Tiii-Iiii-I-Ime Is on Government's Side (Yes It Is)

When oil prices are relatively low, some argue that finding or developing more oil isn’t worth the cost. Of course, that ignores the long lead times for such development, which means capacity might come online in very different circumstances. Some even claim to want to restrict such investment based on that argument, when, if they were right, people would find such efforts unprofitable, and no government restriction would be necessary.

Advertisement

When oil prices are relatively high, many argue that it still does not justify more development of reserves or production capacity, because it would take so long that it would have no effect on current oil industry problems. And earlier development and pumping might leave less oil in the ground for the future when it might be even more expensive. Some then want to go further and restrict search and development based on that argument, but they ignore oil firms’ incentives to take into account the projected future price of oil compared to the present, which would make government restrictions unnecessary.

The conclusion? “We don’t want you to seek or develop oil reserves because we don’t need it” (the price is low) alternates with “we don’t want you to seek or develop oil reserves when we need it (the price is high) because it will take too long to make a difference.” Opposition based on entirely different reasons can be portrayed as principled instead.

Advertisement

[Galles has more examples, but this is the best and the dumbest at the same time. Democrats have successfully deployed both without regard to the contradictions not because they believe either, but because they simply dislike oil and nat-gas extraction. And they know that time is on their side while creating shortage economies that end up creating demand for top-down redistribution, which is what their real goal is. — Ed]

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement