Not that you can tell the difference much lately.
Gas prices in some stations in New York City are over $2.00/gallon. OPEC announces it's cutting production targets.
But don't worry, Bush knows how to handle this. When running for President in 2000, he said:
it was the president's job to "jawbone" OPEC producers by getting "on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots."Phew! That's reassuring. Come on Mr. President...do your stuff!
er, yeah...
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush was concerned about the prices paid by U.S. consumers, but declined to criticize OPEC's decision to cut crude oil production by 1 million barrels per day in April, a move that will tighten global supplies even more and may drive prices higher.
What reason could Bush possibly have for breaking this promise? Why, the same reason he uses to defend all his broken promises...it's all about the terror of course...
The White House, for now, opposes such a move. McClellan cited "independent analysts" as saying it would have a "negligible impact" on prices, and possibly compromise national security.
So, finally, we find the White House asking for that personal sacrifice that all Americans can make in the War on Terror. Pay more at the pump....if not to help fight terror, at least so Bush doesn't need to make any uncomfortable phone calls.
Crack open those damn reserves. What the hell else is that billion barrels for?
Posted by: sidereal | March 31, 2004 at 03:27 PM
What the hell else is that billion barrels for?
Err... a real crisis. Not market fluctuations.
Posted by: Macallan | March 31, 2004 at 03:41 PM
One begets the other. Fresh off a Foreign Affairs reading, I'm ripe with second-hand knowledge. Current market price for petroleum is three times what it would be in an uncontrolled market (don't ask me how they calculate this). The most significant lever we have against OPEC is use of our reserves to destroy their income.
Posted by: sidereal | March 31, 2004 at 03:55 PM
Edward, maybe Bush can jawbone Sorros, as hedge funds short the dollar and go long oil contracts.
Posted by: Timmy | March 31, 2004 at 03:59 PM
Sidereal with the OPEC announcement, did the price of oil go up or down?
Posted by: Timmy | March 31, 2004 at 03:59 PM
Edward, maybe Bush can jawbone Sorros, as hedge funds short the dollar and go long oil contracts.
Hmmm...you know I've googled his 2000 campaign promises, and that's just no where to be found among 'em.
Posted by: Edward | March 31, 2004 at 04:05 PM
Hmmm...you know I've googled his 2000 campaign promises, and that's just no where to be found among 'em.
Well maybe that was before Sorros declared Bush Public Enemy #1. The times they are a changing.
Posted by: Timmy | March 31, 2004 at 04:29 PM
"did the price of oil go up or down?"
What time period? For the day it's down. For the month, in anticipation of this announcement, up. And with volume.
Are you trying to suggest that OPEC cuts will not raise oil prices? If so, you're on your own.
Posted by: sidereal | March 31, 2004 at 04:29 PM
Posted by: Macallan | March 31, 2004 at 04:33 PM
That's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not Tactical Petroleum Reserve. If we want a buffer that can keep the price stabilized somewhat (assuming that even makes sense) then we should have one. The SPR isn't that buffer.
And of course I think the assumption is that the price increases are NOT due to refinery bottleneck, rather than price at the wellhead.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 31, 2004 at 04:36 PM
did you stop the italic madness on purpose Mac?
very gentlemanly of you.
Posted by: Edward | March 31, 2004 at 04:37 PM
uh..gas is cheap..in 1960 gas was 31 cents a gallon (regular, leaded), but in today's dollars, that would be $1.95. In 1980, it was $1.25 (unleaded, regular), or $2.82 in $2004. 1990, $1.16, or $1.65 today. The latest average is $1.72.
Posted by: judson | March 31, 2004 at 04:44 PM
uh..gas is cheap..in 1960 gas was 31 cents a gallon (regular, leaded), but in today's dollars, that would be $1.95. In 1980, it was $1.25 (unleaded, regular), or $2.82 in $2004. 1990, $1.16, or $1.65 today. The latest average is $1.72. (via maxspeak)
Posted by: judson | March 31, 2004 at 04:45 PM
you know, if my salary had just gone up the same way gas prices have, I wouldn't be bellyaching so much, but it hasn't.
Posted by: Edward | March 31, 2004 at 04:55 PM
I didn't have a salary in 1960, so it's hard to tell.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 31, 2004 at 05:20 PM
you were lucky!
we were so poor in my family we had to start working when before we were born.
Posted by: Edward | March 31, 2004 at 05:27 PM
very gentlemanly of you.
Yeah, but I'll deny it -- I have a reputation to maintain.
Posted by: Macallan | March 31, 2004 at 05:37 PM
Clinton tried to "twist the OPEC arms" and lower prices with this result:
But pressure on OPEC doesn’t always bring prices down, as the Clinton administration found out.
"On Sept. 25, 2000, when the Clinton-Gore administration was taking heat for rising oil prices, Vice President Al Gore told NBC’s Today show that the Clinton administration had held “intensive discussions” with OPEC about boosting production — to no avail, Gore said."
He also tried dumping the SPR on the market with the resulting $.01 drop in prices, hardly enough to pin the results on anything but whimsy.
The SPR is for strategic use not for the political benefit of one Party or relief of consumer prices.
This Houston Chronicle article: should show you why prices are high, NO NEW refineries have been built in OVER THIRTY YEARS. Thanks to government induced regulation from BOTH parties.
Posted by: marc | March 31, 2004 at 08:41 PM
Are you trying to suggest that OPEC cuts will not raise oil prices? If so, you're on your own.
Sidereal we go through this every spring, the rise in gasoline prices.
-Domestic inventories increased in March.
-The individual OPEC countries cheat and Iraq is producing 2 millin barrels a day.
-Oh and btw, global oil consumption normally declines during this period of the year (picks up in August for the refining and inventory building of heating oil).
-Strong demand by China may hamper the softening of oil prices but $32-30 a barrel would be my guess--$3 over a targeted $$27.
Net net at the end of the day, I would short oil contracts and go long on the dollar. Course I don't know what George Sorros is going to do.
Posted by: Timmy | March 31, 2004 at 09:23 PM
Food for thought:
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3410
Posted by: mike p | March 31, 2004 at 10:47 PM
La Résistance aux Italiques Sans Fin will not be denied!
On the merits, I don't have a strong stake. Personally I think the bellyaching by consumers is ridiculous (A 20c increase per gallon costs my family the price of one pizza every couple of months). It's the transportation industry that's the real stakeholder. I don't know why the local news persists in interviewing commuters at the gas pump.
That said, a monopoly on anything is never good. A market price triple what an open market price would be is never good. And any reasonable pressure setup to reduce the effect (like weakening OPEC or legitimately pushing for alternative energy or invading Iraq [just kidding]) is worthwhile.
Posted by: sidereal | March 31, 2004 at 10:53 PM
Posted by: praktike | March 31, 2004 at 11:38 PM
Over $2 a gallon, OMFG!!!
...of course, here in California, it has been that way for years.
Posted by: Steve | April 01, 2004 at 12:43 PM