Solve 4 Biggies
  ~  by reducing income taxes & increasing energy taxes

                          
   
New entries Wednesday &
Sunday evenings
  (& sometimes in between)

- Contribute to this online
  public conversation -





   1 - Global warming

   2 - Dependence on
        foreign energy

   3 - Trade deficit

   4 - Pollution from non-
        renewable fuels

"Why didn't someone tell us?"

Print the article

This entry was posted on 5/15/2008 11:16 AM and is filed under Tax Shifting,Energy Policy,Economy,Action,Costs of INACTION.


Even with oil at well over $120 per barrel, we still need a phased-in, federal tax shift from income to non-renewable energy.  We need to create a sustainable energy future.

It was inevitable that the price of oil and gas would increase.  It wasn't inevitable that Americans would, for example, be driving vehicles that cost $60-$100 to fill up (much more in some cases).  What are we going to learn and APPLY from the situation we're in now?

A week ago Amitai Etzioni penned this article on The Huffington Post - Economic Suicide.  I think his "time machine" perspective won't be far from reality if we don't make significant energy policy changes now.  The flow of wealth.......   Excerpts:

    - "By allowing the price of oil to skyrocket and doing extremely little to curb its import--by paying through the nose for millions of barrels of foreign oil--the United States transferred huge amounts of its wealth to its adversaries. Among the top beneficiaries were Iran, Russia, Venezuela and an assortment of authoritarian countries from Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan.

    - As of the end of 2008, the historian noted, payment for oil was no longer accepted in U.S. dollars (because of its sharply declining value) but mainly in gold bars. The amounts of gold the US had to pay foreigners were so huge that several ports were clogged as ship after ship lined up to pick up the payments.

    - ...that is, they began to own American companies.

    - As long as foreigners continued to ship to the United States their precious oil, it seemed that no one noted that, in effect, Americans were paying them to buy an ever growing share of American assets.

    - None of their elected officials dared tell them that a major tax on imported oil was the only way to stop the greatest wealth transfer in human history, from the United States to a score of other nations. Foreigners financed American deficits for so long--allowing Americans to maintain a standard of living much higher than they were able to pay for by their labor--that Americans were conditioned to assume that they will never have to pay the piper. Hence, they faced a particularly rude and contentious awaking toward the end of decade, when the dollar turned into a junk currency, and Americans had to work overtime just to pay for the trip home from work. Their main outcry was: Why didn't someone tell us?"


    &      &      &      &

The biggest problems we face are our MINDSET regarding energy and the INERTIA of our energy use.  The bottom line: our energy use needs to be sustainable.  Not the 'airy-fairy', tree-hugging notion of sustainable, but the 'how are you going to meet future energy needs' and the 'reduce economic uncertainty of your energy use or you're going to be at a huge risk."

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

    • 5/15/2008 12:22 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
      The notion that "free market" woes play a large part in our current problem is correct. Central planning (a la the USSR) clearly does not work. It's just as clear that unrestrained pure capitalism doesn work either. Many of today's woes are directly traceable to the anti-government mania and deregulatory bonanza that started almost 30 years ago with Uncle Ronnie.

      In particular, Reagan deserves historical scorn for taking the US off the energy-efficiency/energy-independence track that had been started by Nixon, continued by Ford, and accelerated by Carter. Our dependence on oil has hugely increased since then, thus hugely increasing our exposure to the vagaries of the oil market, the whims of oil exporters, and the iron hand of Peak Oil.

      One can try to argue that Reagan could not have foreseen today's problems, but his three predecessors saw it very clearly. The low, low price of oil that emerged during Reagan's 8 years seemed to prove his assertion that there was no problem with oil, but that phenomenon was due to a number of factors---most notably the vehicle efficiency gains and production expansion caused by the crises of the 1970s. The depression in oil prices was temporary (albeit in effect for more than a decade) and, even worse, deluded us into making bad business and infrastructure choices for two decades. Reagan was blessed with cooperative circumstances, as was Clinton. The American public was no "friend of Bill," apparently---he failed miserably at correcting the nation's path of energy self-destruction. Both men have thus far escaped their deserved, significant share of the blame for our ridiculous level of oil dependence.

      Anyway, back to free markets (which are really not free---they are politically controlled and manipulated by and for the benefit of those who gain the most). Those who decry "meddling" in free markets are...
      -- the plutocrats, who benefit most;
      -- the wealthy "doers" (e.g. Cheney and upper management) who serve the plutocrats (hoping to become part of that club, and doing just fine by the system in the meantime); and
      -- those who are so loyal to the concept of unfettered capitalism that they cannot even consider the possibility that the system does not work in its pure form.

      Using the power of capitalism to motivate us at the person level is fine---certainly better than socialism. But there must be a restraining hand that sets rules for the market based on the needs of society as a whole, not just based on bottom lines and the desire of those who have much and still want more.

      Mark J.
      Reply to this
    • 5/29/2008 9:31 AM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      Interesting observations, but Reagan had a reason for his energy policy that presidents since did not: the Cold War. He used the price of oil as a weapon against the USSR.

      http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/victory.txt

      And while his policies worked to defeat the enemy, as so often happens there was "blowback", both from the oil price and from the support he gave to our Afghan "allies". (recall the support we gave to Stalin when he was on our side during WW II).
      Reply to this
      1. 5/29/2008 8:45 PM Paul Riehemann wrote:


        Good info at that link -- thanks.  Yep, unintended consequences.

        A tax shift from income to non-renewable energy back then would have curbed U.S. oil use and exerted downward pressure on price.

         


        Reply to this
    • 5/30/2008 12:06 PM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
      Yep, tanking the price of oil was one of the things that caused the USSR to collapse. That would seem to have been a good strategy. But it was really "winning the battle and losing the war."

      Now, instead of the old USSR, we have a reemerging, energy-strong Russia that is just as autocratic and dangerous as the old USSR. Even if its sphere of control is less geographically, it's leverage against Europe in the energy arena is clear. Even worse, the US is now immensely weaker in terms of its energy position, importing more than 2/3 of its oil, the lifeblood of daily life and the national economy.

      Energy is the key to a secure, prosperous civilization, and Uncle Ronnie lost the key. Uncle Slick Willie was too busy with other things to bother looking for the key when he was in office, and Georgie Jr. has buried the key with finality under millions of tons of rhetoric and rubble. We are screwed.

      Mark
      Reply to this
    • 5/31/2008 11:26 AM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      Yes things could return to their Cold War status with Russia. But then maybe not.

      And there have been positive changes as a result of winning the Cold War. For one example, nuclear warheads that were then on rockets to insure Mutual Assured Destruction are now providing about 10% of US electrical power without CO2 emissions.
      Reply to this
    • 6/1/2008 8:31 AM Mark Jeantheau wrote:
      << And there have been positive changes as a result of winning the Cold War. For one example, nuclear warheads that were then on rockets to insure Mutual Assured Destruction are now providing about 10% of US electrical power without CO2 emissions. >>

      The downside: At least for a while, the ex-USSR countries with nuclear material did not maintain the level of control they should have. Some of it apparently went missing and may now be in "the wrong hands."

      And then there were the Soviet nuclear scientists who stopped getting paychecks and started looking to sell their services to whomever would pay, including "unfriendlies."

      Perhaps the USSR would have fallen anyway, and those problems would have arisen regardless. I tend to believe that. But that also means that Reagan didn't really win the cold war; he merely hastened the inevitable.

      Regardless of any accomplishments Reagan can be given credit for, his reestablishment of the 1960s-style "oil is cheap and will last forever" mentality was a huge error that trumps any positives associated with his presidency.

      Mark
      Reply to this
    • 6/1/2008 6:24 PM Jim Blair wrote:
      Hi,

      It is amazing to me that since the collapse of the USSR so many people now claim that it was "inevitable" and Reagan's policies merely hastened it. I was a UW student during the late 1950's and 60's and no one then thought that possible. The suggestion that the USSR would ever fail was dismissed by leftists as a "right wing wet dream" (a quote I remember from a campus lecture).

      There was a Science Fiction collection titled 2020 Vision, 8 stories set in that year. Of all of the various futures projected, NONE suggested that the Cold War would have ended with other than a defeat for the West.

      And I lost my reference to an international conference held during the 1970's on the subject of "the USSR in the year 2000" Of the many papers presented at the conference by experts in the field, NONE suggested that there would not be a Soviet Union in 2000.

      Oh yes, I do remember a lecture I arranged a Milton College during the 1970 by then ANALOG editor Ben Bova. He commented of Soviets "the poor bastards don't have a chance" against the USA. That was so out of step with current opinion that he was thought to be a nut case.

      My review of 2020 Vision is at

      http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/2020vis.txt

      Note that Larry Niven did predict the end of the automobile because of "peak oil".

      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.