Author Topic: Roark's Official Economics Thread  (Read 6250 times)

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Roark's Official Economics Thread
« on: January 19, 2012, 10:15:56 AM »
I'm compiling any and all information I can get on economics in this thread. Others are welcome to post their own videos, articles, opinions, etc. Also, if you want me to look up any material, just let me know by commenting in this thread.

Content:
1. Keynesian Predictions and Depression of 1920
2. Hoover's Stimulus
3. Calvin Coolidge Economic Performance
4. The Laffer Curve
5. Capital-Based Macroeconomics & Friedman's Plucking Model
6. Ron Paul's Approach to Economics
7. Free Trade & Gasoline Prices
8. "Big Oil's" Small Profits
9. Inflation Fueling Gasoline Prices
10. Government Drives Gasoline Prices Higher
11. The Great Boom & Bust with Ben Powell, PhD
12. Keynesian Economics Is Wrong
13. Peter Boettke, GMU Economist, Explains Austrian Economics
14. Peter Schiff vs. Keynesian economist Laurence Kotlikoff
15. Why Your Grandfather's Economics Was Better Than Yours <<< Highly Recommended
16. The Business Cycle Explained In Five Minutes
17. The Fed Should Be Abolished - Thomas Sowell
18. Nothing is Free - Milton Friedman
19. The Roots of Economic Growth
20. New Support for Friedman's Plucking Model
21. Bush Deficits Explained
22. Vienna School vs. Chicago School on Monetary Economics
23. Health Care Economics
24. The Myth of Science as a Public Good

Content By Topic
Business Cycle Theory
Capital-Based Macroeconomics & Friedman's Plucking Model
Why Your Grandfather's Economics Was Better Than Yours
The Business Cycle Explained In Five Minutes

The Austrian School of Economics
Capital-Based Macroeconomics & Friedman's Plucking Model
Ron Paul's Approach to Economics
The Great Boom & Bust with Ben Powell, PhD
Peter Boettke, GMU Economist, Explains the Austrian School
Why Your Grandfather's Economics Was Better Than Yours
The Business Cycle Explained In Five Minutes
The Roots of Economic Growth

Keynesian Economics
Keynesian Predictions and The Depression of 1920
Keynesian Economics is Wrong
Peter Schiff vs. Keynesian economist Laurence Kotlikoff

Supply-Side Economics
The Laffer Curve
Why Your Grandfather's Economics Was Better Than Yours

Economic History
Hoover's Stimulus
Calvin Coolidge Economic Performance
Why Your Grandfather's Economics Was Better Than Yours

Gasoline & Oil Prices
Free Trade & Gasoline Prices
"Big Oil's" Small Profits
Inflation Fueling Gasoline Prices
Government Drives Gasoline Prices Higher

Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Miscellaneous Chicago School Stuff
The Fed Should Be Abolished - Thomas Sowell
Nothing is Free - Milton Friedman

Miscellaneous Microeconomic Issues
Health Care Economics
The Myth of Science as a Public Good

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Keynesian Predictions & Depression of 1920
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2012, 10:25:37 AM »
Pretty funny and informative lecture, worth watching/listening to:



Here is some more info about the Depression of 1920 and what it means to the economics profession:



Here are the Glenn Beck cliff notes on the Depression of 1920:


howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Hoover's Stimulus
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2012, 10:36:52 AM »
Something I find particularly annoying is this myth that Hoover was somehow "laissez faire," when nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is Hoover announcing his economic stimulus plan, not laissez faire in the least:


"Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom.... We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction...Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic." -Hoover

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6371
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2012, 10:50:29 AM »
Something I find particularly annoying is this myth that Hoover was somehow "laissez faire," when nothing could be further from the truth.

Here is Hoover announcing his economic stimulus plan, not laissez faire in the least:


"Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom.... We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction...Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic." -Hoover

Exactly, but that is histories meme, that is what is pushed in schools and on television.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Calvin Coolidge Economic Performance
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2012, 11:02:47 AM »
Calvin Coolidge - Back when Presidents were classy. Cut top income tax rate from 65% to 20%; by the end of his term 98% of Americans didn't pay any income tax. Economic growth averaged 7% per year, inflation 0.4%, and unemployment 3.3%. He also cut the national debt by 25%. Born on the 4th of July. Most famous quote: "The business of America is business."

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
The Laffer Curve
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2012, 11:21:36 AM »
Learning about the Laffer curve:






howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Capital-Based Macroeconomics & Friedman's Plucking Model
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2012, 11:35:54 AM »
Lecture by Roger Garrison PhD on an alternative theory of the business cycle:



Here is an article by Garrison explaining Friedman's plucking model and its relation to business cycle theory: http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/fm1pluck.htm



Friedman's plucking model is also a good refutation of the standard Keynesian explanation of the boom-bust cycle.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Ron Paul's Approach to Economics
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2012, 11:49:36 AM »
Here is a lecture explaining Ron Paul's approach to economics:


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39838
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Keynesian Predictions & Depression of 1920
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2012, 11:52:48 AM »
Pretty funny and informative lecture, worth watching/listening to:



Here is some more info about the Depression of 1920 and what it means to the economics profession:



Here are the Glenn Beck cliff notes on the Depression of 1920:




I saw that first clip before.  Very good stuff. 

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2012, 04:53:50 PM »
Great thread.

Shockwave

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20807
  • Decepticons! Scramble!
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2012, 06:39:30 AM »
Great thread.
This.
Dont have time to watch them all while in class, but definatley will when home.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2012, 08:31:54 AM »
Not something I recommend watching all at once  :P

I'm compiling it more as a reference that you can go to when you want to learn something (e.g. Laffer curve).

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Free Trade & Gasoline Prices
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2012, 08:43:20 AM »
http://mises.org/daily/2008

The Path to Lower Gas Prices: Free Trade

Mises Daily: Thursday, January 12, 2006 by Robert Karl Merting

There are many reason the price of gas is higher than it otherwise would be in a pure market setting. But one reason has received virtually no attention. Gas imports are taxed more highly than oil imports, a protectionist arrangement that benefits domestic refineries (in the short run) but harms consumers every day.

First some background.

The increase in the price of gasoline has been a concern to all who take interest in the American economy. While prices today are not nearly as high, in real terms, as those of the early eighties, the recent doubling in energy costs certainly places a damper on the economy.

Congress is threatening the oil industry with a "windfall profit tax" for their "excessive profiteering," and wall street, by all appearances, is circling the wagons and preparing for the worst, even while non-energy company profits continue to grow at respectable rates. Meanwhile, the government has managed to erect barriers to entry for refineries and heavily tax the very lifeblood of machinery, oil.

The effects of taxes and regulation on the price of gasoline have been well documented. In South Carolina, consumers are made aware of the 35.2 cents tax per gallon by stickers conveniently placed on the pump. This is a two part tax with 18.4 cents going to the Federal government and 16.8 cents going to South Carolina, and the latter portion varies from a little under 10 cents to about 40 cents depending on the state.

This tax has the effect of increasing the price of gasoline, especially when the demand for a product, such as gas, is inelastic[1] even in the long run, reducing the volume sold in the country, trimming profits, and suffocating incentives to develop new wells and invest in refineries.[2]

Regulation is nothing more than a tax where the government chooses to take it's revenue in the form of goods, such as pollution reduction, paperwork in triplicate, and graft, rather than in tax dollars, but the effect is the same as bilking the industry out of it's profits through taxes.

The combination of high taxes and complicated regulations have prevented the construction of refineries in the United States since 1976. Aramco, an oil company owned by Saudi Arabia, has even offered to build two new refineries in the United States; but only if "someone else obtains all the necessary environmental permits first."[3] It is not surprising that America's refining capacity hasn't increased since the early eighties.

Unfortunately the above-mentioned problems are not the only source of gasoline's high price. A lesser known tariff is affecting our gas market everyday, and effectively boosts the profits enjoyed by our domestic refineries. As any good Austrian economist knows, tariffs are a protectionist measure, that, in the long run, will prove detrimental to the very industry meant to be protected. Under tariffs, and protectionism in general, inefficient firms are supported and competition is inhibited; this reduces the incentive for a firm to remain competitive and productive and will eventually result in a correction when regulations are lifted, or foreign firms become much more efficient than their domestic counterparts.

Keynes may have concluded that "in the long run we are all dead," and his thoughts certainly find sympathy with Groucho Marx who asks "Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done for me?," but America has proven to be an ongoing concern and the long run should be considered. Protectionism is an outdated part of the antiquated mercantilist theory, and America should not be persuaded to wall off oil refineries from foreign competitors in one of our most important and vital commodities.

A 42 gallon barrel of crude can be turned into 44.77 gallons of merchantable products. Further investigation shows a barrel of crude oil yields, on average, 19.65 gallons of gas and 4.07 gallons of jet fuel, combined; this is well over half a barrel of the best product, and there is still a whole host of other derivatives manufactured from the same barrel.[4] Refining oil, and then transporting the finished good, is no more cost effective than transporting oil, and then refining. This is apparent in practice since refineries tend to be near their markets, and most long distance shipping is for oil. The transportation of oil is actually more efficient since a pipeline can be built to pump a conglomerate of goods, rather than having to ship individual products in separate containers.

The tariff on gasoline and jet fuel imported into America is 52.5 cents a barrel compared to only 5.25 cents a barrel for unrefined crude: To simplify, the tariff on these finished goods is ten times the tariff on the unrefined oil.[5] This translates into 1.25 cents per gallon of gasoline added to the cost of importing. This seemingly minor margin can give domestic producers an edge in the American market.

According to ConocoPhillips, refining and marketing profits for the third quarter of 2005 were 9 cents per gallon with an average price of $2.60 per a gallon of gasoline.[6] Without trade limited by a tariff on gasoline, profits would be squeezed, roughly, to 8 cents a gallon.[7] Thus the tariff increases refineries' profits by 12.5%, or 1 cent on the gallon.

As any entrepreneur knows, a 12.5% increase in profits is remarkable. Protectionism such as this allows inefficient refineries to continue to operate within the United States, while competitors are prevented from importing gas at market prices. From the consumers' perspective, the extra one cent on the gallon translates into 42 cents on the barrel, and at 20 million barrels per day the American consumer spends an extra $8.4 million each day to support domestic refineries.

Further complicating the importation of refined gas is America's obstinate application of environmental restrictions to foreign countries. Venezuela has filed complaints with the World trade Organization several times over Congress's and the EPA's requirements for cleaner refining. America, Venezuela charges, studied her own refineries, decided a 15% decrease in emissions was necessary, and then required Venezuela to do the same, without examining the emissions of Venezuelan refineries.[8] This global application of EPA requirements is Congress's peace offering to domestic refineries after requiring them to meet stringent clean air requirements, and the tab of course is being picked up by every consumer of gasoline in America.

Eliminating the tariff on gasoline would not make a noticeable difference in prices at the pump, but would, more than some misapplied "windfall" tax, send a clear message to the oil industry that inefficiency among our domestic refineries will not be tolerated. To measurably reduce the price of gasoline the government should eliminate the excise tax placed on each gallon and reduce the regulations the industry must comply with. If America proves unwilling to reduce regulation on refineries, then the oil industry will simply move their operations off shore and import the finished good, and this natural progress should not be impeded by a mercantilist application of protectionism for the benefit of our overly burdened, inefficient domestic refineries.

Robert Merting is a student at Wofford College. Send him mail. Comment on the blog. Listen to a recent interview with Robert online at Mises.org.

[1] The exact measurement, according to Molly Espey is -.42. Espey, Molly, "Explaining the Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-analysis," The Energy Journal, 17, 1996.

[2] For a more thorough covering of the effects of a tax read William Anderson's article "Fallacies of the Oil Tax." November, 2006

[3] Featherstone, Charles, "The Myth of 'Peak Oil,'" January, 2006

[4] Energy Information Sheets, "Crude Oil Production," January, 2006

[5] Energy Information Sheets, "Taxes," January, 2006

[6] ConocoPhillips, "Oil Company Profits," January, 2006

[7] This number is calculated using the inelasticity of demand for Oil.

[8] American.edu, "US-Venezuela Gas,", January, 2006

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
"Big Oil's" Small Profits
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2012, 08:47:01 AM »
http://mises.org/daily/2940

Economics 101: The Price of Gas

Mises Daily: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 by Sterling T. Terrell



Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high?

A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and demand, or any combination of the three.

First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar: something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64, assuming taxes are the same.

But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account for approximately 20% of gas's posted price. Taking inflation and the increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.

Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited (whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the world's major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown while supplies have been restricted.

The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25. The question is, why are gas prices not higher than they are?

Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as follows:

Periodical Publishing    24.9%
Shipping    18.8%
Application Software    22.5%
Tobacco    19%
Water Utilities    10.2%
Major Integrated Oil and Gas    9.5%
Hospitals    1.4%
Drugstores    2.8%

The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas firms! Why isn't every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil companies made to testify before Congress for "price gouging"? Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue.

Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes.

Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay "too much" for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.

Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail rather than rhetoric.

Sterling T. Terrell is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of agricultural and applied economics at Texas Tech University. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Inflation Fueling Gasoline Prices
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2012, 08:50:43 AM »
http://mises.org/daily/5255

Another Reason to End the Fed

Mises Daily: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 by Mark Brandly



In his first press conference as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke discussed rising gasoline prices, blaming higher demand from emerging economies and Mideast oil-supply disruptions as the cause of the zooming prices. Bernanke did not mention the US government's role in the higher energy prices,[1] and he explicitly absolved the Federal Reserve of any blame.

According to Bernanke, "there's not much the Federal Reserve can do about gas prices, per se, at least not without derailing growth entirely, which is certainly not the right way to go. After all, the Fed can't create more oil. We don't control the growth rates of emerging market economies." (Here is a transcript and a video of Bernanke's press conference and here is a video of his remarks about gasoline.)

Bernanke's deceitfulness is appalling, although not unexpected. He knows that Federal Reserve monetary policy plays a significant role in gasoline prices. Expansionary monetary policy leads to more dollars being available in world currency markets and weakens the dollar. The weaker dollar results in higher import prices. More than half of the oil consumed in the United States comes from foreign producers, and because oil is the main input needed to produce gasoline, higher oil prices mean higher gasoline prices.

In the last decade, the Federal Reserve has engaged in almost-unprecedented easy monetary policies. The broadest measure of the money supply is called M3. According to estimates at Shadowstats.com, until the financial collapse of 2008, M3 was continuously increasing at a rate anywhere from 5 to 15 percent annually. This money creation by the Federal Reserve led to the unsustainable boom of the Bush years and the economic meltdown that we have experienced in the last three years.

In addition, this rapid monetary expansion led to the decline of the dollar in currency markets.[2] The value of the dollar peaked in the summer of 2001. From June 2001 to the end of March 2011, the dollar depreciated 40 percent relative to the euro, from €1.18/$1 to €.704/$1. During this period, the US spot price of oil increased 348 percent in terms of dollars (from $23.38 to $104.64 per barrel). But in terms of euros, those same oil prices only increased 167 percent (from €27.59 to €73.67 euros per barrel). If the dollar had held steady relative to the euro at the exchange rate of 1.18 euros per dollar, then the US spot price for oil at the end of March would have been $62.42 per barrel.

Consider the impact that this has had on gasoline prices. To make the calculations easy, let's say that the current price of gasoline is $4 per gallon. Oil costs are 68 percent of the price of gasoline. That means that oil costs make up $2.72 of the $4 gasoline price. The dollar's depreciation relative to the euro in the last decade was 40 percent; and 40 percent of $2.72 is $1.09.

Therefore, if the dollar had held steady with the euro, we would be paying roughly $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline that now costs us $4. Gasoline prices would be 27 percent lower today if the dollar had held its value relative to the euro over the last decade. It's true that there is little the Federal Reserve can do to bring oil and gasoline prices down. Federal Reserve policies have already weakened the dollar leading to higher oil prices, and this damage cannot be undone. However, over a long period of time, the Federal Reserve has had a major impact on energy prices. And things are going to get worse. Due to the Federal Reserve's bank bailouts and quantitative-easing policies, we should anticipate much higher gasoline prices.

Barack Obama and his attorney general blame high gasoline prices on oil speculators. The chairman of the Federal Reserve blames supply disruptions and the growing economies of the world. We see this all the time. Elected officials and other agents of the state never accept any blame for the destruction created by their policies. Others are always at fault. In this case, however, we can clearly see that the Federal Reserve bears much of the responsibility for the economic damage of high gasoline prices. We can add high oil and gasoline prices to our long list of reasons why we should end the Fed.

Mark Brandly is a professor of economics at Ferris State University and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Notes

[1] In a recent article, I explained how government intervention leads to higher gasoline prices. By imposing taxes on gasoline sales, reducing the supply of oil by taxing oil production, limiting drilling by banning exploration in some areas, and purchasing oil to be stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the government gouges gasoline buyers and generates profits for OPEC.

[2] Admittedly, other factors such as the inflation of euro and the demand for dollars and euros also affect the dollar-exchange rate. However, the Federal Reserve admits that its policies have a significant effect on exchange rates. See The Federal Reserve: Purposes and Functions, p. 24.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Government Drives Gasoline Prices Higher
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2012, 08:58:46 AM »
http://mises.org/daily/5111/What-Can-We-Do-about-Gasoline-Prices

What Can We Do about Gasoline Prices?

Mises Daily: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 by Mark Brandly



Rocketing gasoline prices are causing consumer unrest. Government officials blame oil speculators, corporate greed, and OPEC, anyone but themselves. However, the US government has spent decades implementing policies that drive up gasoline and oil prices. From the oil-price controls of the 1970s to the windfall-profits tax of the 1980s to George W. Bush's order to purchase oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the aim of government policy appears to be to hurt gasoline buyers.

Because government is a main cause of high gasoline prices, the solutions for alleviating this problem are obvious; stop government intervention in energy markets and allow private markets to determine oil and gasoline prices.

First, the federal and state governments should eliminate the gasoline tax. The federal gasoline-excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and the combined federal and state gasoline taxes run from 26.4 cents per gallon in Alaska to 66.1 cents in New York. Federal and state taxes average 48.1 cents per gallon.Download PDF Increases in the price of gasoline do not have a large effect on the volume of gasoline purchases, so most of the gasoline taxes result in higher gasoline prices for buyers.

Even though gasoline sellers are legally liable to pay the tax, the tax burden is shifted onto the buyers in the form of higher prices. Therefore, eliminating the gasoline taxes would result in an average savings of nearly 48 cents per gallon. Of course, eliminating these taxes would result in a reduction in state- and federal-tax revenues. Given the bloated state of the government budgets, this would be an additional benefit of ridding ourselves of these taxes.

The next issue is the government policies that restrict oil production. Before I discuss these policies, I would like to point out the hypocrisy of our government officials. Our political leaders criticize other countries, particularly the OPEC countries, for restricting their oil production in order to drive up oil prices. But many US government policies restrict US oil production. Beyond the hypocrisy in this issue, it's important to point out that US policies seem to be geared to helping OPEC maintain high oil prices.

It's estimated that oil costs are 68 percent of gasoline prices.Download PDF Lower oil prices would lead to lower gasoline prices. So the second necessary reform would be the elimination of oil taxes. Many of the oil-producing states impose heavy taxes, called severance taxes, on oil production. Alaska leads the pack with top rates that exceed 25 percent of oil revenues. Severance taxes are taxes on revenues, not profits. If an oil well has a 5 percent profit margin, but the severance tax rate is 7 percent, then that well is no longer profitable. Such wells are plugged and abandoned. The tax also results in fewer wells being drilled. Eliminating severance taxes would increase oil production, leading to lower gasoline prices.

My third recommendation is to lift the drilling bans on federal lands and offshore areas. The federal government owns about 650 million acres of land — nearly 30 percent of all of the land in the United States — and much of this land contains oil reserves. While drilling is allowed in some of these regions, in some oil rich areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drilling is off-limits.

The federal government also claims to own the "submerged lands" up to 200 nautical miles off of the coast of the United States. Because it owns these lands, it can ban drilling in the outer continental shelf. These areas should be opened for offshore drilling. If the drilling, either in the OCS or in ANWR, violated anyone's property rights, say in the form of oil spills, the offending parties should be required to pay the victims for any damage to their private property.

Even if these areas were opened up for drilling, it would take years to develop this production. Nevertheless, we would see the benefits of this drilling before any oil was actually produced. Oil markets are forward looking. If oil producers anticipate increased production in the future, this will tend to lead to lower prices today. Producers will want to sell more of their oil today instead of holding it until prices are lower in the future.

We see the reverse occurring today. Part of the reason that oil prices are rising is that sellers anticipate higher future prices. If they anticipated lower future prices, today's prices would tend to be lower.

Fourth, the oil in the federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be sold and the SPR program should be abandoned. The SPR was started in the 1970s in response to the Arab oil embargo. Since then, the government has purchased oil and stored that oil in this reserve. The reserve currently has about 730 million barrels worth more than $70 billion at current oil prices. The purported purpose of the SPR is that it is to be used in case of an emergency in the oil markets. However, instead of using it to relieve us from the burden of high oil prices, it has sometimes been used to keep oil prices up. When the price of oil started to fall during the Bush regime, George Bush ordered an increase in the SPR in order to "stabilize" oil prices.

The SPR program is ridiculous: Oil companies invest in drilling oil wells. They pump the oil out of the ground. The federal government then uses tax dollars to purchase the oil and pump it into salt caverns 2,000–4,000 feet beneath the ground. If we want to use the oil, we will have to pump it out of the ground a second time. We pump oil out of the ground, pump it back into the ground, and then pump it out again. It would be more efficient to store the oil in its original underground formation and allow private oil companies to decide when to pump it out.

The government should sell the oil in the SPR and use the revenues to reduce the deficit. I recommend that they announce that they are going to sell one million barrels a day. At a price of $100 a barrel, that sale would generate $100 million of revenue daily that could be used to reduce federal borrowing by an equivalent amount.

The million barrels a day of SPR sales will offset the decrease in oil production cause by the political unrest in Libya. Regardless of what happens in Libya, however, the feds should continue to sell one million barrels a day. In two years, the SPR would be empty and the federal government would be out of the oil business. The two-year time horizon would give oil producers time to adjust their production decisions based on this change in government policy.

So, if the government removed the taxes on gasoline sales, eliminated the severance taxes on oil production, allowed drilling in the areas where it's now banned, and sold the oil in the SPR, we would actually get some lower oil prices.

Other government policies, such as destroying the value of the dollar and fighting wars in and around Middle Eastern oil-producing countries, also drive up gasoline prices. But that is a discussion left for another day.

Mark Brandly is a professor of economics at Ferris State University and an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.


howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
The Great Boom & Bust with Ben Powell, PhD
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2012, 09:11:12 AM »


On June 21, 2011 Ben Powell, Associate Professor of Economics at Suffolk University, lectured at the Freedom University: Current Events Seminar. In this video Ben discusses the Housing Boom and Bust.


howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Keynesian Economics Is Wrong
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2012, 09:18:32 AM »

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2012, 01:23:04 AM »
Howard for Mod--

If we need to replace an existing Mod-- Hugo Chavez should get his walking papers.

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2012, 07:02:36 AM »
You flatter me, George, but why the fuck would I want to be mod? lol

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2012, 07:08:37 AM »
Coolidge was easily the most underrated President of the 20th Century
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2012, 07:12:08 AM »
Coolidge was easily the most underrated President of the 20th Century

Warren Harding was probably more underrated. I'll include a post about him. And then maybe one about Martin Van Buren, who also was a great President. Might include posts regarding Jefferson and Jackson too, we'll see.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39838
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2012, 07:25:38 AM »
I recommend everyone go buy Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson"

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39838
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39838
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Roark's Official Economics Thread
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2012, 08:30:24 AM »