Monday, June 09, 2008
Saturday morning, on Fox News, one talking head described the current run-up in the price of oil as "capitalism run amok." As an ardent capitalist, I took the remark very personally and was deeply hurt.
It took about 24 hours to sink in that, as is the case more often than not, the babbler had struck close enough to hurt but missed the target.
In a true capitalist (i.e., Adam Smith) market, producers would increase supply to meet demand, until a market equilibrium was reached. So far as oil is concerned, it is not a capitalist market. Nearly 90 percent of the world's oil production is in the hands of state-owned monopolies, read, "Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico," etc. (This is why Barackish attacks on "big oil" are so heinously untruthful. Exxon, et al., control only a small fraction of the world's production, produce only a portion of the requirements of their refineries -- and are thus subject to the price run-up as they purchase to meet their needs -- and earn only a small piece of the so-called "windfall profits." But, I digress.) These state-owned monopolies have little or no incentive to increase production, as their price decisions are reflections of political agendas. Moreover, in the part of the world where oil production is not in the hands of the state, meaning, principally, the United States, oil producers are prevented from increasing production by whacko tree-hugging enviro-weenies living in Palisades, New Jersey (and similar places) who have never seen an Arctic tern (even in an aviary) but need assurance that no caribou will ever bump its antlers on a pipeline in order that they might sleep better at night.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is peddling bumper stickers that read, "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less." To which I add, "Buy It; Put It On; Vote That Way in November." (See www.americansolutions.com.)
It took about 24 hours to sink in that, as is the case more often than not, the babbler had struck close enough to hurt but missed the target.
In a true capitalist (i.e., Adam Smith) market, producers would increase supply to meet demand, until a market equilibrium was reached. So far as oil is concerned, it is not a capitalist market. Nearly 90 percent of the world's oil production is in the hands of state-owned monopolies, read, "Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico," etc. (This is why Barackish attacks on "big oil" are so heinously untruthful. Exxon, et al., control only a small fraction of the world's production, produce only a portion of the requirements of their refineries -- and are thus subject to the price run-up as they purchase to meet their needs -- and earn only a small piece of the so-called "windfall profits." But, I digress.) These state-owned monopolies have little or no incentive to increase production, as their price decisions are reflections of political agendas. Moreover, in the part of the world where oil production is not in the hands of the state, meaning, principally, the United States, oil producers are prevented from increasing production by whacko tree-hugging enviro-weenies living in Palisades, New Jersey (and similar places) who have never seen an Arctic tern (even in an aviary) but need assurance that no caribou will ever bump its antlers on a pipeline in order that they might sleep better at night.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is peddling bumper stickers that read, "Drill Here; Drill Now; Pay Less." To which I add, "Buy It; Put It On; Vote That Way in November." (See www.americansolutions.com.)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
"Count every vote!" is what we've heard incessantly since the Democrats attempted a judicial hijacking of the Florida presidential count in 2000.
Seems pretty straight-forward on the face of it, but the 2008 primary campaign reveals heretofore unexpected nuances:
1. Barack Obama gets roughly forty percent of the sawed off Michigan delegation, although his name wasn't on the Michigan ballot. Memo to file: If you are fawned upon by the liberal glitterati, you can get a pretty good result even if nobody votes for you.
2. Delegates to the Democratic convention from Michigan and Florida, which have roughly 50 electoral votes between them, and both of which are critical to any hope of Obama winning in the general election in November, get one-half of a vote apiece, while delegates from Puerto Rico (not to mention Guam), which will have no electoral votes in November, will have a full vote at the convention.
3. Many delegates to the Democratic convention were elected by Congressional districts. Selection rules allotted delegates to Congressional districts according to the vote for the Democratic candidate in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections. Because the largest margins for Democratic candidates typically occur in predominantly black communities, black-majority Congressional districts received a disproportionate number of the delegates allotted in this manner. If you are a voter in Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston, your vote won your candidate more delegates than the vote of a Democrat unfortunate enough to live in a Republican Congressional district in West Texas. One man-one vote, anybody? Has anybody done the arithmetic to figure out if Barack would have snagged the nomination without this kind of disproportional representation?
In a campaign season rife with ironies, one of the most stark is that the candidate who says "we" are not Red states or Blue states but the United States has benefited from a selection process that stacked the deck on the basis of color.
Seems pretty straight-forward on the face of it, but the 2008 primary campaign reveals heretofore unexpected nuances:
1. Barack Obama gets roughly forty percent of the sawed off Michigan delegation, although his name wasn't on the Michigan ballot. Memo to file: If you are fawned upon by the liberal glitterati, you can get a pretty good result even if nobody votes for you.
2. Delegates to the Democratic convention from Michigan and Florida, which have roughly 50 electoral votes between them, and both of which are critical to any hope of Obama winning in the general election in November, get one-half of a vote apiece, while delegates from Puerto Rico (not to mention Guam), which will have no electoral votes in November, will have a full vote at the convention.
3. Many delegates to the Democratic convention were elected by Congressional districts. Selection rules allotted delegates to Congressional districts according to the vote for the Democratic candidate in the most recent presidential and gubernatorial elections. Because the largest margins for Democratic candidates typically occur in predominantly black communities, black-majority Congressional districts received a disproportionate number of the delegates allotted in this manner. If you are a voter in Sheila Jackson Lee's district in Houston, your vote won your candidate more delegates than the vote of a Democrat unfortunate enough to live in a Republican Congressional district in West Texas. One man-one vote, anybody? Has anybody done the arithmetic to figure out if Barack would have snagged the nomination without this kind of disproportional representation?
In a campaign season rife with ironies, one of the most stark is that the candidate who says "we" are not Red states or Blue states but the United States has benefited from a selection process that stacked the deck on the basis of color.
This blogging is hard work. Notice that two-and-a half years have elapsed since the last posting. I discovered quickly that my standards for self-expression were too demanding for quick, pithy vignettes on a regular basis. As a result, there are a handful of incomplete posts in progress that grow'd like Topsy and were never drawn to a proper conclusion. So, it is time to try again. With the presidential campaign now at full howl, there should be plenty to write about. If, only, I can just keep it short . . ..
