Sachs has a few arguments here. The first is that, like you noted, it isn't the resources or the consumption of such that causes waste--it is the evolution of inefficient bureaucracies and dependencies that have to do with crafting a resource-first economy. That's directly causal. The second is an endogenous growth theory that the Dutch Disease that follows from capital inflows due to natural resource glut decimates any domestic manufacturing/innovation industries. I never said having the oil is bad, but the way companies have exploited oil has, in aggregate, not really ended that well for the global poor. That was one of my points in my response to Commodore. It does seem like the environmental impact and human rights abuses has taken a backseat to economic considerations.
The Republican scam, cry for the poor and middle class any time there's a proposal to raise a tax and try like hell to equalize tax rates for millionaires with those of bus drivers because it's only fair and cut government services and benefits to the poor and middle class to pay for it.
For perspective, the starting year he looked at was 1970. That was the year Standard Oil would have turned 100 if it had not been broken up under anti-trust laws 60 years prior. The US economy grew plenty during that period. 1970 also (approximately) marks the beginning of oil production in the North Sea in Norway. Sub-Sahara Africa is poor, but that is not any kind of evidence of some kind of curse. It was a far more poor region prior to colonialism. Colonialism after all was that period of time when the "resource scarce" countries went in to Africa with their superior weaponry and said "this is the way it's gonna be". I assumed you know something about this since even "resource abundant" Canada enjoys playing the game with its billion dollar plus weapon deals with Iran and Saudi Arabia, or does Canada only do such deals on moral and ethical grounds?
Living downtown would do nothing for me. Monday I was in the Woodlands. Tuesday I was in Lake Jackson. Wednesday River Oaks. Today Sugar Land. Tomorrow Beaumont.
Is that the same argument against raising the minimum wage? Wow not make it 1 million an hour........?
Obama showing who he really cares for. Why silent on the carried interest loophole? http://www.foreffectivegov.org/blog...e-fund-managers-pay-rose-50-percent-last-year
I don't think people realize how many municipal laws favor automobile use: from minimum lots, to setbacks, to minimum parking requirements, these are designed to make things easier for automobiles. We essentially subsidized sprawl (inefficiency) for a good deal of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century. This is long overdue.
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. The flaw with applying Sachs' paper to everything is that he is only looking from 1971 onward. The greatest economic superpower of all time was created because we have the natural resources here. Additionally, the problems with Sub-Saharan Africa I feel are directly related to colonialism and indirect rule of the colonial powers that sought to promote divide and conquer tactics and tribalism versus the creation of a national identity. The fact that they have natural resources is not the direct cause of their unstable governments and poor economies. This is a nice little aside from Obama's silly $10/barrel tax on oil that has zero chance of passing and I have zero idea why he is pushing it.
Maybe if the rich paid in proportion to their wealth we wouldn't need to tax commodities. At this point, this tax would probably save the energy industry considering consumers will pay the tax happily and the world will rejoice at a higher oil price.
They should do some tax to stop the Middle East from trying to crash our economy. Nothing wrong with setting a floating tax that is there to protect The USA. DD
Aren't there various subsidies given to the O&G industry? How about just ending those instead of creating a new tax?
A duty on imported oil would support domestic jobs, I don't see why anyone in Houston would be against that. And they are middle class jobs that re-circulate money in the American economy rather than shipping money off shore in trade deficits. 1. domestic jobs 2.boost to the US economy 3. small negative incentive to burn carbon 4. fund for infrastructure and You do it now that retail prices have dropped so the perception of the effect is minimal since we are used to higher prices. But with this Congress, no legislation is going to pass anyway.
Reducing our dependence on oil is good for the middle class and the working poor. Part of the reason why gas prices are so low right now is because of the 10 percent increase in CAFE mpg standards which has made cars much more fuel efficient which decreases our demand. It's not the only reason but it is a factor.
A barrel tax would impact all oil companies equally. It would incrementally decrease US demand and be neutral to competition. Subsidies can be structured to advantage American companies vis-a-vis foreign competitors in the international market. US demand is not diminished, but we can still give Exxon a leg up on the Gazproms of the world. I'm not saying I much like the subsidy approach, but I don't think it's equivalent to a tax lever.
A $10 increase in the price of the barrel would probably not increase gas prices too much. Maybe 10 or 20c. I don't how much that would lower demand.
I love how fired up people get discussing something that has a 0% chance of coming to fruition. Also loved the guy who said liberals want gasoline prices to be high -- as if the O&G industry isn't conservative -- too good! Obama's camp has admitted this has no chance of passing but was included to get people talking about alternative fuel/self-driving car options. I am okay with generating discussion on those topics, specifically trying to advance the self-driving car. But by all means, don't let me stop you -- continue to get in to a political debate over something that both sides know will never happen. It's Friday, what else are you going to do?
