Monthly Archives: February 2011

‘Ignorant or just plain stupid’

My Sunday column, “Gas prices not high enough,” discusses negative externalities omitted from the price we pay for gas at the pump. As expensive as gas is, the price does not incorporate numerous costs borne by people who did not consent to the transaction.

The column was not popular among those readers who responded.

I’ve pasted a couple typical e-mails I received,  followed by my response to one:

I don’t know whether you are ignorant or just plain stupid to think that we are not paying enough for gasoline. You probably support President Obama’s moratorium and the environmental whackos on drilling for new oil. Apparently, You don’t understand that the increase in oil prices impact everything that consumers HAVE to purchase from home heating oil to groceries and clothing. Just how do you, in your vast wisdom, propose that people who live on fixed incomes such as social security and retirement plans and haven’t receive any pay increases in two years can afford to pay more at the pump and the grocery store? Excluding state, county, and city employees, few workers have received pay raises in the past two years. How do you propose those people pay for the increases for everything they have to buy? Maybe you can write about this next Sunday

Another:

You have apparently bought the green nonsense that petroleum products are bad. Your article about the costs of externalities totally ignores the benefits  (externalities) that cheap petroleum has brought. Most Americans would put their individual mobility among the the most important of their blessings. Without it, we would be unable to live in areas unserved by public transport. Managing large farms and ranches would be impossible, effectively tieing us back to the labor intensive, inefficient farms of our forbears. Our food varieties would necessarily be confined to those available in our local areas. You propound a premise that alternative fuels are good no matter how much they cost; that everyone could afford them. You concentrate on gasoline. Where would we get the lubricants and chemicals that drive our economy? When you process crude oil you get more than 4000 petrochemical products. How will you replace these and at what price? Do you believe that the American standard of living can be maintained without cheap energy sources?

A simple Google search would have taken some of the stars out of your eyes. A thriving economy requires cheap and plentiful energy, so does a high standard of living for everyone. Solving the pollution problems is a much better choice than crippling the economy by limiting the supply of cheap energy.

I couldn’t decide whether I was more stupid or more ignorant, so I just responded to the second e-mail. My response:

Individual mobility is not an externality. Neither is large-scale
farming. The transaction price at the pump incorporated those
benefits.

Where did I say alternative fuels are good no matter the cost? If I
were write on the topic, I would note that externalities also are
present in alternative fuels. Look at the waste issues in nuclear power and
the risk to the population; the dead birds and ugly landscapes around
windmills; the toxic releases from the manufacture of solar panels;
etc.

“Solving the pollution problem” does not have to be an externality.
That is, the cost of the solution can be borne by the purchaser rather
than the payer of non-transactional taxes. Road taxes already
accomplish this for road maintenance. The dreaded cap-and-trade would
do it for carbon emissions.

Our overwhelming energy problem, I think, is we are trying to shift
too many costs to the taxpayer. We would not have to subsidize
ethanol, for example, if the actual costs involved in gasoline were
included in the pump price. Instead taxpayers spend money cleaning the
the Gulf, and also pay to subsidize alternative fuels.

Eric

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under BP spill, Energy, Free Market

Debate over Obamacare

Here is an email debate spurred by a column of mine that ran Sunday. In the column, I suggested the federal district court decisions ruling the insurance mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act are poorly reasoned.

Some readers were kind enough to respond. Hopefully this inquiry helped me express my thoughts more completely.

Reader: The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to control Education, health care, manufacturing, climate, insurance nor manufacturing.

It is time for America’s citizens to rise up and take our nation back to the constitution.
Me: The founding fathers would have disagreed with you — John Quincy Adams signed legislation mandating that private sailors buy health insurance (“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”) — but these days, many agree with you.
Reader: It doesn’t matter what Adams did. The constitution gives 20 responsibilities of the Federal government and health care is not one of them. 

Beside that the socialists try to twist the constitutional amendments to suit themselves.
For example: The so-called 1st amendment separation of church and state.
That amendment meant that congress would not pass a law specifying a certain religion or division thereof as the official religion of this nation. Nothing more and nothing less.
Me: Despite Jefferson’s belief it meant separation of church and state? Despite how well the union of church and state has worked for Iran and Afghanistan? 

Someone has to apply Constitutional principles to current legislation. I understand the frustration of those who believe the judiciary is ignoring the intent of its drafters. You are actually arguing we should ignore the drafters’ intent, though. If you don’t accept the drafters’ expressions of their intent, and you don’t accept the interpretations of the Supreme Court, to whom do you believe we should delegate the task of applying Constitutional principles?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized