The Change I Need (Part 1)
Greetings! I took a couple of days off to decompress after the election and to shift my focus from campaign mode to looking at the impact of Barack Obama’s win, the legacy of George W. Bush, and to look ahead to what an Obama administration could mean for America and the World. Those musings will begin later this week but today I have a two-part post that might bring a smile to some and a grimace to others.
Presidents, and president-elects, are blamed for everything that happens to us. The credit crunch, the housing mess, and the impending auto industry bailout are at the top of Obama’s list to deal with in the short term. However, I have to say as a fiscal Republican, I am happy that one part of my budget has gotten significantly brighter since Obama’s election, the price I have to pay at the pump.
Over the past four years, as gas costs have skyrocketed, one of the criticisms have been the connection between the oil companies and the Bush Administration. We all know the record profits made by Exxon / Mobil while consumers have paid upwards of $4.15 for a gallon of gasoline. Over the past three weeks, gas prices have dropped to $1.85 per gallon, fifty percent less per gallon than just four months ago.
Yesterday, I was able to fill up my car with only one twenty dollar bill. Only three weeks as President-elect and one campaign promise has already been achieved. I have been given the change that I needed…it is in my wallet instead of spent at the gas pump.
4 Responses to “The Change I Need (Part 1)”
Of course the lower price of gasoline in Nov 2008 makes all of the histrionics and wailing of Seaker Pelosi look foolish. It should be obvious that the oil companies cannot really manipulate the price of oil as much as every elite white progressives believes that they can.
Of course, if progressives really believe that things are so easily manipulated, it makes sense why they support so much government intervention.
Tony, I noticed the same real-world piece of relief you did — that now I can fill my vehicle's fuel tank with only one twenty-dollar bill. Here in Detroit (where people never stopped driving aggressively, using more fuel than needed, obviously, even at fuel prices above $4.00 per gallon) it's well below $2.00 per gallon.
Please recall that it wasn't the credit-related (and derivative-related) bank failures that precipitated the slump, but if anything, instead it was fears of inflation due to the ripple effect (trickle-up! or shall we say, percolation) of greatly rising petroleum prices earlier this year.
While some in the Oil Patch here in the States may bewail it, everyone else (including me), which in fact includes so many lefties who otherwise preach about oil prices being “too low” (or saying even worse things), love the relief from high fuel prices. I hope gasoline goes below one dollar next year.
Though I may or may not travel on the road this coming Thanksgiving holiday (I've put myself in travel restriction mode for months since the earlier run-up in the price of gasoline, and began reducing my use as long ago as when fuel began exceeding $2.00 per gallon; I was surprised at how “early” I cut back on fuel use, given that I enjoy road travel so much) it's certainly a relief to go back to the satisfaction of only needing one twenty (as you do) to fill one's fuel tank.
Last night I was reading one of the three books that are favorites of mine lately (an economics book that warns about a slump and deflation, involving banks; his earlier book from the 1990s predicted the substantial lowering of inflation that made it no longer a problem as it was in the 1970s; the other two books I've been enjoying are on global warming, a different topic altogether) and today I have been paying attention not only to the latest news about the bailout of Citi, and the pitiful appeals being made to Washington by Detroit and Detroiters (there's now talk of a drivers' caravan from Detroit to Washington, driving fuel-efficient new vehicles from Detroit, as a public relations appeal), but also to the news about who Obama is bringing onto his team not only as part of his administration but as recruits to conduct a fight against the slump when Obama takes office. As my favorite economics book puts it, I'd be on the side of those that would want any deflation simply to work itself out — we'd get out of it eventually, no matter what. But I believe most people would not wish to wait or “risk” this and would support federal government intervention. The book I have been reading discusses what “should” be done both promptly and over the longer term insofar as any intervention goes; I am going to be fascinated with what Washington attempts next year (so far we see bailouts of two of the nation's largest financial institutions, that leave many of us jaded because of suspicion of cronyism — I do not unrealistically expect banks to start lending again to poor risks, so I am not upset as others are by banks' sitting on any funds they receive. I am as jaded as anyone else when I learn about continued bonuses, other payouts, and expensive junkets made by institutions that receive bailout funds. And I as well as so many others were against a bailout in the first place, so nobody should argue that bailouts of other parties are okay because we have thrown money at some of the Big Banks while letting at least one of them fail, seemingly now arbitrarily or suspiciously [not staffed by Paulson's friends?].)
It would be silly and stupid for Obama's people to use the word “war” and any related metaphor about fighting the slump, but I am fascinated by what will be attempted next year, and it led me to get for later reading another book of mine, written during the biggest intervention and program of federal government spending as a GDP fraction we experienced (the inflation from which likely was what specifically ended the Great Depression). It's my 1942 book on fiscal policy to support an all-out war effort by the federal government. (Taxation and spending and debt on a colossal scale)
“President-elect Barack Obama will introduce Monday his National Economic Council director, Lawrence Summers, and his Treasury secretary nominee, Timothy Geithner, two men from the same ideological wing of the Democratic Party but with different roles in the new administration.”
“The new economic team emerges from the Democratic Party's moderate flank, with Mr. Rubin as the common denominator. Mr. Summers was Mr. Rubin's longtime deputy at Treasury and then succeeded Mr. Rubin as Treasury secretary. Mr. Geithner was a senior aide at Treasury during this period.
Peter Orszag, who will be Mr. Obama's budget director, was the first director of the Hamilton Project, a program co-founded by Mr. Rubin at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, and focused largely on fiscal discipline and pragmatic economic policies.
When Mr. Orszag left that post for the Congressional Budget Office, he was replaced by Jason Furman, who became a top Obama campaign aide and who now will join the new economic team, either at the NEC or the Council of Economic Advisers.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122740604807650…
“President-elect Barack Obama, in choosing Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to lead his economic team, is betting on a student-and-mentor pair who forged a partnership while battling the world's last serious financial crisis.
The two were part of a team that assembled $100 billion in rescue packages to help calm the Asian crisis of the late 1990s, when the collapse of the Thai currency prompted investors to flee emerging markets from South Korea to Brazil. The men emerged from that experience with a belief that aggressive government policy could shape the course of the U.S. and global economies.”
“The records of Messrs. Geithner and Summers suggest views more pragmatic than ideological, on a range of issues that they will likely confront after Mr. Obama takes office in January.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122746805477951…
“Of course, if progressives really believe that things are so easily manipulated, it makes sense why they support so much government intervention.”
What you say is true, Super D. But now consider this: We're in a big slump (even acccounting for the stupid, childish sensationalist hype) and this redirects the progressives' (and pragmatic Obama people's) priorities, and they have to do dirty work and unpleasant things rather than dreamy idealistic feel-good things. They have to give people relief before bringing them pleasure.
In this regard I wonder how much the economy and other problems (as well as interference in health care by Daschle, Kennedy, and others) led to Hillary Clinton's preference for taking the State job. Note (I was thinking about this, this morning) that State is the primary foreign policy office and the Vice Presidency (when it hasn't reverted to being a parking-place, figurehead, ceremonial-only position) is the primary domestic foreign policy office. Colin Powell already was presidential stuff even before taking the State position, but this helped him. What if Clinton were to be at State for two years or so, then (say, if Biden retired or resigned) return to Washington, ideally after this slump was ended by Obama's economic Tiger Team, to become Vice President and resume being highly visible in domestic affairs in Washington? She'd be set up for what otherwise would be a too-late, unlucky run again for the Presidency in 2012. (I believe she wouldn't hestitate to run against Obama if Obama sought re-election.)