Airlines united behind questionable economics. TAKE ACTION

Airlines united behind questionable economics

by Donald Hank


We urge our readers to go to the site linked below and leave a post asking why the members of the airline-supported forum StopOilSpeculationNow are so preoccupied with only one minor aspect of the fuel price crisis, namely, speculation in the prices.

Tell them ending speculation will not help extract desperately needed oil from US territory where it lies going to waste. Tell them it will not help build much-needed domestic refining capacity.

This forum StopOilSpeculationNow is taking the viewpoint that the market must be brought under government control, something the Democrats will agree with, but is ignoring the common sense viewpoint and the facts: nuclear power would conserve fossil fuel by supplanting oil-burning power generation, drilling for oil in US territory and exploiting shale oil deposits would counterbalance the effects of the OPEC monopoly, and building refineries here would make us less dependent on other nations and reduce the price of refined petroleum products. The proposed “carbon footprint” tax would have additional disastrous effects on the airline industry, but their execs ignore this problem.

By pretending that the entire problem is due to a minor factor that requires government control of the economy, StopOilSpeculationNow is clearly playing politics. Indeed the current administration must take much of the blame for the oil crisis, but not so much for its failure to stop speculation but rather because it fails to let the free market sort out the problem free of excessive and often self-contradictory environmental concerns. Indeed, the US, while refusing to exploit off-shore oil on the pretext of environmental concerns, has lodged no protest against foreign oil companies who explore for oil off our shores (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico). In fact, if China succeeds in finding oil there, with its deplorable record on the environment, we are sure to see much more pollution than if US companies had been allowed to exploit these deposits.

Background:

On July 9, 2008, I received a letter from Delta Airlines urging me to join in a political action aimed at motivating Congress to stop oil speculation, which, according to the letter, is driving up the price of oil as much as $30 to $60 a barrel. These figures were supposedly based on analyses by “market experts.”

I was surprised to learn this and am as concerned as the next guy about anything that makes oil more expensive. Nor do I have any sympathy for speculators. If speculation is indeed driving up oil prices as much as $30-60 a barrel, the government may be justified in taking a position on this.

But I was put off by the fact that there was no mention of anything but a regulatory solution to a free market problem, particularly at a time when our government refuses to drill for oil in our territory or build more refineries, and by the lack of supporting details such as the names of the scholars behind the studies showing this and references to them.

I went to the web site linked in the letter www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com and found that almost every major airline was supporting this anti-speculation action.

But I was shocked that not one of the CEOs who had signed the letter was interested in any solution other than adding a new regulation to stop speculation. There was no mention of drilling for US oil or building more refining capacity or lowering energy taxes and opposing the foolish “carbon footprint” taxes that have been proposed. A recent article by Paul Weyrich shows that every avenue for increasing US oil independence has been blocked by Democrats in Congress, whose “no” votes make up as much as 97% of all Democrat votes, whereas the Republican situation is the exact inverse. Further, some oil experts insist that speculation is not really a major culprit.

But besides that, how could the US government stop speculation when much of it is under foreign jurisdiction? Oh, that’s right. We are moving toward a one-world government that can fix everything.

At any rate, all of the above makes me very suspicious about these airline CEOs’ motivation.

It was a surrealistic experience to see the entire air travel industry lined up behind a proposal for more regulation rather than less. It appears, at leasst on the surface, as if the entire industry is in the hands of Democrats who are opposed to a free market solution and who are trying to make free market actors look like the sole cause of our current economic malaise while giving anti-energy politicians a pass. This is not all that surprising when you consider how American Airlines benefitted from millions of dollars in corporate welfare after the 911 attacks.

But add this to the fact that CEOs of major industries like McDonald’s and Ford have foolishly supported gay sex and same sex “marriage,” and it is easy to see that our economy is far from being in the hands of grassroots Americans.

Here is the letter:

 

Hello Mr. Hank,

Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers.

Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.

We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

9 Responses to “Airlines united behind questionable economics. TAKE ACTION”

  1. Totally agree with your statement except for the last paragraph. I am a “straight” American, but find your last sentence quite offensive. What do CEO’s of McDonald’s and Ford who are for same sex marriage have to do with CEO’s of multiple airlines fighting for cheaper gas? They are two separate entities fighting for two separate efforts. Your last sentence was a supefluous plug on a different argument. Your making a very vast generalization.

  2. Janine,
    Are you offended? I usually don’t go in for stating the obvious, but gay “marriage” and government regulation of the market are both leftwing ideas. If that comes as a shock to you, please start reading the columns of Olavo de Carvalho appearing at this site. Big business is no longer even vaguely conservative and does not believe in the free market. It has been infiltrated by Marxists and that is why the airlines can’t even conceive of drilling for oil here.

  3. Hermés de Azevedo Says:

    If I may suggest, your reader can start with “The transfiguring of the disaster” (http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/disaster.htm).

  4. Someone who ignores anything that comes out of the mouth of someone they label as “leftwing” is demonstrating they are incapable of independent thought.

    That’s why the Republican party is in a death spiral : they establish “talking points” as an alternative to thoughtful debate. When one pillar of their tripod breaks (like “family values” desecrated by so many of their leaders), it becomes a blow to their entire reason for being.

    That’s the inevitable result of “all or nothing” thinking. Gay people can have good ideas, but you’ve already written them off before you hear them. Look for good ideas, not labels.

    For the record, having been a Member of the American Stock Exchange for 6 years, I have some understanding of speculation. I therefore agree with you on your skepticism regarding speculation as being responsible for high prices (see, I agree with you despite the fact you are a conservative. Does that negate the “obvious?”)

  5. Hmp40 writes:

    “Someone who ignores anything that comes out of the mouth of someone they label as “leftwing” is demonstrating they are incapable of independent thought.”

    Sorry, Nmp40. I stand by what I wrote. I would say to you that someone who doesn’t understand that the International Left is generally a monolith that reads from the same playbook is not paying attention.

    The Left is not only uniformly anti-free market, it is also uniformly anti-family, enti-prosperity and anti-Christian. A few libertarians out there argue, as you do, that these playbook items are all independent of each other. But today’s Left is not an incidental or accidental or coincidental hodge-podge of agenda points that have nothing to do with each other and can be selected or rejected like smorgasbord offerings. There is a pattern and if you don’t see it, well, that is not my fault. Or if you do see it and pretend not too, then that is not my fault either.
    Two major lefitst groups, both interrelated, have had the most devastating influence on our society, and they are: the Fabian socialists (going by various names since the 1880s)and the Frankfurt School (since the 1930s), both of which are equally interested in asserting the agenda points listed above.
    Most Americans, whether consrvative or not, have ever heard of these groups, and that is why they can’t talk intelligently about the Left and its agenda.

  6. It is clear who the “monolith” is.

    You wrote:

    “The Left is not only uniformly anti-free market, it is also uniformly anti-family, enti-prosperity and anti-Christian. A few libertarians out there argue, as you do, that these playbook items are all independent of each other.”

    I am part of the Left, I am not anti-free market, not anti-family, not anti-prosperity, and not anti-Christian. I strongly diasgree with what I usually see represented as “libertarianism,” which boils down to “whatever is good for me personally is good.” Those who call themselves “Libertarians” in general fail to recognize that their freedom to swing their fist stops where my nose begins.

    We don’t have a “free market.” We have privatization of profits and socialization of losses. We have had a transfer of wealth from the lower strata to the most wealthy going back to Reagan, and a decrease in real median wages. 42% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 1%, and “conservative” leaders who literally claimed “deficits don’t matter.”

    As for the left being “anti-Christian,” it is conservatism rejects Christ.

    “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

    “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

    etc etc etc

    If Christ he appeared on the scene right now, would be beloved by “conservatives?” Not that bleeding heart liberal, LOL! Not that “anti-prosperity” socialist, LOL! “Love the game, hate the player,” LOL!

    Some people are just incapable of thinking outside the box.

  7. Hello Hmp40,
    You write:
    “I am part of the Left, I am not anti-free market, not anti-family, not anti-prosperity, and not anti-Christian. I strongly diasgree with what I usually see represented as “libertarianism,” which boils down to “whatever is good for me personally is good.” Those who call themselves “Libertarians” in general fail to recognize that their freedom to swing their fist stops where my nose begins.”
    If you are what you say, then you are NOT part of the Left, because you rattled off their platform and then said you don’t agree with it. You sound exactly like me but refuse to stand up for what you are.

  8. I am pro-choice, for universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, and separation of church and state.

    I don’t see that as anti-prosperity because the period of greatest economic growth was the 1960s, when maximum Federal tax rates were at least 50%. “Trickle down” economics doesn’t work, nor does the false prosperity of the “supply side” economists. We’ve just seen the result of the march to deregulation and an “unfettered free market” which finally caused Ayn Rand fan Alan Greenspan to say :

    “But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

    I don’t see my stance on separation of church and state as “anti-christian,” although the fact that I am against state policies favoring Christianity over other religions may appear to you to be anti-Christian. I don’t believe any of our Founding Fathers would have considered my anti-Christian, and that’s good enough for me.

    In 40 years of voting, I have voted Republican exactly once. All my other votes were on the Liberal line when I lived in NY (moved south 2 years ago).

    I am definitely part of the left (if a choice must be made) as can be seen from the fact that that I’m capable of independent thought, without goosestepping to a party line. That seems to be what identifies a conservative – not a single independent thought, nor the capacity to even understand the concept.

  9. I take it back: You ARE part of the Left. BTW, since you think I don’t have an independent bone in my body, why do you bother debating with me?
    Ok, think about it. Meanwhile, please tell me by what mechanism did “lack of regulation” destroy the banks?
    If it was lack of regulation, then I want to hear your explanation of how this worked.
    When a medical researcher researches a cure for a disease, he/she normally proposes a mechanism for how the disease is caused. Without the mechanism, the research would be unconvincing. It would not be scientific enough to be peer reviewed. So what is the mechanism you propose as the reason “lack of regulation” destroyed the banks?
    Thank you!

Leave a Reply