People who don't understand anything but their own discomfort have called for a gasoline boycott on May 15. The object of this boycott is to protest high gasoline prices and, according to the email that recently hit my box, "take $2,292,000,000 out of the rich oil company’s pockets for just one day."
In my mind, there is no better indicator of how far down the road to complete irrationality we Americans have gone than our reaction to high gasoline prices. There is a subset of us that simply can't understand that increased consumption of a scarce resource will raise that resource's price. Every price jump at the pump is proof of a grand conspiracy of oil companies, despite the fact that the United States has the lowest gas prices in the industrialized world. (I, personally, do not count Venezuela as industrialized.)
And now that self-indulgent subset is being wooed by another self-important subset: people who believe that complaint can change the laws of nature and economics. The result is a protest that will have exactly zero effect except that it will make the kind of people I don't like hanging around with anyway feel better about themselves.
The most direct way to reduce the cost of gasoline is to consume less of it. It does nothing to tank-up on the 14th or 16th rather than the 15th if you drive the same amount you always drive.
If one were to call for a gas price protest that required, for example, travel on public transportation or riding bicycles or eating at home instead of going out or purchasing a car that got more than 18 miles to the gallon, that would reduce oil consumption by some small increment and have an effect on the market. But no one is calling for that kind of protest, and no one in our utterly vacuous political sphere is calling for the kind of sacrifice that might make a real difference.
If there's a change in America that threatens the future of this country, it's not acceptance of gay marriage or the influx of people who speak Spanish or Britney Spears going without panties. It's our utter unwillingness to sacrifice. We're the only country in the history of the world that has tried to finance a war while cutting taxes; you don't think we're going to give up something as wonderful as our our huge, super-powered automobiles just because we can't afford the fuel that goes into them, do you?
Seriously: I worry about this country. I worry that our minds are so filled with crap journalism and Paris Hilton and a breathless desire for more stuff that we've lost our ability to confront the world as it really is. I worry that something -- an undetected virus, maybe, or television -- has stripped us of our ability to think in depth about anything more complicated than where our next bacon cheeseburger is coming from.
And so we are left with nothing to do but create conspiracy theories about situations that are entirely of our own making, and the only power we have is the power to attack those who indulge us. After putting our heads together, our mode of attack is to do something that is utterly and completely futile.
That'll teach 'em.
Right on brother. Another thing you might want to worry about: After the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts, and the Bush tax cuts - all of which focused on reducing the marginal rates and resultingly stimulated private sector growth - there are still seemingly intelligent people who fail to realize that revenues increased as a direct result. What rational policy do you have in mind that would have dictated going to war in the middle of a recession that would have been made worse by further tax increases?
Happy to debate econ policy with you anytime, anywhere just one word of caution. Don't listen to your favorite oracle of econ policy Jimmy C if you want to win.
Posted by: Pursuit | 05/08/2007 at 07:12 PM
I was going to point out your bone-headed comment about tax cuts, but Pursuit beat me to it.
Tax cuts act to stimulate the economy, and, in a seeming paradox, boost tax revenues.
Some facts:
Low-tax countries do better economically than high-tax countries. Look at Ireland, Hong Kong (not a country, but the principle still applies), Iceland, and Dubai for starters.
The US has the second-highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. The top five in order are Japan; US; Germany; Canada; and France. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html)
The grossly unreliable Joint Committee on Taxation predicted that the cutting of the capital gains rate from 20% to 15% would result in a $5.4 billion loss in revenues from 2003 to 2006. What actually happened was that tax revenues increased $133 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office was also wrong, though not as stupendously: they predicted $197 billion in revenues for the same period. The actual take was $330 billion. (http://www.willisms.com/archives/2007/04/trivia_tidbit_o_433.html)
Why can't you Democrats learn something about economics? Why do you keep believing that tax increases result in greater government revenues when the reality on the ground is that tax cuts result in increased tax revenues? Why can't you people get that into your heads?
Posted by: Squidley | 05/10/2007 at 01:58 AM