Oil Prices Are Not Taxes II

Monday, May 17, 2004 | 05:36 PM


Last October, I ranted that “Oil Prices are not a tax increase.”

That outburst was focused mostly on the Orwellian Newspeak aspects of the phrase. But in the intervening months, I’ve come up with several other reasons why oil increases do not resemble tax increases:

· Oil Price Increases take money out of the country; Taxes stay in the U.S. where they are spent and re-spent on Goods & Services. This raises (or at least doesn't hurt) GDP, versus crude hikes -- which depress GDP.

· Technically speaking, the velocity of tax money is positive; Cash spent on overseas crude has a significantly negative coefficient – meaning that as the cash leaves the country for oil purchases, it leaves circulation, ultimately decreases GDP;

· We had a revolutionary war over Taxes without Representation – Last I checked, neither you nor I get to vote for anyone in OPEC; We do get to vote for school boards and senators and mayors and others who set tax policy;

· Tax increases are anti-inflationary, as they – initially at least – slow growth; Oil Increases are inflationary, as they are the result of fast growth;

· Oil price increases are a function of increased demand or slowing supply; Tax increases are a function of collective decision making by society.

You get the general idea. For more details, go read 1984 Redux.”

Monday, May 17, 2004 | 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oil Prices Are Not Taxes II:


Well said, but you, as an economist, surely should realize that you're missing the *big picture*. It's true that changes in the price of oil are not tax increases and are not even remotely related. However, you put tax increases in a decidedly happy, fuzzy kind of light which I am not happy with. So I'd like to list *positive* reasons that oil prices are not like taxes.

1. Oil prices are only imposed on oil consumers, and their consent is required for the transaction to take place: The prices of goods are distributed among the consumers of those goods based on their own judgement, whereas the benefactors of government programs are rarely, if ever, held to provide the cost of the goods supplied. It's true that many goods the government supplies, such as defense (note: Iraq != Defense), court systems, and other "public goods" which are societal by their very nature. However, there are many other goods which the government supplies which are not "societal" in nature. When government provides things that one group supports, while another does not, it imposes the costs equally (note: not really equally) across society regardless. For instance, say I'm a neo-con, and I want Iraq blown up, to give me the sense of security I desire. The cost of the military operation is borne by the neo-con as well as the isolationist, such as myself. I was telling my friends and neighbors why invading Iraq was a bad idea, a year ago, yet I will still be taxed the money required to fulfill Bush et. al's wet dreams, and my alternative? Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

2. Oil Prices serve as a market force, influencing buyers' decisions: Say I'm a business owner, and I run a fleet of taxis. When the price of oil goes up, my margin suffers. When the price of oil goes up enough, I can't compete, and it becomes a more profitable decision to retro-fit my fleet of taxis with fuel-efficiency equipment. This way society can replace a scarce, expensive good with a relatively less scare, less expensive good. But what if the Saudis are just screwing us? Well, they tried that in the 70's, if I'm not mistaken, and they ended up with the short end of the stick, as the high prices they imposed on us led us to pursue other alternatives to fuel consumption, namely: more efficient, lighter, automobiles. Nobody can really screw anybody in the long run, because their continued success requires the continued consent of the buyer. Tax-payers can't opt-out of an in-efficient system, nor can they buy into a competitor that does a better job.

3. Government action almost always introduces inefficiencies, which leave us poorer: Being fat makes me less healthy, and thus, healthcare costs rise. This is, among other things, a disincentive from being overweight, as well as a way to aid in the proper rationing of the scarce good of a doctor's time. If healthcare is socialized, suddenly the rich don't pay more for better service, so there is less reason to be a doctor, and the most sick people (judging from their willingness to pay) are not able to get the doctor's attention, because they are being paid money taken from taxpayers (disproportionately from the rich) to pay attention to someone else who did not meet the standard of "willingness to pay for services rendered". So, among other things, fat people have one less reason to be thinner, and in addition, are incurring an added cost on the rest of us by their disproportionate us of the health care system, the price of which is taxed away from us explicitly and through compliance costs (which, in the case of healthcare, are often large).

4. Most of the money we spend on imports comes back to us: Well, won't type no more, read this:

5: Purchasing decisions are flexible and made at just about any time, whereas government decisionmaking is unweildy and unfair to minorities:
Well, there's more, but only in this sense: If you don't like high oil prices, don't drive as much, and don't use services that don't use alot of oil, because you will carry the costs. I on the other hand, can do next to nothing about the services and, by extension, taxes, the government provides, because I can act only once every two or four years, and my opinion is moot if 50%+1 disagress, whereas buying decisions can happen at any time, on an individual basis.

So, that's the real story of why oil prices are not taxes; yes, the government, through taxes, provides some important things, but is unweildy and inefficient as a mechanism for providing these goods and services, meanwhile the market, while never quite settled, always offers an alternative.

Posted by: Ben Woosley | May 18, 2004 4:17:42 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™