxes it is a wonderful choice. Our federal government would take that money, spend it all, borrow more, and increase the size and scope of our $3 trillion monster.

With the high price of oil and its adverse effect on the American economy, our government should sell leases at market rates to private oil companies. Revenue from off shore leases should be split between the federal government and each coastal state. We should use American oil, coal, natural gas, wind and solar resources. Nuclear power should be expanded to generate more electricity. Modern economies depend on energy and it makes no sense to purchase energy from other countries when we have excellent resources at home. If you had food in your refrigerator would you leave it there and buy food from your neighbor? If our government artificially increases the cost of energy in America, it will stifle economic growth, lower the standard of living for Americans, increase unemployment and worsen the trade deficit.

Obama wants to redistribute income to get votes, follow the party line and share American prosperity. This will work in the short term and fail in the long term. By punishing production, he will increase moral hazard, discourage labor and capital, raise unemployment and lower federal tax revenues. GDP will not be able to grow at a healthy rate. When you bleed the bull too much he cannot produce for you.

Palin simply made the smart business decision to negotiate higher lease payments with the oil companies when the price of oil was high. Smart lady.

scineram September 2, 2008 at 1:38 am

I hope this Lawrence White does not lecture at FEE.

Lawrence White September 2, 2008 at 1:39 am

If you will check history you will see that when GWB took office we had a national fiscal surplus and gas was $1.25 a gallon.

So when Mr. Cecil says “Our federal government would take that (surplus) money, spend it all, borrow more, and increase the size and scope of our $3 trillion monster” he is clearly referring to the plans by the GOP (McCain – Palin) not the classic fiscal conservatism the Democrats and the Clinton administration demonstrated during their 8 years in the executive office or the plans voiced my Mr. Obama now.

What I hear Obama saying is that we should use these funds for the benefit of all the people not exclusively for the benefit of the oil companies such as the deal struck in secret White House meetings held by Mr. Cheney in conjunction with the energy companies

In contrast Mr. Obama is willing to unshackle American ingenuity and take a fresh new honest look at our energy problem. This is the sort of forward thinking leadership we need.

Mrs. Palin simply gave the oil money to her constituents and gained great popularity for doing so. This is not exactly a Chris Angel trick, or a new political tactic. In reality her $$$ give away did nothing to solve the energy problem that we face as citizens of the USA and as citizens of the world. In the end that is the issue.

SA September 2, 2008 at 10:21 am

“Everyone they will receive a benefit from cleaner air, a robust economy and cheaper fuel.”

LW, you’re hilarious. I love that attitude.

I struggle to comprehend how all 3 of these ends could be simultaneously achieved. We could go after cleaner air, but then the fuel wont be anywhere near as cheap (even after the inevitable monstrous subsidies) and the economy would be incomparably less “robust.”

If the robust economy is what you’re after, I implore you to look around this website (what are you doing here anyway?) and read some classic material. That should help you to understand where the author is coming from.

If your top priority is clean air today, then your top priority will necessarily also be “massively curtailed progress today.”

Jacque Denise Yap September 3, 2008 at 11:37 am

well guys i just saw their ADs in pollclash it appears as though the long awaited face-off between the two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, has now officially kicked-off with the release of two TV ads… well for me round one goes to Obama…hehehehe…you can see the video in http://pollclash.com/

J M September 3, 2008 at 5:16 pm

A ludicrous statement such as:

“It is that gang of cronies that is responsible for the high price of oil and, indirectly, for the very high profits of the oil companies.” deserves a retort.

If the Obama cronies cause the high price of oil, what actions did they take to cause the recent spike in and corresponding drop in the prices? Is it possible some other factors, such as corporate manipulation, are hard at work?

Lawrence White September 4, 2008 at 12:07 am

“If your top priority is clean air today, then your top priority will necessarily also be “massively curtailed progress today.”

Hey SA -

My personal priority would be cleaner air today and even cleaner air the day after and so on and so on. It is called going in the right direction.

How many jobs did GM lose last year? The truth is that we are getting our butts kicked by competition that is using our own ideas and concepts against us. Meanwhile we produce a product that even we don’t want. How many SUV’s do you own? Try selling one and see how much you get offered.

There is work to be done and jobs to be gained in a new economy based on new fuels. We fed the oil beast long enough. it is way past time to step towards the future.

As a resident of Lower Manhattan I smelled the acrid oil smoke and tasted the windblown ashes for months after the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01. In that time the horrible irony of the economics of oil became crystal clear to me.

The following march of our brave troops into Iraq instead of chasing the the 9-11 villains in Afghanistan proved that our government cared more for the money generated from petroleum than they do in our people’s lives.

The only reason I can see for anyone to fight against a national effort to develop new energy sources would likely lie in ones investment portfolio. Petroleum as a fuel is over. The only question is how much of our national wealth and lives they will steal before they go.

You think this is hilarious but all i hear is nervous laughter

Billy Beck September 5, 2008 at 1:10 am

“The only reason I can see for anyone to fight against a national effort to develop new energy sources would likely lie in ones investment portfolio.”

Well, that and the fact that you have to steal my money in order to do it.

Ken Fulk September 5, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Basing your judgement of Gov. Palin’s decisions on an article published in the New York Times destroys the credibilty of your article.

Find a better news source…

jason September 23, 2008 at 3:56 pm


I applaud you for sharing your views on a post that clearly favors the right wing, big oil favoring society.

They continioulsy fail to grasp the simple fact that while yes, further drilling may be a “quick fix” and bring prices down temporarily, in the end it will further cripple our country and further our dependence on OIL!

You have the right vision, we need to stop the dependence and usage of petroleum. It is time to change our outlook and start TRULY spending money on alternative energy sources for a better world.

The views of those who believe we should futher drill, drill, and drill are those same views that have led us to the economic crisis we are in. Pump more and more money into the financial system to “hopefully avoid” a recession. Bail out banks, flood the market with more money so that more banks can take on bad debt.. No change in the policys that have caused this problem, just more of the the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

The solution they have come up with is to continue to pump more oil in to the system. The more oil, the less the price. Again, i completely agree with that simple logic. A 3rd grade student can put that together.

The fact is what does that solve as far as a solution for cleaner renewable energy and alternative fuel sources? Where does that leave us in 20 years? 30 years? How about when the oil runs dry? Will we then import alternative energy from other countries that have made amazing progress while we sit here and debate what we want to do?

We are a country founded on innovation and technology. We are supposed to be the leaders, the ones who set the standard for the rest of the world to follow. As one post said, in just a small time we have seen electronics progress from 8 tracks to Mp3 players.. Computers have went from the size of a large family room, to the size of a cell phone. All while, oil has progressed to the need for…….. more oil…. hmmmm Thats our solution to this mess?? Just drill more oil? To increase produiction to see a little relief at the pump? Thats going to solve this crisis? Thats sure not going to counteract global warming.. Thats sure not going to lead to an alternative energy source that will cost less in the future. Oil wont last forever.. We have been using it for years and years, without changing how we use it. WIthout spending any time or money in exploring additional sources that may in fact be a better solution.

As technologically advances as our country is, we sure havnt given much attention to the single largest problem that faces our enviroment.. Big oil..

Yes, as we explore, create and impelment new alternative resources prices will rise temporarily.. But just as other technoligical advances have shown, the prices will even out as we continue to advance, and research ways to improve them. But, if we arent taking these steps, we will be stuck with the same ol’ thing.. For instance, remember when a DVD player was $600?? You can get one now for $50.. TV’s used to be $5,000.. Now you can get nice ones under $500.. Why? Because there is a high demand for them, millions of dollars are spent to make them better and more cost effinient for companies. Why? Because companies have spent time, moeny and energy in exploring, researching and develping ways to make just that happen. Thats technology for you people..

But again, we still do nothing to ween ourselves from oil prodcution and consumption… Why? because the government will not allow for it..

It is time for a change in the way we americans think.. Its time we understand that we need to take care of this coutnry we love now, and not leave it to the next generation to fix. We are innovators by nature, lets continue with what has made this country such a powerhouse, and not fall behind in the race..

Many other countries have changed. In fact, if you look through Europe, they are taking ALL the necessary steps to ensure they eliminate their dependence to oil. Is it a wonder why the EURO is doing so much better then the dollar??

I sure dont think so..

How about AUSTRIA? We are on a site that follow the “School of Austrian Economics”. Take a look at this coutnry.. 80% OF ENERGY IN AUSTRIA COMES FROM ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES INCLUDING WIND, SOLAR, ETC. 80%!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And here we are whining and truly debating why we should drill drill drill!!! More oil, more rich big oil companies.. Trying to justify why these big oil companies need to further drill to ease the price at the pump.

Its time to change folks, and i truly hope some of you will start to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I know Obama & Biden have.. (at least i sure hope)

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: