Thursday, March 1, 2012
Lots of backlash since my last post on what America should do about its oil addiction. Mostly on facebook and in person, acquaintances have been enlightening me with conflicting announcements of how most of America's oil is exported to China, anyway, or alternatively, around 90% of our oil is domestic, anyway, so our 'dependence on foreign oil' is largely hot air. I try to keep things factual when I can, so I'll be doing some more research to substantiate further posts, as the issue is obviously not going to slip from prominence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh good. I'm glad it's not just me.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for coming late to this party - I had intended to comment on the original post several days ago, but never got around to it. I figure since this post is up top, I'll post my comment here (the better to stir the proverbial pot).
I respect that you like to keep things fact-based. At the same stroke, I am going to focus less on facts and more on questions and broad themes, because I think sometimes big, stupid questions that totally disregard the details of the situation are pretty important to put things in context. So here we go.
1. Why did Obama choose to talk about this? Because Santorum is talking about this - and Santorum is making such a wildly illogical argument (that somehow drilling will reduce gas prices within this rise and fall of the economic cycle (hint: with years of business decision-making, siting, permitting, infrastructure construction, extraction, and refining . . . it won't)) that Obama had to say *something.* The people who watch this address (hint: devoted Obama fans and people who like to discuss policy and political issues at least semi-seriously - but I'm just guessing) would have been mad at him if he'd let Santorum's absurd assertions slide. And the "stop subsidizing oil" line is a favorite with Democratic strategists and pollsters these past few years.
Basically, what I'm saying is that facts had nothing to do with Obama's choice to talk about this - at least, not beyond the simple point that people who pay attention to Obama care about facts.
2. Why are we so sure that oil companies will just walk away if we stop subsidizing them? Seriously, does anyone know? Is this just something we believe because textbook economics says it must be so? Isn't there some value in having an American labor force - one of the most well-educated and creative in the world, leastwise in oil-rich countries? Isn't there a lot of infrastructure here, too, and a lot of room for political influence that doesn't necessarily exist in other countries where educated labor is cheaper?
3. Oil company profits are huge - way more than our $4 billion - so why are we so sure that oil companies will keep all their profits and pass costs onto consumers? I mean, I guess they're so poorly regulated that they can do whatever they want. Does that make any sense? Why isn't Obama talking about regulating oil companies more? Maybe it doesn't poll well - but removing subsidies does - and in an election year, Obama has to be data-based with the electorate's opinions, not with, you know, actually fixing policy problems. [insert gripe about American political system here]
4. Are oil companies infrastructure companies? I'd argue probably yes, in function - they provide fuel on a massive scale, like utility companies, and by way of that they provide transportation, like the department thereof, rail lines, etc. Of course, oil companies also do other stuff, like provide materials for plastics. (Is anyone else worried about our raw materials for plastics running out because we burn them for fuel?)
5. Aren't those other infrastructure companies massively regulated and/or government owned in the US? Well . . . yeah, except in Texas. And in many states, utility companies' sales of energy are decoupled from profits, so the company's motive is to provide high-quality service, not high-quantity service. Utility execs are obsessed with customer satisfaction, because the more angry calls they get to their customer service centers, the lower their margin. Huh. Imagine that.
[To be continued...]
[... continued...]
ReplyDelete6. So why aren't oil companies more highly regulated and/or state-owned, to prevent profit-hoarding and massive lobbying efforts? The biggest reason is probably just historical precedent. Oil companies are state-owned in plenty of countries, but oil has so often been a separate political and social force in this country - the oil barons of old, the money that helped found my university, etc. - that we get all bent out of shape about allowing those particular companies their free market privileges.
I guess what I'm saying is that if we wanted real answers to the basic questions - how to make gas prices go down, how to draw money away from the coffers of huge companies and put it back into open exchange, etc. - we should think about the broader contexts and systems in which those questions exist. If we agree to the rules of the game, the same people who have been winning the game and spitting on the rest of us for decades will continue to do so.
If Obama (or anyone else) were serious about fixing America's problems, they'd try to rile up a base who, through sheer force of political will, could force the body politic's hand to rewrite the rules of the game. What is threatening to remove the oil companies' subsidies doing if not riling up the base - the people who voted Obama into office, the people now Occupying parks and ideologies, the young, the minorities, the productively frustrated?
If this all seems circular, it's only because the language Obama is speaking isn't to people who are parsing out the policy implications of his claims. He is speaking to Occupy and to the undecided. He is trying to move the body politic. And it's so damn hard, and he was so bad at it for so long during his first couple years in office, that it's excruciating to watch at times. But he is trying.
Erin, thank you for "getting around to it"!
ReplyDelete1. Fair point, though as an Obama supporter (when it comes down to it), I don't give a damn what Santorum says, and I would prefer for Obama to ignore him completely. But that's just me. And if you hadn't gathered, I watch his address every week.
2. Would oil companies just walk away? Who knows. It only bothers me when the whole debate is reduced to populist outrage at $4 billion going to the rich guys when, as you point out, there are so many other factors. I understand that Obama needs to simplify things to get his message out, which is why it's necessary for others to fill in the details - and I try to do my part. With your help.
3. More regulation would solve so many of these problems, but advocating for red tape could amount to political suicide. Though with the Republican field shaping up as such, it seems that Obama could have a field day and bring down the progressive hammer and still thump the opposition in November. That would be fun!
4, 5, and 6. Brilliant! So many of our problems would be solved by state-run oil. But to push that through, we'd have to first get the money out of politics through campaign finance reform, etc.
I guess if this is what it takes to rile up the base, fine. What's excruciating for me is that the $4 billion argument is SO simplistic. I miss the wonkish Obama - thorough and boring. But as you say, that wasn't working, so now he's been reduced to cheerleading and empty talking points. Sad. Give him credit for trying.