 | DrumBeat: July 11, 2008 | The Oil Drum | A gas supply disruption case study - the Varanus Island explosion |  |
What fraction of America's $4+ gallon gasoline is due to the war in Iraq?
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 11, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: energize america, gas prices, iraq, oil prices, original [list all tags]
This is a guest post by A Siegel, who blogs on a range of energy issues at Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! and works with TOD European Editor Jerome a Paris on Energize America, a blog-driven effort to develop innovative and holistic energy policy options in the face of peak oil and global warming.
| What fraction of America's $4+ gallon gasoline is due to the war in Iraq? |
Earlier today, someone asserted that well over half (or more than $2) of America's $4.10 gallon of gas is due to the war. Another person asked "Is that right?" And, after pulling out some hair from my head, my response was both short and then long.
The short:
Two dollars a gallon is, perhaps, as good a swag as anyone's.
...
I think.
And, the long? well, it's under the fold. :)
And, the long:
This is really a tough analytical (ANALyst) question, without a pure answer. How much did invading Iraq add to the price of gasoline? It really depends on who the hell you ask, what assumptions are, etc ..
1. For most, the two prime drivers are mounting demand combined with constrained supply (Peak Oil hits).
2. There is, from what I can tell, an over exaggeration of the role of speculation; this is profiting off oil prices not driving them.
3. There is, however, a major risk factor in the market due to tensions in the Persian Gulf/etc. (The war, threats to Iran, etc ...)
4. Without Operation Iraqi Freedom and with better relationships with Iran, would there be global investments in Iraq / Iran such that they would be producing more oil for the world market?
5. To what extent is the Iraq War responsible for the devaluation of the dollar over the past five years and the role this has on oil prices?
6. And, this question doesn't deal with the most interesting question: What is the true total cost of a gallon of gasoline? Because, when we add in security, infrastructure, health, pollution, and other costs, many analysts put the "price" of a gallon of gasoline well above $10 (and even >$15) per gallon. But 'the true cost of gasoline' wasn't the question and conversation.
Let's look around at some of the discussion of the issues related to the Iraq War and gasoline prices.
From EIA's gasoline price primer:
Crude oil supply and prices – Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand. Events in crude oil markets that caused spikes in crude oil prices were a major factor in all but one of the five major run-ups in gasoline prices between 1992 and 1997, according to the National Petroleum Council's study "U.S. Petroleum Supply - Inventory Dynamics." Rapid gasoline price increases occurred in response to crude oil shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo in 1973, the Iranian revolution in 1978, the Iran/Iraq war in 1980, and the Persian Gulf conflict in 1990. The cost of crude oil has been the main contributor to recent increases in gasoline prices. World crude oil prices reached record levels in 2007 due mainly to high worldwide oil demand relative to supply. Other factors contributing to higher crude oil prices include political events and conflicts in some major oil producing regions, as well as other factors such as the declining value of the U.S. dollar (the currency at which crude oil is traded globally).
Okay, for EIA, the prime cause: supply / demand curves, but note "political events and conflicts".
Chris at Daily Liberty Research did a nice post on driving factors of oil prices with an interesting collection of articles, including the late June reporting that "OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted that the price of oil will climb to $170 a barrel before the end of the year, citing the dollar's decline and political conflicts…" Chris comes to this key conclusion
the main reasons for high gas prices are the weak dollar/inflation (aka the Federal Reserve), the current wars we are in, and the likelihood of the U.S. starting more wars in the near future.
National Security Network took a look at the issue as well, with a focus on the risk premium. They comment that "some experts estimate" a risk premium of $30 to $40 barrel due to tensions with Iran/etc. That is what my 'off the top of the head' figure would have been for risk premium. But, guess what: even the best analysts, when pushed away from reporters, seem call this a guess, a swag or, at best, an "educated" or "informed" estimate. And, of course, the risk premium doesn't address the question of whether there would be more oil produced absent the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and sanctions against Iran. Nor does it address the question of how much of dollar's fall is due to conflict in Iraq and tension with Iran.
Back to a swag:
These, however, don't clearly answer the questions. Is the Iraq war premium $3?$2.30? $2? A buck? Twenty cents? Or, is there no premium at all? I find a $3 per gallon assertion absurd, just as I would find it absurd to assert that there is no premium at all. But, in terms of defensible analysis, in scratching my head, I return to the short answer:
Two dollars a gallon is, perhaps, as good a swag as anyone's.
...
I think.
But that is why this post is here. To spark a conversation. To be honest, I don't know the answers to these questions. I wonder whether anyone really does. Which is one of the reasons why I'm writing this. I don't know. I am not expert on gasoline prices and all the factors that coalesce to drive prices that are paid at the pump. Many here, however, are ... Are the questions asked above the right ones? Are there major factors missing? And, what might the answers be? What is a 'defensible' statement as to the premium American drivers pay at the pump and
This is an interesting thought experiment. I might be grasping here, but if someone could tie the defense premium being paid by the United States to support and prosecute the occupation of Iraq and the various other military establishments 'defending US interests', to the real price of gasoline at the pump in terms of taxes paid to support said budget and huge deficit incurred by exporting capital to dogdy oil producers, wouldn't that be a 'national security' debate worth having? Or should we just move those 'support the troops' magnets to cover the gas caps of those SUVs when we can and hope that makes people think?
So what's the defense budget - $530 billion? And the supplmentals every year for Iraq nearly $100 billion more. And say the US doctrine of defense is to fight 'two major wars simultaneously', so 50% of that $630 billion goes to support the 13 - 14 MBPD of oil imported into the US everyday, but we spread the cost over the whole consumption of say 22 MBPD (and I don't include gasoline imports). Let's say 20 gallons of gasoline from each barrel, so some 440,000,000 gallons...
Ooh that's a big number.... I must be wrong.
Well, that was the point of question six and raising the 'true cost' of a gallon. There are many studies on this, ranging from $10 up.
My defense budget experiment comes out at about $2 / gallon... I'd like to see the other $8 to $13 filled in by someone, though.
Couple things.
First off, total cost (fully burdened) would could pollution, infrastructure, health and other costs, not 'just' defense/security.
Some figures/sites:
Just on security http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=11520 ' all costs are amortized over the total volume of imports, that would be equivalent to adding $5.04 to the price of a gallon of gasoline. For Persian Gulf imports, the premium would be $8.35."
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/real-cost-gallon-gas-835.html the real cost of energy dependence amounts to more than $11.35 per gallon, according to Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.
This is an interesting discussion, that seeks to calculate all costs. Numbers are pretty astounding http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
etc ...
Actually the cost of the Iraq war is thousands if not hundred of thousands of lives lots plus and additional cost of maybe a few ounces of gold to cover real electricity costs or say a ton of coal.
This is the cost of doing the electronic transfers of a fiat currency we don't even have printing costs.
As long as people keep accepting your fiat currency you can wage war forever for free.
memmel, I wouldn't say "forever."
Imperial Spain also thought it could go on forever:
(Carlos Fuentes, The Buried Mirror)
Virtual. Indeed.
Or how about doubling the US national debt overnight by bailing out Fannie and Freddie? And the reason they have to be bailed out to this degree? That the administration has been continually pushing them to increase leverage and exposure. This crash is intentional.
cfm in Gray, ME, Milliways
There is an element missing from the question posed here. That is, it addresses the question only from perspective of the effects of toppling Saddam.
Let's ask this question: Where would we stand if Saddam were still in power. (1) Would we still be trying to keep him in his box and, what would the cost of that be? (2) If we tired of the cost of keeping him contained, would he give up his designs to control Arab oil? Would he stop making war on his neighbors. Would he stop exterminating anyone who disagrees with him? (3) With Iran building nuclear weapons, would dear ole Saddam sit quietly by and do nothing, or would he engage in an arms race with the ayatollahs?
I would submit that Saddam would likely be an even bigger problem today than he was 7 years ago. The military cost of keeping him down probably would have been less, but it takes little imagination as to what the political cost would now be on the price of oil with both Iraq and Iran going at each other yet again.
My question still stands, trollbot.
I think that your comments on Saddam are really, really dumb.
1/ Saddam was boxed in for 12 years and not a threat to the west or Iran.
2/ Saddam was a mean S.O.B., but at least under him there was no Al-Qaida-in-Iraq.
3/ A few warships off the coast, patrol the no fly zones, fire a few cruise missiles occasionally. 6 years (2003-08) at a few billion dollars/year and no bodycount.
4/ 120,000 troops freed up that could have finished the job in Afghanistan= no resurgance of the Taliban and one dead Bin Laden.
The troll comment about you was harsh but at least a troll has a brain.
your miss is that the 440,000,000 gallons is per day, and the 650 billion is per year.
That gives us 160 billion gallons per year, which would in theory be $2/gallon. That's a big number, except that it's a total lie. Taking the military cost and laying it off against the gasoline fraction of only us oil imports is bogus. The US imports are primarily from mexico and canada, so stabilizing the ME is not really about protecting "our" oil, it's about protecting world oil. Without which, I would point out, the world economy would have collapsed decades ago. Not only that, but far less than half of the US military budget is spent on middle eastern adventures. Roughly half the military budget is spent on benefits for RETIRED soldiers, the ME represents maybe 1/4.
I like reading the Oil Drum on lunch break, but I fear this is only going to get worse and worse until the election passes.
Ceterus paribus assumption taken too far: No accounting for increased demand from other parts of the world.
It doesn't matter who much of it is due to the current wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) or the planned ones (Iran and Venezuela.)
They're making anyone with an ounce of brain abandon the US currency in favor of the Euro.
Bush's minions (or is it his bosses,) estimate that unpegging the Yuan will fix everything by making Chinese goods more expensive, easing the trade imbalance, is right.
That will single handedly ruin Wal*Mart.
But by being able to go to the Euro, (in New York at the trendiest shops, you pay for imported goods in Euros. The dollar is too unstable!) means that the Yuan is going to take the hit, dump the dollars and be able to continue with Euros.
The dollar will freefall to the value Mexican Peso unless the US shores up the dollar by selling lots of land.
And that will be all she wrote for the experiment in democracy.
History always has a tendency to repeat itself - sooner or later.
The best comparative empire in history analogous to America would have to be Rome.
The originator of Democracy - Greece, was not able to have the influential power of Rome after their fractionization when Alexander the Great died - followed by Selucus and Ptolemy and their descendants vying for supremacy.
Once the rivalry began the Grecian Empire lacked cohesion and faded into history.
Rome, however, gives us a better case example of the deterioration within a republic.
As the Roman Republic maturated it developed into a democracy.
Within the Roman Democracy a metastazing corruption was unavoidable.
This depredation was caused by a lack of leadership due to the competetive drive of the elite within its populace; which consequently caused the government to become dysfunctional.
Elite control of the government created an extreme gap between the wealthy and the proletariat.
This atmosphere within Rome created civil unrest among the majority and division among the populace on whom they should give their allegiance to.
It was within this confusion Julius Caesar and those who would follow him came to power through deception and propaganda.He was the first Roman leader to claim to be divine, and therefore, had the right to rule the people with complete authority.
All those who would follow on the Roman throne would claim to be Jupiter incarnate (if memory serves me correctly) and would consequently carry the title 'Emperor of Rome'.
Much in the same way the Pharaohs of Egypt carried the appellative 'Horus in the flesh' the son of Amon Ra.
The end result of absolute power.
Ostensibly Rome retained the cognomen 'democracy', but in reality, Rome turned into a dictatorship by 21st century definition.
As history shows us, it was at the time of the rise of the Emperors that Rome became exponentially more violent and bloody; and the brutality of Rome became legend.
With a careful perusal of Romes history, it becomes axiomatic that America is following the same path, i.e.: the elite within America having inordinate influence - creating a growing gap between the rich and the poor - and causing the proletariat to become agitated with dishelved confusion among the majority.This conflagration will become incalculably more exacerbated by the current economic problems due to the plateau in oil production and the contraction of the economy.
I find it quite sad most are willing to believe the nonsense that all of the geo-political problems we are having can be directed towards one individual (that being the current President), when in fact, there is no possible way in this current system government one person can be the root cause of all of our failures.This only makes it painfully obvious how uninformed the majority are, and showcases the maladroit actions of the corporate media. All of us to one degree or another share the blame, but hardly any are willing to accept that responsibility.
This type of ignorance will bring a change that most would be shocked by if they only knew the consequences.
Revolution in the 21st Century is a very bad idea.
I'm afraid msbpodcast is right when predicating the days are numbered for democracy.
History may indeed repeat itself.
Graeco Roman civilisation was pretty bloody before the Emperors, with cheerful hobbies like decimating armies to maintain discipline and live dissection of slaves to improve medical knowledge.
That quibble aside, most of what you say I would agree with, with the exceptions that inevitable is usually best determined in hindsight - how do you prove that greater understanding of what was occurring could not have altered the outcome? - And also I don't think that individuals should escape all responsibility - the group around Bush is still a criminal clique intent on subverting the country in their own interests, even if the tide of history is that which empowers them to do so.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe the President may have nefarious reasons for his decisions.
But!
I do recall a speach recently were he told the American public that "Americans are addicted to oil."
If I read between the lines I would interpret that as "...Hey you idiots, we're in Iraq to feed your insatiable thirst for oil. Why are you bitching about the war..?"
This is one of the many reasons why we all share the blame - out of ignorance.
It would be ideal if there was a greater understanding of our current crisis to quell a potentially devastating conflict....But how many individuals actually understand the concept of peak oil globally?
1 million, maybe 3 million?
Instead of the majority seeking knowledge by the erudition of history - so as to insure mistakes are not repeated - all I see are the majority of people clamorous for more 'bread and circus'.
Nice comment, sampson.
I too like to fit current events into a larger historical context in order to try to gain understanding. And even though I might disagree that Rome offers the "best comparative empire," I nevertheless agree that much of what we are seeing can be attributed to the "decline of empire."
I wonder though if what is transpiring is not just the decline of the American empire, but a more general decline of the Western imperial complex as a whole. For the last 500 years the baton of top global empire has been passed around, the United States carrying it for the last century or so, perhaps at times in close competition with Russia, but before that Spain, England and France all had their day in the sun. But the baton always remained within the Occident. Could it be that the time has arrived when non-Western empires will dominate, as they did after the fall of the Roman empire, and when all of Europe came within a hairbreadth of falling under Moslem domination?
Jacques Barzun has written about the cultural rise and fall of the West in From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present. He argues that the "point at which good intentions exeeded the power to fulfill them marked for the culture the outset of decadence." This sentiment is echoed by Carlos Fuentes when he wrote: "The Renaissance dream of a Christian Utopia in the New World was also destroyed by the harsh realities of colonialism: plunder, enslavement, genocide. Between the two was created the baroque of the New World rushing to fill in the void between ideals and reality." In the United States the Baroque has taken the form of our whirling, flamboyant, excessive lifestyles, every waking moment filled with movies, music, sports, entertainment and extravagance. "Nothing," as Fuentes goes on to explain, expressed "uncertainty better than the art of paradox, the art of abundance based on want and necessity, the art of proliferation based on insecurity, rapidly filling the vacuums of our personal and social history...with anything that it found at hand."
That said, I've often wondered how Peak Oil plays into this. I for one am convinced that Peak Oil in the Occident (more or less corresponding to the OECD) is upon us. Only a small portion of total global petroleum reserves reside within the borders of Western countries. Does that have anything to do with, or will it contribute to, the decline of the West?
It seems that, if the empire were functioning properly, it would not. Fuentes gives us a definition of the Bourbon concept of empire:
With the advent of the 19th century, overt empire became unfashionable, or unprofitable, and a more sophisticated type of empire evolved. "Economic liberalization" was its creed. The cross and the sword were replaced by the calculator and the gunboat. Again quoting Fuentes:
Saudi Arabia provides the perfect current-day example of one of the few remaining "highly privileged local minorities" serving as intermediaries for Western interests. Bin Laden has avowed to remove this privileged minority. At the same time, the United States is trying to re-establish another privileged minority, loyal to Western interests, in Iraq following the betrayal of Saddam Hussein.
I suppose two scenarios are possible as to why the non-OECD countries are no longer providing abundant and cheap oil:
1) Failure of empire, or
2) The non-OECD, as well as the OECD countries, are experiencing Peak Oil.
And perhaps these two do not operate independently of each other.
hello DownSouth,
I appreciate the philisophical points of view expressed by Mr. Fuentes, namely:
"....In the United States the Baroque has taken the form of our whirling, flamboyant, excessive lifestyles, every waking moment filled with movies, music, sports, entertainment and extravagance. "Nothing," as Fuentes goes on to explain, expressed "uncertainty better than the art of paradox, the art of abundance based on want and necessity, the art of proliferation based on insecurity, rapidly filling the vacuums of our personal and social history...with anything that it found at hand...."
How can one disagree with this perusal of Western Civilization, especially our insecurity?
It certainly should give any American pause to think.
The question of Western imperial influence among the oil producing nations and the growing Asian power block, I believe, can possibly be summerized in the following analysis:
What made me certain of the absolute certitude of American preponderance, and why the Middle East and the Asian Powers will not be able to thwart the will of America - until America's destiny is fulfilled in creating a one world government - were the writings of such political scientists as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jim Garrison, who is the residing president of the World Forum based in San Francisco.
The thing I appreciate about Mr. Brzezinski is his undeniable candor in describing geo-politics.
One may disagree with his world view, and perhaps consider him to be somewhat callous in his conclusions; but he never seems to be overtly 'political' in his writings and basically gives an outline of future events and how they will materialize in the real world.
He is a strategist, not a politician.
In Zbigniews book 'The Grand Chessboard' he states "...Hegemony is as old as mankind.But America's current global supremacy is distictive in the rapidity of it's emergence, in it's global scope,and in the manner of it's exercise.In the course of a single century, America has transformed itself - and has also been transformed by international dynamics - from a country relatively isolated in the Western Hemisphere into a power of unprecedented worldwide reach and grasp..."
He meticulously pointed out not only America's 'peerless military hegemony', but also America's economic preponderance and worldwide cultural influence (something he stresses in his more recent books).
His conclusions are for the concatenation of global American superiority for at least another generation; that will ultimately give rise to a united global order of shared responsibility with America at the nexus of this system.
This is merely a euphemism for a World Government.
Jim Garrison, on the other hand, presents more of the esoteric side of America; and predicates in so many words "...America is Atlantis recidivus...America is the most modern expression of the most ancient quest to attain absolute power through complete knowledge..."
It is worth pointing out that these two political scientists are merely stating facts, not political hyperbole.
All one has to do is read Francis Bacon's 'The New Atlantis' to see where Jim Garrison gained his insight.
It is fascinating and somewhat maledictious that Francis Bacon, in a 16th Century book, described 'flying machines' and 'skyscrapers' many centuries before their existence. It makes one wonder just how he attained this occultic and or secret knowledge.
The descision the individual will face in the near future is whether one decides that the current ongoing paradigm is something he or she really wants to be a part of, or whether they will decide to eviscerate themselves from the onslaught of a relentlessly technocratic globalization.
Ultimately, one's freewill cannot be violated.
As someone reminded me on an earlier discussion, it's really not that complicated.
It seems we probably ought to count devaluation of the dollar caused by the invasion as part of the risk premium. To "pay" for the "war" we have just been running the electronic printing presses, and all that creation of additional dollars makes the value of each individual dollar fall. If we didn't have the war, we wouldn't have had to electronically WHOOSH so many more dollars into electronic existence, thus the dollar would be stronger, and oil would be cheaper.
Incidentally, I wonder if the neocons would be so happy increasing the money supply to "pay" for things if someone apprised them of the fact that doing so is actually equivalent to an an incredibly progressive tax increase. Just as when a publicly traded company raises money by issuing more shares, which siphons some of the ownership away from the existing shareholders in proportion to their number of shares owned, running the electronic money printing presses siphons wealth away from Americans into the pockets of the government in proportion to the amount of wealth (that's *wealth*, not income) those people already had.
So despite the rhetoric, the Bushistas have indeed raised taxes, and they have done so in one of the more progressive ways it could be done. (Shhh, don't tell them!) On the other hand, it still hits poor people as well by driving the price of everything up. This part of the equation is sure to make the neocons happy.
Utopia in Decay
http://home.comcast.net/~kevin.cherkauer/site
Kevin Cherkauer
Well, there never were "Bush Tax Cuts", but only Tax Increases on the Unborn.
Are the neocons, per se, anti-tax? In any event, they feel protected against any 'minor' inflation. In any event, invading Iraq was supposed to lower the cost of gasoline, no?
"Are the neocons, per se, anti-tax?"
What a funny question. Breathes there a born human who does not notice that these neo-whatever (fascists) work to lower taxes on the super-rich at the expense of the hoi-polloi?
Also, where have the US factories gone, one by one? The remaining industries are heavily oriented towards Defense(???)-warmongering and such industries are mostly all that remain ......
I'm living in US & France, and gas-prices in FR, while irritating, are nowhere near the SHOCK level I perceive in the US. Remembering that our human senses ( even of money )are logarithmic, the price I pay at the pump here in FR has gone up ~1.50/1.25 (euro)(since last summer), whilst in US it's what? ~ 4.xx/2.xx ( $) ..... shocking!!!
Due to what differences? Could one difference be that the world is already quietly, subconsciously Euro-based?
Like the US tax policies ( SHHHH, just don't tell them ! )
One reason we were p---ed off at Sadam was he wanted to use Euro as base for oil mkt....no?
Sorry for lack of documentation ..... color me anecdotal.
sydney
Dadco,
Re your comment on world being 'euro based', see article a Steve Masterson wrote in 2006, http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4657
Article is doing the rounds again (plagiarized) since Iran finally opened their oil bourse on Feb 17th 2008, although according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Oil_Bourse it is only trading derivatives, oil trading will start later.
Conservatives are anti-tax, and anti-spend to match. Neo-con is a name liberals give to those who like to spend as much as they do, only on different things.
Factories went away due to high corp taxation (highest in the world), heavy benefit loading, high minimum wage, unfunded mandates, and heavy environmental regulation. They went to China -- thank the liberals for that, though the neocons fiddled in tune with them.
Euro-based? That'll sound hollow once Gazprom yanks the chain in a year or so. EU wins today based on efficiency, admittedly. But the US can increase eff faster than the EU can increase production. It'll be messy for us both, and both have profound weaknesses.
US deficits and loose credit are definitely a major contributor to the problems, though. Again, a neocon can scheme with a liberal to make loans that nobody should, but a paleocon would not. Let's relearn the leverage lesson of '29, shall we?
There is a question, it seems, as to which societies and which status of life we should compare America to., it looks as if you wish to have the Chinese situation of polluted skies/waters/etc, near enslavement of workers, and otherwise as the US standard. Please exlain how that is not the implication of your paragraph that begins "Factories went away ..."
Now, if you were to compare to Europe, let us say, is the US tax burden the highest? Judged in what way? The overall tax burden (including the business social security/such taxes related to salaries) in Western Europe is generally far heavier on business than the US, no?
As aways, it is important to translate those terms for non-US people.
As I can tell, at US, "liberal" means socialist (or social-democrat, not communist), "conservative" means liberal and I really don't understand the meaning of "neo-conservative" yet, sometimes it looks like neo-liberal, other times like facist.
Too complicated - 'right', 'righter' and 'rightest' do the job.
Conservatives are anti-tax, and anti-spend to match.
'the conservatives' are not anti-tax and anti-spend.
If they were, then do explain 'the conservatives' votes and bill signatures that have resulted in the 50% effective tax rate and the increasing borrowing to keep government 'functioning'.
Republicans - the borrow, tax and spend party.
"... and anti-spend to match..."
that doesnt pass the smell test, for if it is so why has the "compassionate conservative(bush)" and his band of corrupt neoCONS run up the debt to the tune of oh lessee here $9.something trillion minus $ 5.something trillion ........ that's damn near $ 4 trillion ?
But England has seen about the same price changes and Euro based countries and has similar infrastructure.
But we all realize that they are basically as screwed as the US so it goes well beyond simple precentage changes and into core design if you will of the economies.
The French and a lot of the Euro based economies have been smart some dumb and some like England almost as stupid as the US. I'd say off hand that Italy and Spain are not in near as good a shape for example.
I think the idea is right but the reasoning if you will is deeper and really based on almost national desire.
The French in general care about good wine good food and F*%$ing. The finer things in life :)
Maybe if we could make really good wine in the US we would not be in crappy shape.
Given this criteria the English don't stand a chance :)
"Well, there never were "Bush Tax Cuts", but only Tax Increases on the Unborn."
i think i get your point, on balance, although bush cut taxes(for some*), the hidden inflation based tax wiped that all out.
i used to post that bush was a loan shark. he gave a $$$$ tax credit for each dependent, but added something like $$,$$$ per capita debt.
* my tax cut, having no dependents was infinitesimally small.
also, did i miss the part about how much "would have been" iraqi oil has been taken off the market as a factor in the gas price equation ? that would require another swag to evaluate.
The 'how much oil would have been produced' and what impact that would have on prices certainly is a swag challenge and is one of the questions that I raise.
It seem that a lot of people on TOD do not understand the operation of the US Government.
The President of the USA can not raise, lower or alter taxes in any way. Taxes are the sole domain of the US Congress.
The Congress is responsible for ALL taxes in the USA. The congress is currently controlled by the Democrats who are in the majority, so if tax legislation isn't to someones liking they should be complaining about Nancy Pelosi for not supplying the leadership necessary to initiate and pass the legislation (tax or otherwise) to make changes.
If anyone is unhappy with any aspect of the Federal Government, at least complain about/to the Government entity that has control over that aspect. And in most cases that is not the President of the USA.
The "Bush tax cuts" may have been proposed by the executive branch of the government, but it was the Congress of the USA that passed the legislation that enabled them. If the Congress did not like them, they would not have passed them. Tax cuts or increases are Congresses tax cuts or increases, not the doing of any President of the USA.
"It seem that a lot of people on TOD do not understand the operation of the US Government."
Noone really wants to blame the entire Republican party for voting in lockstep on a great deal of the most important issues of the day (minus a few renegades). Most people don't look at voting records, but what they are right about is that it is one entity, and acts as such.
This seems to be a variation of the "we were just following orders" canard. Working of US government is one thing, but you sir, do you understand the workings of politics?
Please excuse me, I have gotten off-track on two posts within these comments. I will keep future posts more relevant to oil in the future.
I did not venture to derive cause and effect from my obs