Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Monday, November 07, 2005

Byron Dorgan: There’s No Free Market With Oil

Byron Dorgan, writing in the Fargo Forum:

In North Dakota we use twice as much gasoline per person as New Yorkers do. Why? Simple. We are a farm state. And we drive longer distances when we travel. We are fifth in the nation in per capita total energy use and rank second in per capita gasoline use.

When the price of oil spikes up and when gasoline, diesel, natural gas and home heating fuel prices increase as a result, it hurts North Dakota residents more than most others in the United States.

That%u2019s why oil prices are of such concern to our state.

On Jan. 1, 2004, the price of a barrel of oil was $34.50. At that price the major, integrated oil companies were earning the largest profits in their history.

These days the price of oil is more than $60 a barrel. The major oil companies (larger now because of blockbuster mergers in recent years) are making the bulk of nearly $7 billion a month in windfall profits above their record profits of last year.

While the big oil companies are busy counting their windfall profits, people filling their cars up with gas are experiencing the pain of inflated gasoline prices.

There%u2019s no free market for oil. OPEC oil ministers sit around a table, colluding about supply and price. The big integrated oil companies (bigger and stronger as a result of mega mergers) face less and less price competition. Finally, the futures market is a grand bazaar of speculators. There%u2019s no free market there %u2013 only an unfair process that gives record profits to the major integrated oil companies and record pain to consumers.


You know, Dorgan's right. OPEC collusion does tend to skew free market prices on petroleum. The problem though is that Dorgan's solution isn't really going to solve anything:



We should enact a windfall profits tax to recapture those excessive profits and use the funds to make rebates to consumers hurting from these prices.


Read the whole thing if you must.

First off, what does the seizing of private enterprise profits for re-distribution to the people sound like to you? To me it sounds like outright socialism, something that has no place in America. Not to mention the fact that this idea would stifle the oil industry's ability to innovate in the face of changing situations in an inelastic market and would kill off the current boom that is taking place in his own state's oil industry.

The term "excess profits" all by itself makes my inner capitalist want to throw up all over the place.

Second, I wonder if it's ever occurred to Senator Dorgan that a better way to fix the problem of our dependence on foreign oil is to allow for the development of domestic petroleum reserves. Recently our Senate voted to allow drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, yet Senator Dorgan opposed it.

One wonders why. If Dorgan is really that concerned about gas prices in America then why is he opposing legislation that would put more oil supplies on the market? Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that increasing supply brings prices down, is it that Dorgan himself doesn't understand this or is engaging in a bit of willful ignorance?

At the very least he should have been in favor of opening ANWR up for drilling and passing this "excessive profits" tax. At least then he would have been consistent, if still dead wrong about the tax.

(via The North Dakota Democrat Party)

Update:

Say Anything reader, contributor and podcast co-host Tom Brusegaard had a counterpoint to Dorgan's op/ed in the Forum yesterday.

It's definitely worth a read.

Comments

Avatar for robert108

I guess this jerkoff wants to tax the “windfall profits”.  My question about this is:  Why is it any sort of solution to this problem to transfer large quantities of money from the private sector to the public sector via taxation?  Will this lower the price of gas?  I don’t think so.  It is simply the political class pocketing more of our money.

robert108 on November 7, 2005 at 08:11 pm
Avatar for Dave

We should enact a windfall profits tax to recapture those excessive profits and use the funds to make rebates to consumers hurting from these prices.

There’s no such thing as “excessive profits” in a capitalist economy. Dorgan’s such a jerkoff.

Dave on November 7, 2005 at 09:11 pm
Avatar for robert108

Who’s the commissar who determines which profits are “excessive”?  Also, the “free” in free market doesn’t mean “completely free of any regulation”; it means not compulsory.  We don’t have guys with Uzis outside our homes telling us to buy certain amounts of govt gas at a mandatory price.

robert108 on November 7, 2005 at 09:12 pm
Avatar for Steve L.

Who wants to bet that many, many people who don’t own any vehicles at all wouuld get a rebate under this plan?

Steve L. on November 8, 2005 at 05:12 am
Avatar for Trackback - Powered by HaloScan.com

[...] Trackback URL for this entry:http://haloscan.com/tb/rgion/113140037487613150Byron Dorgan: There’s No Free Market With OilExcerpt: Byron Dorgan, writing in the Fargo Forum: In North Dakota we use twice as much gasoline per person as New Yorkers do. Why? Simple. We are a farm state. And we drive longer distances when we travel. We are fifth in the nation in per capita total energ...Weblog: Say AnythingTracked: 11.07.05 - 4:54 pm [...]

Avatar for docdave

Dorgan is a populist opportunist telling a largely fictitious tale to excite the masses.  If there is no free market on oil, than why are gas prices here in Texas dropping like a lead balloon.  I saw a unleaded price at the pump of 2.19 today a drop of over 30 percent in less than a month.  As far as OPEC is concerned there is too much oil being produce elsewhere (Russia, Mexico, etc) to give them an edge on the market and new discoverys are continually being made.  Recently I saw an article that Brazil may have deep ocean reserves bigger that Saudi Arabia.  Canadian shale oil is another huge potential reserve.  If the USA could lift the environmental restrictions on exploration and production, I’m sure that we could find more oil in the 50 states.
As I’ve said before, oil commodity speculation had a lot to do with raising the price of oil and that is not all bad.  At $60 per barrel, the oil industry can afford to reopen low production wells and has the funds to explore and develop other areas.

docdave on November 8, 2005 at 10:12 am
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] The left’s desperate scramble to tar-and-feather oil executives over high gas prices is nothing short of astounding. I’ve been chronicling North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan’s push behind this “windfall profits” legislation (here, here, and here, with ND State Rep. Tom Brusegaard’s op/ed on the issue here) and I can’t help but feel that Dorgan, and the legislators who are with him on this issue, either don’t understand simple economics or are pretending like they don’t for some ulterior motives. [...]

Avatar for HotTalk

[...] The heat is obviously on Senator Kent Conrad to support President Bush’s nominee to the US Supreme Court, Samuel Alito.  That heat has come from one place that really matters...the voters of North Dakota.Let’s review:First this 11/1/05 post here, which echoed my on-air comments about "letting your voice be heard" by calling the local offices of the Senator Conrad and Dorgan:  Here is an excerpt:Senator Dorgan’s Fargo # is 239-5389 and Grand Forks # is 746-8972. Senator Conrad’s #’s in Fargo 232-8030 and Grand Forks 775-9601. While you are on the phone, voice your support for the Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito. And ask the good Senators from North Dakota who will win their votes on the nomination. Will it be the people of North Dakota or the radical left-wing, Bush hating, abortions for any and all extremists’ special interest groups who control the Dems these days?Then came this article from Bloomberg News on 11/3/05 in which Conrad begins to separate his views from those of Teddy Kennedy:Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy has signaled his party would wage a wide-ranging political battle because the stakes are so high in replacing O’Connor, a pivotal vote on many issues. ``Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right, placing at risk decades of American progress in safeguarding our fundamental rights and freedoms,’’ Kennedy said in a statement on the day Alito was nominated. Later in the article, the following:North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, who also voted for Roberts, said he isn’t necessarily concerned that Alito’s confirmation would tip the high court’s ideological balance to the right. ``I am interested in quality, in character. Those are the tests,’’ Conrad said.  The White House is courting the Democrats in so-called red states that voted for Bush.No one has or will seriously question either the quality or character of Judge Samuel Alito.  So what Conrad is saying here, without saying it, is that Alito has his vote.  And the separation from Kennedy is also a signal that your voice is being heard, as the two are normally joined at the hip....remember the Conrad troop bashing lock-step comments on Abu-Ghraib with Ted Kennedy...if not, refresh with this great work by the Take Back North Dakota.  We remember. You should hear the Conrad/Kennedy comments side by side and then you decide.  Same speechwriter or just like minded?Now were at 11/09/05 and Conrad and Alito meet in the Senators DC office.  So what is left as a "way-out" for Conrad?  A filibuster perhaps?  Not after these comments yesterday:"I think it is unlikely, absent some new information, some bombshell that comes up in the process, that I would support a filibuster," Conrad said Wednesday, after meeting with Alito in his Washington office.Then, more gushing from Conrad over the nominee.  "I found him to be very impressive, I found him to be a very thoughtful person," Conrad said. "He got off to a very good start with me."  Alito definitely leans to the right, but that does not disqualify him from the job, Conrad said. "Absolutely he is conservative, but I believe in the broad mainstream of American jurisprudence," Conrad said. "It is healthy to have different views on the court."As a sidebar, he gushed over Harriet Miers too.  Election year pandering at all? Here is the Forum full article here for more on the meeting.Game over.  Job well done.  Does anybody, anywhere think Senator Kent Conrad would be talking this way were he not worried about his polling numbers?On to Senator Byron Dorgan...let’s keep the heat on!-------------Update-Speaking of Keeping the heat on Senator Dorgan, Rob from another of the great ND blogs at http://www.sayanythingblog.com checks in with word that he has been holding Senator Dorgan accountable on his socialistic windfall profits tax idea for the oil companies.  Check out this post and others at his site. [...]

HotTalk on November 10, 2005 at 08:11 pm
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Meanwhile, our idiot Senators (including North Dakota’s own Byron Dorgan) have been in Congress berating oil industry executives over “excessive profits” and threatening to re-distribute said profits to the citizenry with a new tax [...]

Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.