Sunday, October 01, 2006
Two Blogging Quickies
Firstly, I really don’t get what the fake Malkin photo was supposed to prove even if it had been real. Whatever I’ve thought of Malkin’s posts--often I agree, occasionally I disagree, and every once in a while I think she goes too far in something that she’s written--I’ve never noticed her say that women shouldn’t wear bikinis or have fun. So how was this photo really supposed to reflect her in a bad light? Sorry, I really don’t get it.
What I also don’t get is how her husband gets through the day without having a clock tower moment. The things that have been said about her must absolutely drive him to moments of rage. Either that or he’s a much more mellow guy than I am. Call my wife a whore, make what amount to racist jokes about her and ping pong balls, and then say things about her that are blatantly and rudely sexual (and read all the way to the end of this post if you aren’t sure what I’m talking about) and you would find a very cranky me up in your face.
It’s amazing to me that the enlightened, diversity-celebrating left seems to think that it’s perfectly acceptable to use racist and sexist rhetoric to combat Malkin’s words.
Not that she needs somebody like me speaking for her; she seems to do fine in standing up for herself.
Second, apparently a good percentage of Americans believe that our government is manipulating oil prices to benefit Republicans in the upcoming elections. I wonder if those same people think that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela’s oil industry are doing their best to keep oil prices high because they would prefer to see Republicans fail? Because, seriously, I think one is more likely than the other.
On that same subject, does anyone find it interesting that Chavez pays continuing lip service to wanting to provide America’s poor people with affordable oil but then moves to make sure that the market doesn’t let the price of oil fall too low?
And, sort of on the same subject, does anyone find it completely unsurprising that Chavez wants oil prices high (regardless of what that means for the world’s poor people)? Oil money is what props up his government; he was very likely on his way out before oil prices spiked and bought his government out of voter dissatisfaction. If oil prices drop to pre-9/11 numbers, Chavez is unlikely to be in a position of power for very long.
In fact, the most convincing argument for finding an alternative to oil for our cars is that the less money that goes to oil, the less cover given to guys like Chavez around the world. Oil money isn’t always a blessing; it’s often a way for dictators, tyrants, and the incompetent for maintaining control of otherwise undeveloped economies.
Right now, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the entire Middle East are only influential because of the demand for oil. Consider how diverse the economies are of those countries--or, more specifically, how diverse they aren’t--and then answer one question: without oil money, what kind of place would they have in world politics?
(0)
Comments & Trackbacks
I find the right can be just as brutal.
I’ve found it useful to ask people how much they reduced their gasoline usage in response to the recent price run-up. And then remind them that most people probably reacted the same way.
With price-inelastic goods, small supply shortfalls result in large rises in price. (And anticipated price shortfalls have much the same effect on the futures markets.)
(Most “interesting” recent rumor heard: The recent gas price reduction was engineered by Detroit to increase sales of large vehicles.)
I’ve found it useful to ask people how much they reduced their gasoline usage in response to the recent price run-up.
The economic impact comes in the way paying for gas crowded out spending in other areas. And if people cut back spending in other areas to support their gasoline habit, it cuts into margins for industry, which may have to cut back production, which results in reduced demand for—among other things—fuel.
People talk about fuel demand being inelastic. It really isn’t.
By “price-inelastic”, I meant relatively price-inelastic. (If gasoline were entirely price-inelastic, a small shortfall in supply would result in an infinite price increase.) If nothing else, capacity to pay always results in elasticity.
But by comparison with (say) steak dinners, fuel is very price-inelastic. There are few viable substitutions for gasoline and reducing consumption below a certain point is quite painful. Another way to ask the question is, “How high would the price of gas have to be for you to start taking the bus to work?” For most people, the answer would be rather a lot higher than $3/gallon.