Letters to the Editor
-
Two Issues
"With the windfall profit tax, the policy Hillary Clinton supports is a wash, and it just might provide a modicum of temporary relief for the truckers."
Actually, it wouldn't really. Trucking companies have contracts in place that lock in the price of fuel for a period and allow for adjustment (fuel surcharges) if prices jump out of whack.
Increasing fuel does do something for the industry. It helps companies with modern, more fuel efficient equipment outcompete smaller companies will less fuel efficient equipment. Likewise, larger companies with greater control over their operations are able to do things like adjust the maximum speed they allow trucks to run (Con-way freight just lowered their fleet-wide maximum speed governor speed from 65 to 62--a move estimated to save approx. 3 million gallons of diesel this year). It pushes out smaller players, which honestly, is probably good for the environment and road safety, at least in the short term.
Surprisingly, the trucking industry is largely in support of INCREASED fuel taxes, and has been for a long time. Wasting time sitting idling in congestion because cities aren't able to keep up with traffic growth is a larger burden on their business than a few extra cents added to the price of fuel, which if they know is coming, can be priced into their operations. It's volatility that hurts the trucking industry--being forced to make contracts without knowing the costs of inputs. Their general position is to raise federal fuel taxes and index the tax to inflation. Do focus resources on areas where they would do the most to curb congestion and do not privatize (toll) roadways (too inefficient).
"The New York Times reported that this proposal could cost up to 300000 jobs in highway maintenance."
Yep. Road construction is already woefully inefficient because DOT's are unsable to do long term planning because they do not know what level of resources will be available 10 or 15 years down the road. Will congress raise the fuel tax or not? If yes, then we can plan major infrastructure because we know funds will be there. If not, then we have to do these patch-job "shut down traffic and add a lane" projects that only require short term funding. In areas where congestion is so bad that DOT's have been forced to enbark on long-term infrastructure projects, they've been forced to rely on credit markets--which is not a wise move with those markets the way they are now.
-
The dubious cult of experts
"if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied."--Krugman
I think this dumbass is saying, in the most convulted way possible, that supply and demand controls price, not the other way around. Yeah, duh, so? What does that have to do with getting a break at the pump at the OIL COMPANIES EXPENSE?
"In one pocket, out the other." --Krugman
I interpret this to mean in terms of Clintons plan, out of the oil companies pocket into the consumers pocket.
Again this is supposed to be bad?
If he is trying to make the point that this will not solve the problem of rising gas prices, bravo, brilliant. But who is claiming that giving consumers a break at the pump will lower the price of a barrel of oil?
This is relief for people being squeeezed by high enegy costs, not a solution to the nations energy woes.
Beware the dubious cult of dumbasses disguised as experts and political pundits selling strawman arguments.
-
Whatever We Do
Let's continue to advertise, market, and sell huge SUVs and fashion pickup trucks averaging far below 20 mpg.
Let's glorify the "bigger is better" culture. After all, who wants to live in a 1500 square foot house when a 4000 square foot house is so much nicer?
Let's use huge amounts of energy and petroleum resources for packaging and throw-away containers. Many items are over-packaged so as to occupy more shelf space in the store.
If our government was not bought and paid for by polluters and people promoting excessive consumption we may actually be able to reduce our dependence on oil.
And pandering to public greed is not leadership.
-
won'tgetfooledagain: I'm afraid it's happened again
Time to change your name.
Please, stop and think. Her policies are generally more progressive and better thought out than Obama's, which tend to be borrowed or compromise with Republican policies that have not worked.
I have some bad news for you. The general thing you're describing above and attributing to Obama (pandering with badly thought-out ideas that are borrowed from Republicans) is actually what Hillary is doing.
Pay a bit more attention, and you won't get fooled next time.
-
@sajwan
First, a piece of advice: don't call some respected expert in his field a "dumbass" and then proceed to prove yourself to be the dumbest of all. It's just bad form.
I think this dumbass is saying, in the most convulted way possible, that supply and demand controls price, not the other way around. Yeah, duh, so? What does that have to do with getting a break at the pump at the OIL COMPANIES EXPENSE?
What Krugman said is only convoluted if you can't read very well. Your paraphrasing oversimplified it. But the main point you missed is that this break would not be at the oil companies' expense.
I interpret this to mean in terms of Clintons plan, out of the oil companies pocket into the consumers pocket.
And you would be wrong. The pockets Krugman is referring to both belong to the oil companies. Read it again, a bit slower, or call someone in to help you.
This is relief for people being squeeezed by high enegy costs, not a solution to the nations energy woes.
Um...no. If you'd read the article, you would understand that this wouldn't provide significant relief for anyone. Putting this discount on today would reduce gas prices to what they were 2 weeks ago. Now, I ask you, how often do you long for the gas prices of 2 weeks ago?
Beware the dubious cult of dumbasses disguised as experts and political pundits selling strawman arguments.
Duly noted.