The American public is hooked on gasoline and corn. It's bad public policy (insofar as public support is concerned) to let these things get too expensive because everyone is so goddamn used to it. If the price on either of these things go up, causing the price of other things to rise, the political pressure from the public will be difficult to weather.

being used to something isn't a reason to require others to pay to perpetuate it. Especially if it has a tenuous relationship to reality.

The challenge is convincing the masses of that. Which is my point.

obama has a lot of options that could be used to impact upon gas prices. the most interesting is the elimination of corporate welfare doled out to oil companies. and the obstacle to that's pretty clear:

the report:

Report: Oil Companies are “Poster Child” for Corporate Welfare

is a quick and dirty overview of the magnitude of federal corporate welfare handed out to petroleum corporations.

The interesting thing would be to compare the federal monies that go out to such industries as the oil and corn/meat/dairy industries vs. the federal monies that go towards supporting public transit and organic/vegetable/fruit farms.

I get the idea that many Americans view things like gas, meat, dairy, etc., as being far cheaper than they really are, while they view things like public transportation, fruit, vegetables, etc., as more expensive than they're worth. In the end, it's about hidden vs. visible cost/pricing.

This is a sad state of affairs when you consider the proportion to which each of these items are or should be consumed.

People will go on about the horrendous "nanny state" and "social engineering" of government policy, but the underlying truth is that much of this is set up as a result of the heavy influence of industry (or lack thereof). The lines between government and business are blurred, and you wonder why people are shocked when the systems fail: they aren't quite sure what's going on in the first place.

So it seems.

one more reason why it's just depressing that anyone takes neo-liberals seriously---the misrepresentations start at such a basic level

a primer: Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a progressive group opposed to this stuff: kickAAS

sponsored by the guardian.

still poking around for more information.

Ha, leave it to us socialist Canucks to point out how socialist the U.S. really is:

The issue should be why are WE so ignorant to believe only our (the US) economy is affected?

Are those people working in Asian and African sweatshops for pennies a day, more concerned about food than OUR comfort? Are those that are starving and losing everything in other countries because of OUR economic policies past and present, going to shed a tear when our gov't fails and goes bankrupt and can no longer raise an impossible to pay debt ceiling?

Just some questions to ponder.

rb, there are good reasons to get rid of corporate welfare, including the subsidies/tax breaks to oil companies. Lowering gasoline prices is not one of them, because that's more likely to raise prices than lower them. But getting the govt out of the business of choosing winners and losers or promoting certain businesses will reduce the need for businesses to seek favors from govt. That means less corruption and less lobbying.

There are lots of benefits to limited govt. Reducing opportunities for corruption is one big one.

So, Pres. Obama is releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserves. He has not given a clear explanation on why he is doing it now rather than when the price of oil was about 30% higher.

I also thought most people felt that the price spike was due to speculators and not supply.

I thought that higher oil prices would help the fledgling hybrid auto market, specifically Government Motors or GM.

I though that since drilling on our own shore wont make a difference, releasing oil from our strategic reserves would not make a difference.

So, as usual I am at a loss here and I can only assume Obama's motivations are purely political - what a shame!

Does that make Obama a supply-sider now?

He released enough oil to supply the US for about a day and a half. Not really sure what the purpose of that was...

It will probably lead to a temporary reduction in prices heading into the summer driving season.

I'm not sure whether it would have been better to be more heavy-handed.

No. A supply-sider would look at the question based on how to maximize utility. Given the theory that speculators were exploiting the market, releasing the oil as the prices increased would have made some sense from a supply side point of view as it would have addressed two issues - profit maximization for the treasury and reducing the excessive risk premium being used by speculators.
As it stands now, he lost about a 30% profit for the treasury and the risk premium had already started a reduction based on market forces.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

You see, this is the problem with trying to micro-manage the economy. On one hand, he wants to end dependance on fossil fuels, but he wants to end the recession by lowering the burden of the costs of fossil fuels - perhaps to a level below the true costs. On one hand he wants to encourage the use of alternatives like hybrids and public transportation, but he wants people to fire up their RV's to go to the Gran Canyon. so, at the end of the day what does all this really accomplish - nothing! That is - nothing at best - most likely there is waste or inefficiency in these policy decisions and much bigger unintended consequences.

Well, you know what they say—you can't time the market.

I think you mean "macromanage."

One is a long-term issue, the other is a short-term issue.

One is a long-term issue, the other is a short-term issue.

I don't think I'm the only one who disagrees with your opinion.

So, he chose option #19. Not quite sure why he didn't push to end oil subsidies at the same time, or get something else in return for doing this besides hurting speculators a little... It is a pretty short-term solution. Although there was a lot of oil in the reserve.

Obama will need to get the Green environmentalists in the next election or they will vote for the third party candidate and we will have a repeat of 2000... And with the oil spill, no alternative energy plan, nuclear problems, fracking issues, coal mountain top removal, limited and expensive alt-fuel cars, solar companies aren't doing too well, no solar panels on the White House, closing state parks, talk of drilling on Federal land... things aren't looking too good for Obama on the environment.

Those who can, say that to those who can't.

I stand corrected: Investors don't time the market; they leave that to the gamblers.

My point is that I don't think Obama is in the business of gambling with taxpayer's money in the market. Do you think he is? Do you think he should be?

Where do you get this stuff? A rocket scientist uses science/math to time his decisions. An investor who does not have science/math involved in timing his/her decisions is simply foolish.

At this point the only votes Obama can get is the not republican vote and the people who will vote for his race. He's not a viable anti war candidate, he's not a viable environmental candidate, he's not a viable economic candidate. He had everything, the house the senate and the executive and did nothing.

The not republican vote still might be enough to win, however.

Benjamin Graham...Warren Buffett...to name a couple. I should clarify though. "Market timing" is a specific investment term for those who try to make money almost solely based on predicting aggregate price fluctuations in the market. It mostly depends on predicting these aggregate movements rather than the movement of individual stocks.

So, in a very real sense, it's gambling, and most people fail at it—some to a small degree, while others to a rather large degree. Others still, simply get lucky. That's the nature of gambling. If I had my choice of wealth manager, I'd pick the one who looks at individual company fundamentals as a basis for their stock's position in the marketplace. I'd pick the one who looks at company values rather than the one who thinks they can predict the behavioural pattern of thousands of emotionally driven people with a bunch of money on the line.

This is not to be confused with timing the buying and selling of your individual investments based on pricing, etc. This is not related to what Obama is doing with releasing oil reserves, which is a decision based on the wider oil market. He's releasing a resource around which a large market is based. He didn't sell some of his Apple stock.

I have studied both men you mention. Warren Buffet is no doubt a long-term investor, however, he often engages in short-term trades based on his market timing analysis. Grahams focus was on fundamentals, however those market fundamentals definitely have time elements attached. In today's market the concept of "book value" has proven to be of little meaning when the underlying assets making up book value wildly fluctuates due to market distress, hence a true assessment of "book value" requires an independent analysis of the true and current value of those assets in real time relative to the buy/sell decision of the investment in question.

I know we could easily get off point, so I will refrain - and get back to Obama.

My expectation is that a release of oil from the strategic reserves is based on an analysis. Obama has not shared any information regarding his analysis, my conclusion is that the only analysis, done was a political one. Is this what you disagree with? If so, give me some bullet points suggesting what type of analysis he may have used to determine that now is the time (market timing by definition) to release the oil.

Also, keep in mind that with the power of the US government, Obama can influence the price of oil more so than any one man on this planet. So, it is everyone else who has to plug in Obama as a variable in their "timing" models and decisions. I don't like the idea of Obama doing things on a whim or for political (meaning approval polls or getting re-elected) reasons.