Yet, in reality we are exporting more gasoline and the demand has dwindled over the past few years here. The marketplace is decreasing the supply locally which helps to raise prices. But I'm not condemning them for conducting business. Instead I'd just like to share my opinions, of-course.
An effective method to decrease the price of gasoline would indeed be to increase the supply of gasoline here. Hold off on some of those gasoline exports to increase that supply here, perhaps. But that's not reasonable since these refineries want to make as much profit as possible, and the public doesn't value hindering a business opportunity even if it might possible be in the public's own interest. And so I expect that they will continue to export as much as possible and/or sell it locally, whichever recipe nets the highest profits at the end of the day.
We could increase Supply through other measures such as Gingrich's approach of building a pipeline to send more oil to refineries here, then refiners could possibly produce enough gasoline to saturate the local and export markets, until the public-at-large starts buying ever larger vehicles and living farther away from work as a result. If you think I'm painting a pretty picture from increased fuel consumption then read on.
Let's not forget that the public will be paying the billions of dollars necessary to design and build this pipeline, as well as to purchase right-of-ways from private lands. That's just more needless consumption. Consumers could instead spend money on products they really want, for instance the next generation of smartphone or e-reader tablet, a safer car, better insurance, more and time for dinners and better restaurants, more cloths for the kids, and have more timing for fitness, school, church, vacation, or God-Forbid-- less work.. One's imagination is the only limiting factor for what to spend the money and time on that you don't have, because your spending that money on pipelines and extra time driving to and fro. The consumption that consumers really desire is what increases the quality of life the most, else its a form of 'tax' on our economy.
If the goal is to decrease the price of gasoline as much as possible then we need to do more than simply increase supply. We need to both increase supply and decrease demand. And so it's proposed by others that a two pronged approach of increasing supply while decreasing demand would be best for prices. However, since gasoline businesses want to make as much profit as possible, it obviously wouldn't be desirable to an oil business or their politicians. As such, they finance scientific analysis which is likely to undermine or question the science that is good for their business. If the science they fund doesn't produce results that are profitable to their business, they lay it off. Who are we to complain? It's only business and who are we to hinder the prosperity of business?
But I do believe Candidate Gingrich's true concern is falling consumption of oil and other greenhouse gas producing fuels, because that's bad for the businesses that support his political campaigns. These are the corporations you and I own through our mutual funds and retirements, but our political opinions are leveraged by their board of directors.
It's convenient for Gingrich to say that he wants to lower prices. It's just a convenient economic principle that if big oil business gets their way and gets to take more oil from public lands, pipe it over and refine it into gasoline for their profit, then the increased supply would indeed drop the price of gasoline. Still, at the end of the day the net profit goes up on the basis of market principle of Quantity verses Quality sells.
What he hasn't mentioned, and I imagine most consider it a given truth, is that he wants to create additional demand for gasoline in the process.
Gingrich's many business constituents hope we would become more dependent on less efficient use of gasoline, for example by driving larger vehicles and living ever farther away from employment. The oil companies get a larger slice of our paycheck (and time resources while driving) each week. Market principle: That's good for industry growth, but at the decline of other industries consumers judge then deem "less affordable now".
But consumption in driving and cars and the like is fully in-line with the hopes and dreams of many people, and so for them, even though they are already aware of Gingrich's true intentions, they are happy with their outcome. They enjoy their leisure driving to and fro and sleeping in a big house for short nights rests. Just think of the tranquility of larger homes, bigger cars and living way out in beautiful rural subdivisions far away from the big city they work in (overtime of course).
Therefore it become convenient to believe that global warming scientist are merely trying to spoil all the fun for political rather than environmental purposes. Environmentalists have a difficult row to hoe in convincing the public how they will be better off with smaller homes, cars and living closer to work. The solution is to mention the economic facts, a principle that what isn't spent on oil pipelines and automobiles gets diverted elsewhere into the economy. And it isn't a zero-sum gain. How about more gadgets, faster internet, better movies and more public broadcasting? How about better health insurance and nicer lengthier vacations. How about finally getting a chance to read that book? I feel richer just thinking about the prospects of spending less on fuel.
And then there is also the question of responsibility.
Considering that the oil is derived from public lands, the public should feel responsible that the oil is to be used in a way that benefits their public. We allow private companies to profit from the public's oil not because the private companies exclusively own the oil they drill out of public lands, but rather private companies have demonstrated efficiency carrying out their initiatives and represent a core value of the public. That value is the opportunity for a business enterprise to create vast wealth that the business and it's shareholders may then solely own and prosper from. To the public this value of unregulated business prosperity represents the future potential for each individually to benefit from a highly successful company, as an employee or shareholder. It also represents the possibility that individuals have the potential for unlimited and unregulated success, and there is no upper limit to such success, including possibly one day owning everything. But then we might call that Feudalism.
Capitalism is comforting to a great many. But unregulated capitalism scares some who believe in a form of a bit more socially restrained capitalism that can propel life's great success stories while still restricting the profiting from harm to our neighbors. Nearly all fear economic risks that balloon out of proportion as net-gains rise slower just as risks escalate faster and faster. That's precisely what caused the Great Recession crisis on Wall Street in 2008 as mortgage risks were gambled against, then dropped. The leveraged market's assets swelled until finally the balloon popped as the calculated risks outstripped their market valuation potential. Once that margin was crossed, the loans were termed "toxic" and no investor wanted them.
And so we are stuck with two primary political sides that I'm imagining this moment: those that want unlimited consumption and the very best chance to get rich as quickly as possible, and those that want smarter consumption, safety nets and insurance, lasting growth and opportunities with responsibilities to our neighbors and the public-at-large.
I fall with the later. If we care about future generations then the public should consider the smarter path and tighten their consumption of fossil fuels. Let's all decrease the demand for gasoline while asking that the supply of it be increased, because that's just what a good consumer would want. OpenMW
