To oil or not to oil ---> energy tax: 40 of 47 say yes
hanson
>Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?
[hanson]
... yeah, yeah, ... to generate new graft for the green shits by
taxing the people while nothing is accomplished. Deja vue.
It is all a great hope and probably a desirable national goal
to go for energy independence. But I am afraid that this is just
one of those many dreams that the politicians & the green shits
have promoted before. The last one was with Prez Carter who
created the Syn Fuel Corporation, an 80 Billion debacle that
got whored into bankruptcy by OPEC nine years later... ahaha...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
The name of the game appears to be Globalization... which
requires international/cultural cooperation between nations.
Unfortunately until this dream does materialize a lot of people
feel threatened in their way of life... and the current scams and
mayhem will continue... for a long, long time... ahahahaha...
Sorry, that I have no better news....
ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171017882.1...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
February 9, 2007
Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?
Economists Say Government Should Foster Alternatives - But Not How
Bush Proposes
By PHIL IZZO
February 9, 2007; Page A6
The government should encourage development of alternatives to fossil
fuels, economists said in a WSJ.com survey. But most say the best way
to do that isn't in President Bush's energy proposals: a new tax on
fossil fuels.
Forty of 47 economists who answered the question said the government
should help champion alternative fuels. Economists generally are in
favor of free-market solutions, but there are times when you need to
intervene," said David Wyss at Standard & Poor's Corp. "We're already
in the danger zone" because of the outlook for oil supplies and
concerns about climate change, he said.
A majority of the economists said a tax on fossil fuels would be the
most economically sound way to encourage alternatives. A tax would
raise the price of fossil fuels and make alternatives, which today
often are more costly to produce, more competitive in the consumer
market. "A tax puts pressure on the market, rather than forcing an
artificial solution on it," said Mr. Wyss.
President Bush has made a strong push on energy initiatives over the
past month but he has steered clear of proposals that would raise
taxes. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush set targets that
call for a 20% reduction in gasoline use over the next 10 years. He
proposed regulations6 to tighten gas-mileage standards and force fuel
suppliers to use more alternative fuels. In addition, his budget
proposal7 presented to Congress this week provides substantial funding
for biofuel, clean coal and renewable energy programs.
In the survey, which was conducted Feb. 2-7, just two economists
recommended regulations that require energy companies use more
alternatives, one of the keys of the Bush plan, while six advised
subsidies for producers of alternative fuels. "With subsidies, the
government chooses the market solution," said Diane Swonk at Mesirow
Financial. "I'd favor taxes in this area."
Other economists in the survey, though, said the smartest course for
the government is to let market forces determine the future of
alternative energies. "The more we mess with things the more problems
we create," said Brian S. Wesbury of First Trust Advisors. "Government
interference in the marketplace can do damage to long-term development
of alternate energies."
Biggest Economic Risks
Although crude-oil prices have eased from levels hit last year, the
economists said dependence on fossil fuels remains a threat. When
asked to pick the greater geopolitical threat to the economy, by
almost an 3-to-1 margin the economists chose a disruption in crude oil
supplies caused by tensions in the Mideast over the impact on spending
and confidence that could follow a major terrorist attack. "The
economy has already proven it can survive terror attacks. It had a
harder time with almost $80 per barrel oil," said Ms. Swonk.
The economists generally expect oil to remain below $60 a barrel for
the remainder of this year. The average forecast puts crude oil
futures at $57.98 a barrel in June and $58.72 in December. That
roughly matches the price at which crude futures have traded in New
York this week, but is well below the nominal highs set last year at
around $77 a barrel.
"Demand for energy is going to grow, and energy likely to come from
existing sources isn't going to grow fast enough," said Daniel
Laufenberg at Amerprise Financial. "It's not a crisis today, but
higher prices are telling us now is the time the start preparing."
Sarbanes-Oxley Fallout
The survey also gauged economists' sentiment on concerns expressed by
business leaders that Sarbanes-Oxley rules, other regulatory
enforcement and litigation are hurting the competitiveness9 of U.S.
financial markets. Twelve of 51 economists who responded to the
question said they feel these forces are hurting market
competitiveness "a lot and are a serious threat to the economy."
Thirty-six of the economists said markets are being hurt some but not
enough to be a major economic worry.
Regarding Sarbanes Oxley specifically, a majority - 26 of 50
economists - said they believe the rules have had a "more negative
than positive" impact on the economy. Four others said the impact has
been entirely negative. In contrast, 19 economists deemed the impact
"more positive than negative" and one said it has been an entirely
positive influence on the economy.
Among other findings in the survey:
· Economists, on average, increased their forecast for first-quarter
gross domestic product growth by three-tenths of a percentage point to
2.5% following the release10 of the government's first estimate of
fourth-quarter growth last week. That report put growth for the period
at a 3.5% rate. GDP is the broadest measure of economic output.
Expectations of modest improvement in growth for the rest of the year
were changed little. For the fourth quarter of 2007, the economists
forecast growth at a 3% rate.
· The economists are skeptical that the federal budget will be
balanced by 2012, a goal that is shared11 by President Bush and
Democratic leaders. The economists put the probability of attaining
that goal at 32%.
· There is a split on where the Federal Reserve's federal-funds rate
is headed this year. Some 69% of respondents expect the next move to
be a decrease, while 31% see a rate increase on the horizon. However,
most don't see any move until some time in the summer.
· Sentiment improved a bit on the outlook for home prices. On average,
economists expect a closely watched index calculated by the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight will show that prices rose 3.52%
last year, up from an earlier forecast of 2.76%. Ofheo's report on
2006 prices is expected to be released early next month. For 2007, the
economists see a price decline of 0.18% compared to an earlier
forecast of a 0.49% decline. However, when one outlier, who forecast a
20% drop, is removed, the economists expect a modest gain in home
prices this year.
Write to Phil Izzo at philip_...@wsj.com12
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117086898234001121.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) OpenWin('http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-
fore-0207_frameset.html','fore0207','750','623','off','true',
20,30);return false;
(2) OpenWin('http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-
fore-0207_frameset.html','fore0207','750','623','off','true',
20,30);return false;
(3) http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2007/02/08/economists-a-pox-on-
sarbox/
(4) http://washwire.com
(5) http://release.theplatform.com/content.select?
pid=0eDGFLYcl_mpB1v3iNc_EfXJFTCF0Deu
(6) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117029534682494503.html
(7) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117069256431598323.html
(8) http://wsj.com/economist
(9) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116968768622987022.html
(10) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117024981981793612.html
(11) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117068414912098173.html
(12) mailto:philip.izzo_AT_wsj.com
raylopez99
> [Ray]
>
> >Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?
>
> [hanson]
> ... yeah, yeah, ... to generate new graft for the green shits by
> taxing the people while nothing is accomplished. Deja vue.
>
> It is all a great hope and probably a desirable national goal
> to go for energy independence. But I am afraid that this is just
> one of those many dreams that the politicians & the green shits
> have promoted before. The last one was with Prez Carter who
> created the Syn Fuel Corporation, an 80 Billion debacle that
>
> The name of the game appears to be Globalization... which
> requires international/cultural cooperation between nations.
> Unfortunately until this dream does materialize a lot of people
> feel threatened in their way of life... and the current scams and
> mayhem will continue... for a long, long time... ahahahaha...
> Sorry, that I have no better news....
> ahahaha... ahahahanson
By and large you may be right ahahahanson. But the one ray of
sunshine, pun intended, was that $70 oil did not cripple the US
economy, as predicted by the economists (who, like the AGWers, like to
be alarmist and are often wrong).
I myself am long on oil and energy stocks again. I sold prematurely
in 2004, but now have gotten back in (in a small way--about 3% of my
portfolio--I'm looking for a correction to get back in in a big way).
RL