Watching President Obama stumble through his energy crisis, it seems only a question of whether he will end up channeling Jimmy Carter or President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina. The latter, in case you missed it, just announced that her government will be seizing a 51 percent interest in YPF, the Argentine subsidiary of Repsol, the Spanish conglomerate that is the 15th largest refiner in the world. In most places, that would be called theft, but in the banana republic of Argentina it’s just business as usual. In making her announcement , Fernandez de Kirchner stood directly beneath a wall-length portrait of Eva Peron haranguing the masses sometime back in the 1940s. It was an irony that nobody seemed to notice. Who knows, maybe there’s a Broadway musical in Cristina’s future. What prompted the move by the President, who succeeded her husband in 2007, was that YPF, originally founded by the Argentine government in the 1920s and privatized in 1993, wasn’t producing enough oil. Why wasn’t it producing enough oil? Because the government has imposed price controls. And like price controls everywhere, they have discouraged production while encouraging overconsumption. As a result, Argentina has ended up importing expensive foreign oil despite large discoveries of shale oil in recent years. This blast from the past can only remind us that one government intervention in the economy always leads to a bigger one and that, despite this sordid history, old leftist ideas never die. There will always be some demagogue telling us that the government can do a better job at running things than the people who know their business. Kirchner probably doesn’t know enough about oil to tell you the difference between a hydrocarbon and a carbohydrate but as a lawyer, she is sure that once she and her friends are running YSF, oil will gush forth like Moses striking the rock. So that brings us back to our own Man of the People, President Obama, who is really only in the kindergarten of such retrograde policies but giving it a try. On Tuesday he stood in the Rose Garden flanked by his two apostles of freedom and justice, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Attorney General Eric Holder, and announced the solution to our energy problems will be hunting down and prosecuting evil “oil speculators” who are responsible for driving up the price of gas in the U.S. Who are these individuals? We don’t have any names but we can already be sure they are “millionaires and billionaires” and don’t pay any taxes. Why, aren’t these the same people who are messing up the entire economy?! Well, what we do know is that Mitt Romney is their friend. Before we go any further with this, perhaps we should ask, just what are “oil speculators” and why is it so important that they be hunted down? Here is the answer. Oil speculators are investors who think the price of oil is going to go even higher in the future. For whatever reason, they expect supplies to get tighter. Therefore they are willing to buy oil at a premium today in the anticipation that prices are going to go even higher tomorrow. It’s a gamble. You don’t automatically make money. Sometimes you lose a whole lot. What speculators do, however, if they guess right, is smooth out the availability of supplies between the present and the future. By paying a higher price now, they assure that prices will be lower in the future. In effect, they hold supplies off the market today so that they will be available next week or next year when things become even more scarce. Adam Smith described this as preventing a “dearth” from becoming a “famine”: When the government, in order to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth, orders all the dealers to sell their corn at what it supposes a reasonable price, it either hinders them from bringing it to market, which may sometimes produce a famine even in the beginning of the season; or if they bring it thither, it enables the people, and thereby encourages them to consume it so fast as must necessarily produce a famine before the end of the season.… No trade deserves more the full protection of the law, and no trade requires it so much, because no trade is so much exposed to popular odium. Unfortunately, there are always politicians around, like President Obama, who are willing to encourage that odium for political purposes. The biggest oil speculator of all is the federal government. At present the government has bought 727 million barrels of oil and stockpiled them in caves in Louisiana so that they may become available in case we face a dearth of oil tomorrow. This is, of course, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which holds enough oil to replace all our imports for 80 days. These purchases made over the years have subtly driven up the price of today’s oil, yet we are still very glad to have it because it could play a crucial rule in our future. The SPR has been drawn on four times: in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm (21 million barrels), in 1996-1997 in order to pay off part of the federal debt (28 mb), in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when production in the Gulf of Mexico was disrupted (11 mb), and during 2011 because of tensions in the Middle East (30 mb). The current run-up in price could qualify as another such emergency. The reason private investors are driving up futures prices is that they are anticipating a shooting war in the Persian Gulf. As Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified this week, we have been “within an inch of war almost every day.” Quite frankly, the Obama administration could well justify making some small releases from the SPR, since these tensions are having an impact on prices. But at this point it would probably be wiser to hang on to those supplies in case something more serious happens. If the President would explain all this to the public, people might be a little more tolerant about bearing the hardship. Unfortunately, his own anti-energy policies and past quotes about raising gasoline prices have overshadowed all this. So instead, he has to make a big show of tracking down “speculators.” Right now I would say it’s time to start an office pool on how long it will be before the President or some congressional Democrat starts talking about price controls. Then we follow right in Jimmy Carter’s footsteps and have a repeat of the “oil shortages” of the 1970s. That’s the problem with government intervention in the marketplace. One you intervene, things only get worse, which creates a new clamor for even more intervention. Just ask Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner about that one. ••••••• Three weeks ago, I wrote a column saying you could count me out on defending George Zimmerman in the Trevor Martin case. At that point the country seemed on the brink of racial warfare. Al Sharpton was on television every night, African-American youths were rioting in southern cities, the New Black Panthers had put a price on Zimmerman’s head. Then a week later there were racial killings in Tulsa and it appeared the country might be pushed over the edge. Now suddenly everything is quiet. You hardly see a story on the news. What happened? Well, there was an arrest. The Florida prosecutor finally got around to deciding that the circumstances demanded a second-degree murder charge. In Tulsa, the alleged killers were arrested very quickly and will probably be facing the death penalty. Mind you, none of this says that any of these people are guilty. It just means that somebody in authority is acting and that everyone will have their day in court. It’s a good lesson in the purpose of the justice system. It is there to keep the peace. If police and prosecutors and judges don’t deal with a situation like the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting, then someone else will. Instead of being tried in a court of law, it will be tried on television every night or in the streets. Judges and prosecutors and law school professors have somehow gotten lost in the conviction that their only responsibility is to make sure that no one is ever wrongly accused or convicted of anything. They talk endlessly about how the justice system pits “the lone individual against the awesome powers of the state.” But if the state has awesome powers, it also has awesome responsibilities. It has to keep the peace in a nation of 300 million individuals, many of whom dislike each other and are not hesitant to act things out. The calm that has descended upon both the Trayvon Martin and Tulsa, Oklahoma cases are a good example of just how important those responsibilities can be.
The rest is here:
Obama’s Snipe Hunt
Giddy up! Via WFB: Media Matters for America’s newly installed Middle East expert is apparently following in the footsteps of disgraced former staffer M.J. Rosenberg, blasting Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) for pulling out a fundraiser hosted by an American Muslim leader who was placed on the Federal Terrorist Watch List. Earlier today, MMFA
View original post here:
Far-Left Media Matters Attacks One Of Its Own: “Shame On Debbie Wasserman Schultz” For Bailing On Muslim Fundraiser…
From an ever blame shifting ABC News: High Gas Prices: Should You Blame Your Bank? By Lisa Stark April 10, 2012 Should you blame your bank for high gas prices? A new report out today says it’s not just supply-and-demand and Middle East politics that determines the price of a barrel of crude; Visa and See the original post here: ABC News: Blame Banks For High Gas Prices
The rest is here:
ABC News: Blame Banks For High Gas Prices
Is newly minted Libertarian Gary Johnson an antiwar candidate or just a cheap hawk? The Daily Caller tries to pin him down . While Johnson positions himself as a strong anti-war candidate who wants to cut the defense budget by 43 percent, he told TheDC that he supports America’s efforts to aid African troops in tracking down Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and that he wouldn’t rule out leaving behind American bases in Afghanistan. Johnson said that while he wants to end the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean he would necessarily stop drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, even though he believes they create more enemies than they kill. Johnson was relatively dovish on Iran but repeated his openness to humanitarian interventions abroad: “I don’t want to close the door that if any of us were president of the United States that we would sit idly by and watch something like the Holocaust go down.” Johnson also signaled that some presence in the Middle East might be necessary. Now, there is nothing wrong with being selective in the use of military force. Being involved everywhere or nowhere may be consistent, but it isn’t necessarily a sound foreign policy. Yet it is difficult to discern an overarching strategy or philosophy here that would influence or dictate when the United States would intervene. Back when Johnson was still running as a Republican, I noted that he was at a disadvantage against Ron Paul because he was less conservative on social issues and less radical on the issues of war and peace that drive Paul’s libertarian base.
Read more:
Gary Johnson’s Foreign Policy
Before Vladimir V. Putin’s election as president of Russia — once again — he sarcastically told a friendly group that his political opposition certainly would charge the large victory he expected was a result of fraud at the ballot box. How right he was. A state-controlled polling service reported within two weeks of his election win that less than one half of Russians polled trust the final vote count. Most neutral observers commented similarly. It was a sharp reminder to Russia’s dominant political athlete that the future will hold some tough sledding. Putin waged a serious campaign to get back into his former Kremlin office. He attacked everyone and everything in hopes that he might energize his base and swing neutral voters his way. It was an uncharacteristically defensive style that he has continued with even after his victory. His press representative dragged out the six year old murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya to show that his nemesis, the exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky, was the one behind her death and not government security assassins as the opposition had charged. This exposure appeared to have been timed to support Putin’s charge that Washington had “engineered” (his word) political opposition to him and encouraged pre-election street demonstrations. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, this week belatedly and hypocritically admonished Bashar al Assad: “We consider that the Syrian leadership reacted incorrectly to the rise of non-violent protest.” This followed his boss’s obscure public warning against “the United States and other countries setting a military scene in Syria without United Nations Security Council sanctions.” There are good military, and even political, reasons for the U.S. and NATO not to intervene in Syria, but Putin knows quite well that the UN Charter clearly provides for regional intervention under Chapter VII. Finally, after thousands of deaths, he’s had his foreign minister open the door to UN negotiation. The Putin calculation has been that it is politically and strategically more advantageous for Russia to be on the side of the Syrian and Iranian regimes. This position may at first glance appear to be a matter of economics and political support for the Shia of the Middle East, but the issue is far more complicated. Vladimir Putin on a personal basis finds it extremely difficult to consider world issues outside the context of a continued Cold War. It is not merely an intellectual convenience for him; it is the reality of the world in which he lives. Absent the United States as an aggressive “bogeyman,” leadership of Russia devolves into matters of economics, finance, and internal politics that are the boring traditional problems of a vast under-populated Euro/Asian country striving to keep up with its more sophisticated Western European cousins. These matters don’t interest the action-oriented Vlad to any great degree. As Vladimir Putin likes to remind everyone, he is essentially a warrior. His original intelligence career formed his thought process and continues until today, though its importance appears to have been undervalued or even overlooked by the Obama White House. There is a tendency by many analysts to simplistically view Vladimir Putin as a former intelligence career officer who has made a transition into “civilian” political affairs, and now can be considered, for better or worse, a typical Russian counterpart to his Western compatriots. Convenient logic, but quite inaccurate. The Chinese do not make this same mistake, and Putin is the first to recognize it. Since Vladimir Putin’s arrival on the international scene as a replacement for Boris Yeltsin, Beijing has understood that in all respects Russia would now be led by a veteran professional intelligence officer who had a solid political base in the civilian world as well as his own service. They did not make the mistake of imputing democratic characteristics to this professional staff officer and his operational clique (the siloviki ). Furthermore, China’s days of being the poor relative of Moscow’s nationalist leadership was over. China made sure Putin understood this from the very beginning. And this is Putin’s dilemma. China’s largest trading partner and banking client is the United States. For Beijing, Moscow is clearly secondary to Washington in terms of international politics and economics. At the same time Russia — under President Putin — remains fixated on the bipolar world that once existed and from which Moscow derived its own sense of self-importance. Putin is working hard to reestablish what once was a quite profitable (in diplomatic and strategic terms) competitive status vis-à-vis the United States. His initial steps in this regard have been to remain active in support of Russia’s clients in the Middle East, Iran and Syria. The Obama Administration, not quite sure of how to deal with the return of Putin, has offered to exchange secret data on U.S. plans for interception systems to protect Europe from Iran’s future missile development. The Russians, in turn, have renewed their accord accepting NATO use of a Russian airfield in support of Afghan operations. It looks like the new configuration of Russian leadership (Putin/Medvedev versus Medvedev/Putin) has taken its first step back into global machination. It’s a step that China’s new leadership will monitor carefully. The Syrian situation is perfectly constructed for what has been characterized in the past as typical hard-nosed Russian strategic negotiation. Hillary Clinton is no match for the self-assured, multi-lingual Sergei Lavrov, and Vladimir Putin considers himself far beyond Barack Obama in strategic judo. The question remains, however, exactly what has Putin in mind in terms of manipulating the new tri-polar political/military world he envisages — while keeping his home front in balance?
Read the original:
Vladimir Vladimirovich Revisited
