Bush A Realist When It Comes to Gas Prices.

Ethereal · 05-14-08, 12:08 AM

I was watching his online interview, and I must say he did a good job. I was particularly pleased with his response to this question...

Quote:

Q Mr. President, thank you very much for having us into the Roosevelt Room for the first online interview. In the spirit of the Internet, I wonder if we could ask a question from one of our users, Steve Bailey, of New York, who says: With oil at $126 a barrel, pushing up the price of everything -- even food -- what can your administration do to help people right now?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate Steven's concerns. With the price of gasoline going up, it's like a tax. I wish I could give Steven a quick answer. In other words, it took us a while to get to where we are -- very dependent on oil, and in a world in which demand is greater than oil. So my answer to Steven is that the best thing we can do is to increase supply, and to drill for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways at home, and build more refineries. Steven probably doesn't know this, but we haven't built a new refinery since 1976, and if we're truly interested in relieving the pressure on our consumers, then we ought to have a very active domestic policy now.

Q Mr. President, as you know, as a possible solution, Senator McCain, Senator Clinton have talked about suspending the federal gasoline tax this summer. You never said an absolute "no" to that. Is it something you would consider or do you think it's a bad idea to consider?

THE PRESIDENT: I'll consider it. And there's all kinds of ideas -- they're trying to pass a deal to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; we'll look at that.

The truth of the matter is that in order for there to be a substantial change either consumers have to change their habits -- which we're encouraging through alternative tax of automobiles -- or there has to be an increase of supply. And both of them have to go hand in hand in order to achieve less dependence on this very unsettled oil market.

I'd say that about sums it up.

Interview with President Bush - White House Transcript - Politico.com

obvious Child · 05-14-08, 04:53 PM

If you like pandering to big oil...

Any new drilling will take 7~10 years to get to the market. That won't solve our problems.
Any new refinery will take years to build. Again, no short term solution.

The only RATIONAL way to decrease prices is to decrease demand. The irrational would be to nationalize and put a price ceiling up.

The good thing about high gas prices is that it makes alternative profitable and thus a good candidate for investment.

Iriemon · 05-14-08, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethereal

I was watching his online interview, and I must say he did a good job. I was particularly pleased with his response to this question...

I'd say that about sums it up.

Interview with President Bush - White House Transcript - Politico.com

Of course when he was a candidate he was singing a different tune -- he said that the high gas prices we had during the Clinton admin (about $1.25) were Clinton's fault and all the president had to do was jawbone OPEC.

Gill · 05-15-08, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

If you like pandering to big oil...

Any new drilling will take 7~10 years to get to the market. That won't solve our problems.
Any new refinery will take years to build. Again, no short term solution.

Yeah, and if Clinton hadn't vetoed it in the early 1990's, we would be pumping that oil right now.

obvious Child · 05-15-08, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Yeah, and if Clinton hadn't vetoed it in the early 1990's, we would be pumping that oil right now.

Which would be priced at international commodity markets. The real problem isn't the supply of crude. It's the refineries and speculators.

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - Environment - MSNBC.com

Wow. 50 cents. Big Deal.

Gill, try again.

Gill · 05-15-08, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by obvious Child

Which would be priced at international commodity markets. The real problem isn't the supply of crude. It's the refineries and speculators.

Study: ANWR oil would have little impact - Environment - MSNBC.com

Wow. 50 cents. Big Deal.

Gill, try again.

I agree that speculators are a major cause of the high prices, but the more oil on the market, the lower the price. Simple supply and demand.

50 cents IS a big deal! That's 13% of the current price, nothing to sneeze at. If supply is no big deal, why does the price of oil skyrocket everytime there is a hint of a disruption somewhere in the world??

obvious Child · 05-16-08, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

I agree that speculators are a major cause of the high prices, but the more oil on the market, the lower the price. Simple supply and demand.

Not quite. You failed to incorporate refinery capacity. Every time refinery capacity is reduced through a terrorist attack or natural disaster, gas goes through the roof. While a disruption of crude production only sees a few dollars spiking. Furthermore, most of the price of gas is due to the weak dollar. Last time I checked, when oil was $100 a barrel, almost $40 of that could be directly attributed to the weak dollar.

Quote:

50 cents IS a big deal! That's 13% of the current price, nothing to sneeze at.

But hardly enough to make a impact in the long run. I'd rather have high gas prices causing investment to be fueled into alternative then have cheaper gas and get screwed in 15 years.

Quote:

If supply is no big deal, why does the price of oil skyrocket everytime there is a hint of a disruption somewhere in the world??

You fail to separate the differences in refinery capacity and extraction capacity. It is rather important.

Agent Rapier · 05-16-08, 03:47 PM

Bush isn't a realist when it comes to reality.

Just as well, since the fact-based community allegedly has a liberal bias.

SouthernDemocrat · 05-16-08, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Rapier

Bush isn't a realist when it comes to reality.

Just as well, since the fact-based community allegedly has a liberal bias.

Yes, you are correct, numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on all have an established liberal bias.

Gill · 05-17-08, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

Yes, you are correct, numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on all have an established liberal bias.

The bias of numbers, statistics, facts, empirical data, and so on can have any bias that the author wishes them to have.

Like the old saying... Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

and that famous statistics book from the 50's:

Quote:

How to Lie with Statistics is Darrell Huff's perennially popular introduction to statistics for the general reader. Written in 1954, it is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining the common errors, both intentional and unintentional, associated with the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors can lead to biased or inaccurate conclusions. Although a number of more recent versions have been released, the original edition contained humorous, witty illustrations by Irving Geis.