Reclaim Your Republic

A Guide For America’s Return to the Jeffersonian Ideal

  • Causes I Support

  • Have You Been Wondering

    Posted by Brett Bittner on July 7, 2008

    Why gas prices are so high?  If you watch TV or read the newspapers, you would think that oil company executives are smoking cigars, laughing in their ivory towers about the billions of dollars in profits they are squeezing out of Americans with every gallon of gas pumped.  I came across a FANTASTIC article that explains in plain English the things I have been wrapping my head around from an economics enthusiast’s perspective. Should you not have the time to follow the link and read the entire article (it would take about 20 minutes or so), I have highlighted some of the most important points below.

    Oil is not the only commodity that is becoming more and more expensive to buy. The cost of food is also going up. So is the cost of just about everything else. One major reason for this overall rise in prices is because the dollar does not buy as much as it used to. And the reason the dollar does not buy as much as it used to is because the Federal Reserve System (along with the U.S. Treasury Department) is inundating our economy with newly created dollars. Their intent is to finance the federal government’s massive expenditures as well as to prevent a deepening recession. The newly created dollars won’t solve our economic problems, of course, since each new dollar added to the economy devalues the dollars already in circulation, causing prices to rise.
    [...]
    But inflation, though hugely important, is not the only factor. To be sure, the price of gasoline is heavily dependent on the price of crude oil, which like any other commodity is affected by supply and demand. Either an increase in demand or a drop in supply (or both at once) will cause prices to rise. Rising prices also encourage more production and discourage wasteful usage.
    [...]
    Tragically, our dependence on foreign oil is not only dangerous but unnecessary. America has abundant energy resources, including oil reserves that remain largely untapped. For example, significant untapped reserves exist in the Gulf of Mexico, off both our Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and both on land and offshore in and around Alaska. According to API, “The U.S. government estimates that deepwater regions of the Gulf of Mexico may contain 71 billion barrels of oil.” API estimates that there are 10.5 billion barrels off the shores of California and the Pacific Northwest, 3.8 billion barrels off the Atlantic coastline, and 18 billion barrels onshore and 26.6 billion barrels off the Alaska coast and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This adds up to 138.1 billion barrels of oil, enough to power over 60 million automobiles for 60 years according to government estimates.
    [...]
    What domestic oil we are able legally to remove from the ground must of course be refined, and here, too, environmentalist groups and environmental regulations have hamstrung the oil industry — to the extent that not a single major new refinery has been built on U.S. soil since 1976. How limited is our refinery capacity? Hurricane Rita answered that question when she stormed through the Gulf of Mexico in late summer 2005. Although Katrina received more press coverage, having devastated New Orleans a few weeks earlier, Rita actually did more to disrupt the process that supplies gasoline to millions of American consumers. Rita damaged a number of major refineries along the Texas coastline, temporarily affecting supply and causing a spike in prices. For the first time, we saw gas prices increase to over $3 per gallon; this happened in less than 24 hours. As the refineries were repaired and supplies were restored, however, prices retreated.

    Some states, moreover, have passed restrictive laws resulting in higher prices for consumers. California is an example. The State of California operates its own reformulated gasoline program, calling for special oxygenated, reformulated, and low-volatility gasolines to reduce toxic emissions. These cost more to produce than conventional gasoline. In other words, California state law is stricter than what the federal government requires. In addition to the added costs of the additional refinement, California imposes a combined state and local sales and use tax of 7.25 percent on top of an 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal excise tax and an 18 cent-per-gallon state excise tax. California’s refineries must run at or near full capacity at all times to meet the state’s fuel requirements. If more than one refinery experiences operating difficulties, the result will be supply problems and a spike in gas prices in the state. There are relatively few suppliers of the unique blend of gasoline required by California state law.

    Taxes added by federal, state, and even local governments do contribute to higher gas prices elsewhere. We just noted how federal excise taxes account for 18.4 cents per gallon of gas. State excise taxes account, on the average, for another 21 cents per gallon. Eleven other states add additional state sales and other taxes. This does not account for local city and county taxes which can also impact significantly on the cost of a gallon of gasoline, varying from location to location.

    Though the aforementioned cost factors may seem to contradict the reasons given in mainstream media behind rising gas prices — i.e., that malicious unregulated oil speculation (buying oil futures, betting prices will rise) is driving up gas prices — they are not contradictory. Speculators purchase futures contracts, hoping to sell the contracts in the future for a higher price, thereby making a profit. But even in unregulated markets, commodities prices can only continue higher as long as commodity supplies remain low. When high prices cause a commodity glut, prices drop or stay stable. In the case of oil, high oil demand, along with tight oil supplies and huge government infusions of new cash into the markets (which prompt increased speculation), are driving oil prices up. The speculators are not evil; they are responding to market forces.
    [...]
    Oil and natural-gas revenues are large; there is no question about that. But so are the industries themselves, and so are the costs involved in providing fuel to consumers. Oil company profits allow for reinvestment in facilities, technology, and infrastructure. Reports on oil company profits can be misleading because they focus exclusively on earnings and don’t take into account the size of the operations. Earnings alone, therefore, do not tell the whole story. Relative to other major industries, oil company profits are about average, at 8.3 cents for every dollar of sales, compared to the chemical industry’s 12.7 cents for every dollar of sales, the computer industry’s 13.7 cents and the pharmaceutical industry’s 18.4 cents for every dollar of sales.

    Some politicians would like to see a new era of “windfall profits” taxes on oil companies. Their contention, based on the illusion of earnings figures alone, would clearly do more harm than good to an industry they do not understand. By and large, America’s oil companies aren’t owned by the small groups of insiders that control political parties. The percentage of industry shares owned by oil executives is only around 1.5. The rest is owned, indirectly, by tens of millions of American shareholders, often through their mutual funds, IRAs, or other personal retirement accounts, most of which invest in oil and natural gas stocks. If politicians were to institute a “windfall profits” tax or — worse yet — attempt to nationalize the oil and natural gas industries under the belief that this would get prices under control, who would really be hurt? The answer: these millions of ordinary investors with mutual funds, IRAs, or other personal retirement accounts.
    [...]
    At present, the reality is that our economy is dependent on oil and will remain so for at least another generation. Thus our short-term goal should be to do what we can to ensure that the cost of both producing oil and refining it into gasoline is contained, so that gasoline remains affordable to American consumers. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has introduced new legislation, H.R. 2415, the Affordable Gas Price Act. The bill states its own purpose: “To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.”

    With this last, Dr. Paul means real free trade, not the managed, pseudo-free trade of NAFTA, CAFTA, and the like. The point is, the federal government has proven to be the biggest obstacle to our achieving energy independence and thus containing the alarming escalation of gas prices. Environmental groups may run a close second, but their influence is felt through legislation passed by Congress.

    Wow…  Getting rid of multiple blends that are demanded by the anti-capitalists, increasing refining capacity by building more refineries, and drilling domestically for oil until the free market provides alternatives to fossil fuels.  That sounds a lot like what I have been saying for a while now.

    H/T: Pax Hammericana for the link

    7 Responses to “Have You Been Wondering”

    1. Allen Taylor Says:

      Nice writing. You are on my RSS reader now so I can read more from you down the road.

      Allen Taylor

    2. Hans Says:

      that’s a pretty nice one sided view of everything.

      citing API with $100 million marketing blitz going on, that is absolutely no bias.

      no mention of Marathon’s Garyville 7 million gallons per day refinery expansion, let alone others that do not advertise it.

      no mention of Big Oil’s 2% profit reinvestment into exploration while at the same time they are buying back $100s of millions in company stocks.

      no mention of Big Oil’s 10,000s of existing exploration site leases not being exercised while claiming “salvation” is offshore and in Alaska.

      no mention of Big Oil’s shortage of equipment for exploration and drilling, that they currently have 100% in usage and could not tap into “new reserves” as is given these limitations.

      citing fixed per gallon governmental taxes on gas, while ignoring sliding scale % based profit motive per gallon Big Oil charges.

      well done, are you on big oil’s payroll?

    3. Brett Bittner Says:

      Hans,

      Perhaps if you had actually read the piece above before launching into your unsubstantiated leftist, anti-capitalist liberal propaganda, you would have seen that I did not actually write the article you are attacking, I merely linked to it and provided an “executive summary.” Contrary to your belief, I am not, in fact, on the payroll of “Big Oil,” aside from my 401(k) and Roth IRA contributions toward my retirement (I apologize in advance for choosing to use my money to replace the Social Security system that will be bankrupt by the time I reach the ever-extending government approved retirement age) that help to make up 98.5% of the oil industry’s ownership interests. Since I do not approve of censorship of a comment that may spark debate, I will be keeping your unbased claims as a comment, but I request that you actually read posts before commenting in the future.

      Thanks.

    4. Hans Says:

      I did read it all, and know that is was a article you were citing in summary. But it is obviously a position paper that needs to be looked at in a critical light as it obviously has bias to make it appear the only way out of this mess is through offshore drilling, which is not the case, as I briefly listed points towards.

      I am not certain how you can state this

      “I have been wrapping my head around from an economics enthusiast’s perspective” and this “to replace the Social Security system that will be bankrupt”

      as how can you claim a fiscally honest perspective when 1) Big Oil/Energy is subsidized by the government (tax dollars) which is nothing more than welfare and 2) allude to the Social Security being nothing more than “reallocation of wealth from rich to poor” when if the money was keep in a trust vs used as a government slush fund, it would be solvent for a long time.

      Where in your analysis is the royalties you, me and every other american receives when resource companies pull resources out of our public lands? Oh right, there are none. Rather we pay those companies through infrastructure building, etc., to take those resources out of our land. That is redistribution of wealth, but you fail to acknowledge this.

      How about if the amount of money spend on military to protect transglobal oil transportation and other more obvious subsidies for Coal, Oil & Nuclear were spent on Solar or Wind instead? Protecting transglobal resource transportation is a blackhole into which money flows with no payback on the investment. Build a solar plant it need not be globally protected and it produces energy free of charge, ie the exact opposite of a blackhole. Yet this matters not in your reasoning.

      Free Markets, are not free when they are subsidizes.

    5. Brett Bittner Says:

      I agree that we spend too much money, but I see no good coming from moving the wasteful spending we currently may or may not give to corporations (since you have provided no documented evidence other than your claims) to another wasteful outlet. The answer to nearly every point of debate in my mind is to get the government OUT. Spending more money and re-allocating money currently spent does not solve the grave economic issues brought about by having too much government in our lives. Too many government handouts, too much intervention in our economy and our personal lives, and too much power in the hands of a few fly in the face of the country that Thomas Jefferson envisioned as he was drafting the Declaration of Independence.

    6. Hans Says:

      you know I don’t need to cite numbers in this category of subsidies for Big Oil, but here is just one, although much dated… 1991 numbers for subsidies

      Agreed gov’t is too big, but at the same time a country cannot survive without a government. “Socialist” countries are not the worst things in the world when you look at health care for instance. Although, not the best system ever, the Veteran’s Administration is a socialist health system. Whether services are fast in the private health care vs the VA is debatable, as I could wait upwards of 2-3 weeks to get into a doctor’s office.

      As I am wandering elsewhere, given this is a huge can of worm to mess with, I’ll ask this one question. How do you advocate for cutting spending? I would hope you base it on fiscal policy and I think the best basis would have to be on a per person cost reduction.

      For example, to cut the $4 billion subsidy to Big Oil based on say 100,000 people in the oil industry results in a per person expense of $40,000 dollars. Flip side, and these are sample numbers $100 billion spent on 30 million medicaid using people results in $3,333 per person. If you are shooting for fiscal responsibility, do you not first cut the highest per person cost to achieve the greatest efficiency?

    7. Brett Bittner Says:

      Well, the spending we have is out of control, so there would be ACROSS THE BOARD cuts in spending. I advocate the elimination of several departments entirely, but my first thoughts for ending wasteful spending are to allow for the POTUS to eliminate pork barrel spending that makes it through Congress with the stroke of a pen, rather than being forced to sign that does good things but is loaded with pork, or vetoing a good bill because it was loaded with pork spending. DHS and the Dept. of education do nothing to add value to the United States. DHS was added as a spying branch of the ever-extending arm of the Federal government as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, which was preventable under previous administrations through intelligence and foreign policy (too interventionist). The Department of Education merely brainwashes America’s children into a false state of security, in which they are blindly led by the political class. Social promotion with no accountability for teachers fosters no sense of accomplishment, and “No Child Left Behind” is the worst idea I have ever seen. There is very little choice educationally, and if the Dept. of Ed. is kept around, it money allocated for education should follow the student, regardless of public, private or home schooling.

      We are in a vicious cycle of spending that will be borrowed, and there are many areas that the fat can be trimmed, however that will require personal responsibility on the part of most Americans, which has been pulled out of them by the Nanny State we have created.

    Leave a Reply

    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>