Some great advice on how to start your own business online! 
For more information please visit

New York Times: Taxes good, market bad

This New York Times article on controlling American demand for oil contains an amazingly explicit self-contradiction.

First, we learn that European-style massively high gasoline taxes would be a simple and effective way to solve the (supposed) energy crisis, if only American politicians were brave enough to support them:

Other industrialized countries, especially in Europe, have been much more successful than the United States and have managed to actually lower oil demand, or at least keep it in check. That comes from higher diesel use and higher taxes. In France and Germany, a gallon of gasoline sells for as much as $6, with taxes accounting for about 80 percent of that.

Few politicians in America might risk ridicule or rejection by explicitly supporting higher taxes on gasoline, one of the surest ways to limit the nation's dependence on oil.
Then, just a few paragraphs later, we learn that higher market prices for gasoline are hurting American consumers:
According to the latest national average compiled by the Energy Department, gasoline prices at the pump averaged $2.24 a gallon, up 42 cents from last year; they are expected to touch a record $2.35 a gallon this summer.

Polls show that higher gasoline prices are increasingly hurting Americans, and the president is pressing Congress to revive an energy bill that has been stalled for four years.
So, according to the Times, high prices are good if they're caused by government-imposed taxes, but bad if they're caused by market forces. Got it? Me neither.


Anonymous said...

One might also decide if the recent European economic 'success' is one that we want to emulate. If our country had the GDP growth of Germany of France that NY Times (not to mention the Wall Street Journal) would be screaming bloody murder.

It is also fair to note, that even if such a thing worked well in Europe, it would not necessarily work well in the U.S. America being less densely populated and containing more rural areas would be hurt more by such a policy. 

Posted by Dave Justus

Anonymous said...

I would like to add that america is much less densly populated. The EU before the expansion had twice the population denisty of america and about a 100-150 million more people.


Posted by cube

Anonymous said...

Great points, everyone.

Heh. You know, nobody ever said that logic had to be part and parcel of a left-wing brain. 

Posted by Jarrett



Powered by Blogger.