by ivanillich » Sun 12 Jul 2009, 11:30:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')he New Yorker suggests that rising oil prices will create a public demand for higher oil taxes to reduce the demand for oil.
I think the opposite is likely.....rising oil taxes will create a public demand for LOWER taxes and more access to cheaper oil.
But there isn't any cheaper oil to be had.
The article suggests no such thing. In fact, it admits exactly this claim, that people will not want higher taxes. It merely suggests that higher taxes are a good thing despite the public outcry. And expresses the hope that people will learn. Of course, that's just a hope.
"But, rather than leave so much of our fate to chance, we’d be better off doing what politicians always say they want to do: lessen the U.S. economy’s dependence on oil. One step toward that would be to phase in a gas tax designed to smooth out oil’s spikes and plunges by keeping the price of gasoline fixed (the tax would rise when the price of gas fell, and vice versa). Raising gas taxes is, of course, a solution that politicians—and voters—hate. But perhaps another oil shock or two will change that.But, rather than leave so much of our fate to chance, we’d be better off doing what politicians always say they want to do: lessen the U.S. economy’s dependence on oil. One step toward that would be to phase in a gas tax designed to smooth out oil’s spikes and plunges by keeping the price of gasoline fixed (the tax would rise when the price of gas fell, and vice versa).
Raising gas taxes is, of course, a solution that politicians—and voters—hate. But perhaps another oil shock or two will change that."