hey, if they wanted to "tamp down consumer demand," they'd impose a carbon tax. That would help fight that pesky global warming thang, too.
On 8/28/05, Leigh Meyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday, August 28, 2005 8:00 PM [PDT], > Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The recent issue of BUSINESS WEEK reminded me that that Bush > > administration has hardly been trying to drive oil prices down. To > > fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it's been buying 80,000 > > barrels a day. It's a "trickle compared with U.S. daily consumption of > > 20 million barrels" but combined with several other factors, it helps > > explain the current oil-price spike. > > There are rational reasons for allowing the price of oil to rise. > > At some point, it will (hopefully) tamp down consumer demand > for a product much desired, but diminishing more rapidly than > I think most would care to admit. > > It seems like a helluva gamble, but I make this administration > for the gambling, (high)risk-taking type, I mean, they started > a war with a country that never did *anything* to us. > > That does qualify as "high-risk" governmental behavior, doesn't it? > > Oh yeah, sqeezing the reserves could cause obscene profits to be made > by the petrochemical companies too. I almost forgot about that. > > Leigh > www.leighm.net > -- Jim Devine "Analysis is nothing else but breaking up a complex operation into scraps, so that they may be easily handled and thoroughly investigated. Afterwards the scraps have to be put together again, and considered in relation to many other complex notions, and the intricately interwoven facts of life." -- Alfred Marshall
