US Markets

DJIA8952.89chart-81.80
NASDAQ1628.03chart+0.00
S&P 500927.45chart+0.00
2009-01-05 16:02

Intl. Markets

FTSE4646.49chart+66.85
DAX5069.00chart+85.01
Nikkei9080.84chart+37.72
2009-01-06 08:06

Commodity Futures

Oil50.01chart+1.20
Gold843.05chart+0.00
Copper1.52chart+0.07
2009-01-06 07:51

Treasury Yield

13 Weeks0.09chart+0.00
5 Year1.69chart+0.00
10 Year2.49chart+0.00
2009-01-05 14:59

Exchange Rates

JPY94.35chart+0.00
EUR0.75chart+0.00
GBP0.69chart+0.00
2009-01-06 08:21

Windfalls

For those of you in the United States, you may or may not have heard of Senator Obama’s “Windfall Profit” tax. Oil companies recently released their earnings, which were extremely high. Senator Obama therefore suggested that a portion of these profits be doled out to American people and families ($500 and $1,000 to each respectively). The reasoning being that oil companies can afford to do so, while average Americans need this money more.

After having pointed out how other presidential hopefuls have muddled up their economics, it is time to do so for Senator Obama.

This can be simplified to basic Economics 101: Supply and Demand. Demand for oil is higher than ever, while supplies are dwindling or stagnating at best. This is a classic case for high prices and the best solution is to either increase supply, decrease demand, or both.

Unfortunately, Obama’s does the opposite. Taking money from oil companies means they will have less available for exploring and drilling new sites (whether controversial or not), which is where most oil company profits usually end up going. The one time boost in spending, on the other hand, will create a (likely) increase in Demand. The outcome of these two factors will undoubtedly raise oil prices even more in the medium term.

Might we suggest Senator Obama decide to either go the whole nine yards and nationalize all oil companies, or just leave markets alone?

Utility:
1 I like Tariffs and Taxes2 I would rather watch TMZ.3 I wonder what Paris is doing.4 Well, this is rather irrelevant5 For the effort...6 Huh, really?7 Interesting... do go on.8 A new wrinkle for my brain9 I think a whole new lobe just appeared10 For the win! (6 votes, average: 8.83 out of 10)
Loading ... Loading ...

4 Comment(s)

  1. One also must focus on the net income of the big oil companies. The media always states “record revenues” but fails to mention the actual profit that was made selling oil and related services. The increase in net income went up a paltry 8% for 2Q for Exxon Mobil.

    Andy | Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

  2. A’ propos, this has been brought up here in the UK as well, for the same reason.

    AdamSmith.org/blog has a few posts about it.

    It is incredibly short sighted, although not a surprising suggestion coming from our Labour government.

    Rebecca | Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

  3. I’m fearing that Obama is succumbing to the unreasonable and illogical oil-hysteria pressures driven by the media… I hope I’m wrong.

    Blue | Aug 5, 2008 | Reply

  4. Blue - I agree that is how it appears.
    Which is also why I say it is not so surprising over in our corner, one does get the impression that a lot of Labour policy is rapidly decided in response to tabloid-created hysteria.

    Of course at this point in the US elections who can really say, I imagine both candidates feel the pressure of “crowd-pleasing”. Let us hope it does not last.

    Rebecca | Aug 6, 2008 | Reply

Post a Comment