Ratboy Poison
Filed under: US Elections
Remember back six weeks ago when I told you about the insane scheme of New York Times columnist Thomas "Ratboy" Friedman to impose a massive surcharge on gasoline, which would result -- he claimed -- in reduced spending so that American dollars would be kept at home? Remember how I asked: "Suppose Americans, who love their cars rather a lot, don't drive less. Suppose they simply pay the tax. In that case, exactly the same amount of money will go to all those evil regimes, and now a huge chunk of money will also go to Washington DC too. The people will be poor, and DC will be rich, and so will the oil empires."
And remember just yesterday, when I pointed out how a Times editorial was attempting to bash George Bush over rising gas prices (without for instance saying a single word about how Russia is working to destabilize the Middle East and artificially inflate prices), lamenting the horrible damage increasing prices would do to our economy? Apparently, the editorial page editors don't pay much heed to things Ratboy says, now do they.
I'll bet you're hardly surprised to learn, as the picture-worth-a-thousand-words from National Review shown above clearly demonstrates, that they're both wrong.
U.S. consumer spending has not flagged at all in the face of skyrocketing world oil prices, but rather has kept pace with it. As NR notes: "You see, when gas prices climb from $2 a gallon to $3 a gallon, one of the components of retail spending goes up. Gas stations are retail establishments. People make money working at gas stations (which now generally serve as convenience stores). People make money managing the corporations that own these stores. And, of course, people make money by owning shares in these companies."
So increased oil prices don't stop people from buying oil, nor do they wreck the economy. The only thing they do is force people to make choices about what is important to them. They force other products to become more competitive if they want to compete with oil, and that's a good thing.
Of course, it's perfectly true that we should become less dependent on foreign oil, and rising prices will encourage that by creating profit opportunities for those who can find alternatives. The miracles of capitalism take care of this without needing any government-imposed taxes to accomplish it, and without ruining the economic base.
Kind of makes you think the Times should spend more energy trying to figure out why its circulation and stock price are tanking, and less giving advice to others, now doesn't it?
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit