Americans use roughly 20.6 million barrels per day. If we stop filling the strategic petroleum reserve we free up about 70,000 barrels per day. We reduce total demand by roughly one third of one percent by calling a halt to the SPR, in other words.
UPDATE: Unnamed "analysts" are now being credited with the claim this could actually reduce price to $3.70. We challenge the authors to name sources and methods.
This new Volokh post about "science studies" helps illustrate the nonsense of a popular upcoming cliche, namely, the process of "buying into" a "narrative." (Check out this usage, and you can hear nonstop similar language in CNN's critiques of media Hillary/Obama coverage.)
The ads are well produced, but they bring the gas tax holiday idea to the attention of thousands of voters who've never heard of the idea. And they do so at the expense of the Obama campaign.
In EconoPundit's opinion this is not what you'd call too swift.
Since oil is traded in dollars, the Bush/Greenspan inflation is taking its toll. To protect themselves against the depreciating dollar, oil producers jack up the price of crude. The less the dollar is worth, the more the price goes up...Meanwhile, hedge fund billionaires are making their own contribution to higher gas prices. We can be sure that they are taking their shrinking dollars out of their piggy banks and investing them in something that not only keeps its value but renders a profit, and that's oil. Ordinary people watch their savings shrivel as their government bonds and certificates of deposit lose spending power. Yet the billionaire class is preserving its capital by speculating in black gold. A byproduct of their speculations is a persistent rise in oil prices.
So my question is this: why aren't ordinary people -- by themselves, through pension funds, or whatever -- trading "value-losing" government bonds and certificates of deposit for the same financial instruments the so-called "billionaire class" somehow mysteriously uses to preserve its capital by "speculating in black gold"?
UPDATE: Wait -- I think I get it! They speculate in oil, and that causes the price of oil to rise, and they make money because the price is rising, right? That's fabulous! (Those devious billionaire class speculators!) It works just like the tech stock bubble and the housing boom! I'm gonna run out right now and preserve my capital just like those smart billionaire class guys!
UPDATE II: I was about to simply link to this saner article to suggest a more balanced view (despite occasional heavygoing rhetoric) until I noticed von Hoffman's essay seems like an almost paragraph-by-paragraph sensationalized/simplified summary/rewrite for the anticapitalist set. Read both and decide for yourself.
I know Charles Krauthammer once studied statistics, but I think he's getting a little rusty:
Bottom line: unless Obama was caught on tape nodding as Wright screamed his obscenities at the United States, or Michelle gives another speech "from the heart" about how hard she has struggled and how in return she has had no pride in this country, or there is another off-the-cuff, but recorded sneer at the white working class (50/50 chance on all four counts), I think he will weather the current storm and get the nomination. Obama evokes pure emotion and raw politics now, and logic, honesty, and accountability have little to do with his nomination bid.
Okay, now let's compute the odds. In cases like this we're dealing with neither conditional nor joint but with marginal probability. You'll find a quick review here, but all you need remember we add up rather than multiply the likelihoods that various events may happen.
Let's use Krauthammer's examples and assume probabilities extremely generous to the Obama campaign. Assume the likelihood Obama was caught on tape nodding at Wright's obscenties is low -- say one in 10 chances. What about an "angry and spiteful Wright [producing] some letter, e-mail, etc. that reveals a kindred soul in Obama"? We'd have to say this is more likely, but still assign a low probability of, let's say, one in three. How about Michelle? How likely is it she will come forward with another negative interview? Be generous, and assume handlers have her under control and there's no more than one-in-ten chances she'll slip up and once again reveal her true feelings about the U.S. of A. Finally, what are the odds Obama himself will slip and once again reveal a little hostility towards all us Joe Sixpacks? Pretty likely something like this will slip out when he's tired but be generous -- call it one in four.
Okay, now add up the probabilities. .10+.33+.1+.25=78.3.
According to these hypothetical numbers there's a 78% chance the Obama ship will sink. Charles' 50/50 estimate may be way too low. (For the curious: a one-in-eight chance of any of the four events taking place generates the 50/50 probability cited in Charles Krauthammer's editorial.)
