The price of oil

Many people from across the political spectrum are up in arms over the recently announced profits of the oil industry. We expect this from the Democrats but even Republicans have joined the cry:

The frustration is so great that even top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., are demanding answers from Big Oil.

“We need to make sure that there's no abuse in the current system,” he said. “We need to make sure there's full transparency, and if there's any price gouging, we need to cut it out.”

When I first heard of these seemingly incredible profits, my first reaction was along the lines of what we're hearing from politicians. But then I started thinking about it some more. You see, what we have here is a global market and, in general, the market is best left to regulate itself. There is likely more to this than the sound bites would indicate.

Once again, Neal Boortz comes to the rescue and puts it all into better perspective, explaining the difference between profit and profit margin:

Now ... for those of you who went to government schools, let's expand on the explanation. Let's say that the total gross revenues for a company for one year equal $1,000,000. That's a million bucks. This company spends $930,000 to bring in that million. The difference between the one million and the $930,000 is $70,000. That's your profit. Divide the $70,000 by the one million and you get 0.07, or 7%. That's your profit margin. Now let's say that the very next year the company sells twice as much product the second year and brings in two million bucks. Let's also say that the cost of making those products doubles as well .. to $1,860,000. How much money did you have left over? Those of you who went to government schools get out your calculators .. the rest of you can figure it out in your head. You have $140,000 left over. That's your profit.

Wait! Your profits have doubled! How dare you? What are you doing, price gouging? These are excess profits -- windfall profits -- and the government ought to step in immediately and take them away from you, you greedy capitalist pig!

Hold on ... before we get carried away with our little price gouging rant here, let's grab those calculators again. Divide the $140,000 in profits by the $2,000,000 in gross receipts and what do we have? Why, it seems the answer is once again 0.07, or 7%! The profits have doubled, but the profit margin remains exactly the same!

He goes on to address a suggestion that the junior Senator from New York has made:

Hillary's brilliant idea of seizing profits does not come as a surprise to many. After all, Hillary was identified by her college professors as a budding young socialist many years before she achieved fame as Bill's "wife." Hillary's idea is for the oil companies to hand over about $20 billion a year to the government to be used for "research" and to subsidize consumers. The subsidies, of course, would become just another government entitlement that Democratic politicians would use to buy votes. The research? Well, sad to say there are actually people out there who think that the government can do a better job conducting research to insure our future energy needs than can the private sector. The impact of state education is widely felt.

Let's explore Hillary's profit-seizure idea a bit more. Another source of funds for oil companies to use for exploration and the development of additional energy resources would be the money that comes from investors. These investors purchase shares of stock in oil companies because they believe that their investments will appreciate in value and, in some cases, will pay dividends. If the government bows to the paranoia and anti-capitalist ignorance of the state-educated masses and seizes those profits, what then will be the reason to invest in these oil companies?

While price gouging does occur, for the most part high prices as a result of scarcity are not gouging but the natural operation of the free market in the efficient and effective allocation of resources. If prices for scarce resources are held artificially low, you then run into a shortage of said resources.

Maybe we should have some sort of investigation. However, like Neal, I'm going to assume that what we're dealing with here is simply the law of supply and demand and not any deliberate attempt at price gouging unless and until it is proven otherwise.

Who are we?

A question I've been mulling over for some time is this: Who are we to make judgements on other cultures and societies, and go so far as to attempt to bring them to freedom and democracy? Mike, in his own inimitable style, provides the answer:

As for that last bit, here’s who we are to judge other cultures: we’re the creators - not just the inheritors, the creators, every single day, by a bazillion different actions and in a bazillion different ways — of the most successful, benevolent, and all-around right nation this poor sad planet has yet produced, and the world would do well to profit from our freely-offered example rather than merely jealously carping about some detail we may have gotten slightly wrong. If that sounds arrogant, insensitive, or jingoistic, well, tough shit, Poindexter; I just don’t care.

And for the rest of us, we would do well to always remember not how lucky we are to have had so grand a birthright handed to us, but how serious the responsibility for maintaining, respecting, defending, and advancing that birthright is. And what that means in turn is not that we should ignore or shout down honest and legitimate discourse over how best to live up to that responsibility, but that we must acknowledge valid criticism and work to correct what mistakes we can, without denigrating or debasing the very foundations of our society as so many on the Left seem so eager to do. As Americans, we must respect honest dissenting opinion; however, the hateful tripe offered up by the present-day Left is, for the most part, nothing of the sort, and needs to be vigorously countered.

The United States is simply the greatest, the most free, the most successful nation this world has ever seen. Period. Obviously we're doing something right. Recognizing this is not being racist, culturalist, or any other word ending in -ist; it's merely stating objective fact. Just because we're the ones saying it doesn't mean it isn't true.

So if we've determined that the best way to secure the future safety of the United States, and all the other nations that share our love of freedom, from the depradations of a fascist theocratic ideology that calls for our complete destruction - simply because we are successful and are not under their dictatorial bootheels - is to attempt to remake their society and show them there's a better way, why not adapt what has worked well for us? The key word here is adapt. The recently approved Constitution of Iraq is not the same as the Constitution of the United States. It reflects that there are certain cultural differences between us and them. But those differences do not preclude a common desire for freedom and democracy, the desire for a nation where government is by the consent of the governed, the aspiration to the dignity of free people. They do not, and the approval of the Constitution of Iraq should be all the proof anyone needs that this is so.

On with the show!

It's Sam Alito, folks, and I couldn't be happier. Well, that's not entirely correct. I was really hoping for Janice Rogers Brown. It would have been most entertaining to watch the Democrats cope with the cognitive dissonance of opposing a black woman. But, ah well. Alito is a fine choice and certainly reinforces the theory, held in some circles, that the initial choice of Miers was deliberate and that the President and his people intended for it to come out the way it did. For now we have a real judge as a nominee, someone the Republicans can rally around.

Adding to the euphoria is the reaction from leading Democrats. For example:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that he is "disappointed" in the pick of Alito in that he is not a "consensus nominee" and said one day earlier that that nominee would "create a lot of problems."

And:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also blasted Bush for not picking someone in the "mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us."

"The president seems to want to hunker down in his bunker" and "soothe the ruffled feathers of the extreme wing of his party," Schumer said. "This controversial nominee, who would make the court less diverse and far more conservative, will get very careful scrutiny from the Senate and from the American people."

Hallelujah! This is the contest we've been waiting for, folks. Fact: Judge Alito has twice previously been confirmed by the Senate by votes of 100 to 0. Fact: Judge Alito would bring to the Supreme Court more experience than any other nominee in the past 70 years. Of course this will mean nothing to the idealogues on the left. They will oppose him because he's Bush's rational choice and because they fear that he will interpret the law and the Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice should. They wanted someone who at least had a chance of going along with the legislation of their agenda from the bench. If they really want to fight this, they will have no choice but to reveal their true colors to the American people. They're caught between a rock and a hard place and it's about damn time.

Will they filibuster? I can't say. I will, however, predict that if a filibuster occurs, Frist will push the button. Either way, Alito will be confirmed and a grand step in restoring the Supreme Court to their proper, Constitutionally-mandated role will be taken.

Rebirth (hopefully)

If you've been stopping by occasionally over the last few months, you've doubtless noticed that posting has been rather infrequent. I've been thinking about what to do with this blog for a while and I've decided to make some changes. First, a new template. This is one of Blogger's stock templates which I've modified to suit. Second, a new name. "Musings of a Techno-Geek" was the first name I came up with when I created the blog in the first place and, admittedly, it wasn't very original. I wanted something a bit more unique, and one that fit my personality and interests better. The result is what you see at the top of the page.

In the past I've wanted my posts to have some sort of original contribution, rather than just a collection of links. But writing essays takes time and I'm not one of those who can always come up with several paragraphs on a moment's notice. I need time to think about things and, by the time my thoughts are more-or-less in order, other bloggers have already made posts which would render mine redundant. Going forward, my plan is for the posts to be more numerous, although they will be correspondingly shorter. I may just post a link with a one-sentence comment. Or just pose a question. If something warrants additional commentary, I'll make it a followup post. The idea is to keep the blog going forward and, hopefully, prompt more comments from readers.

Bring your gun to work day

I just couldn't resist the subject line even though it may give the wrong impression.

Legislation has been introduced in the Florida State Legislature that would force Florida companies to allow their employees to bring guns to work, as long as the weapons remained locked in their cars.

The legislation is modeled after an Oklahoma law that drew national attention when a number of major companies, including energy giant ConocoPhillips and oil-services conglomerate Halliburton, sued to have it overturned.

A Florida version could have similarly sweeping effects, particularly in Central Florida, where the region's largest employer -- Walt Disney World, with more than 57,000 workers -- does not allow its employees to bring guns onto park property. Universal Orlando, which employs 13,000 people, has a similar policy.

The legislation is backed by the NRA.

Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist, said the group will make the parking-lot bills (HB 129 and SB 206) a priority in 2006.

"For a business to tell you that in order to come onto their property, you have to give up your constitutional right is wrong," Hammer said.

Florida businesses are opposed to the legislation, despite an attempt to make it more palatable.

In an effort to blunt opposition from businesses, Baxley and Senate sponsor Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, included provisions that would shield companies from lawsuits should an employee commit a crime with the gun kept in a car on company property.

"I would think that business folks would embrace this readily because it gives them immunity from liability," Hammer said. "They should be happy as clams."

But businesses are unimpressed.

"If they have to get in the car and drive home to get a gun, chances are they are going to cool down a little bit," said Frank Mendizabal, a spokesman for Weyerhaeuser, which owns the Oklahoma mill that fired employees found with guns in their cars.

That the law could protect companies from lawsuits is irrelevant because immunity "doesn't prevent someone from being shot," he said.

This is a tough one since it is a conflict between the right of self-defense and private property rights. When in doubt consult the final authority, which is the Constitution. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My first inclination was to side with the businesses. Private property rights are of paramount importance in this country and I believe that property owners have the right to say what does and does not come onto their property. However, the Second Amendment is an absolute. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. It does not limit itself to restricting the US Congress, as does the First Amendment. It simply says, in effect, "this action is prohibited." The question then becomes whether or not this applies to private entities such as businesses or individuals and not just governments.

My personal opinion, as you may surmise, is that businesses should allow their employees to bring their personal weapons to work. Ideally, they would be allowed to carry their concealed weapons while on the job, provided it is legal for them to carry the weapons at all. As for Mr. Mendizabal's statement that having to drive home to get a gun would allow the person to cool down, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the workplace homicides he cites occurred when the person came to work and brought their weapon into the workplace with them to begin with, rather than the person leaving the weapon in their vehicle and retrieving it when they decided that it was time for the lead to fly.

And don't forget that the number of criminal shootings committed by people with concealed weapon permits, as opposed to those that were in self-defense, is an extremely small percentage. Folks with CCW's are not the ones you should fear. If someone is going to shoot up the place, corporate policies against bringing guns to work won't stop them. And if that should happen, it seems to me that law-abiding armed employees would provide the best defense, unless you happen to have armed security which is rare.

But should companies be required by law to allow something on their property that they don't want, regardless of the wisdom of such prohibitions? What do you think?

Quotes of the day

From the usual source.

"The principle of free speech is no new doctrine born of the Constitution of the United States. It is a heritage of English-speaking peoples, which has been won by incalculable sacrifice, and which they must preserve so long as they hope to live as free men." —Robert Lafollette, Sr.

"What if I told you that there was a magic bullet—something that would improve the quality of your daily life, your children's chances of success in the world, your family's health, our values as a society? Something that is inexpensive, simple to produce and within the reach of pretty much anyone? Miriam Weinstein begins her book 'The Surprising Power of Family Meals' with those two questions and then suggests that the 'magic bullet' missed by so many families is as simple as a shared meal. A 2003 survey indicated that children and teens who share dinner with their families five or more nights a week were far less likely to have tried alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. 'Those who eat lots of family dinners are almost twice as likely to get A's in school as their classmates who rarely eat as a family.' Now that's something to chew on. Launch a revolution. Have dinner as a family." —Albert Mohler

"I was a Democrat once...for a long time, a large part of my life. But in those days, its leaders didn't belong to the 'blame America first' crowd. Its leaders were men like Harry Truman, who understood the challenges of our times. They didn't reserve all their indignation for America. They knew the difference between freedom and tyranny and they stood up for one and damned the other. To all the good Democrats who respect that tradition...and I hope there are many...you're not alone. We're asking you to come walk with us down the new path of hope and opportunity, and we'll make it a bipartisan salvation of our country." —Ronald Reagan

"Establishment Republicans all pretend to have seen Reagan's genius at the time, but that's a crock. They wanted to dump Reagan in favor of 'electable' Gerald Ford and 'electable' George Herbert Walker Bush. Newsweek reported in 1976 that Republican 'party loyalists' thought Reagan would produce 'a Goldwater-style debacle.' This is why they nominated well-known charismatic vote magnet Jerry Ford instead. Again in 1980, a majority of Republican committeemen told U.S. News and World Report that future one-termer George 'Read My Lips' Bush was more 'electable' than Reagan. The secret to Reagan's greatness was he didn't need a bunch of high-priced Bob Shrums to tell him what Americans thought. He knew because of his work with General Electric, touring the country and meeting real Americans. Two months a year for eight years, Reagan would give up to 25 speeches a day at G.E. plants—a 'marination in middle America,' as one G.E. man put it. Reagan himself said, 'I always thought Hollywood had the wrong idea of the average American, and the G.E. tours proved I was right.' Because of these tours, Reagan knew—as he calmly told fretful advisers after the Grenada invasion—'You can always trust Americans.' The G.E. tours completely immunized Reagan from the counsel of people like Karl Rove, who think the average American is a big-business man who just wants his taxes cut and doesn't care about honor, country, marriage or the unborn. Reagan knew that this is a great country. If only today's Republicans would believe it." —Ann Coulter

"[B]oth compassionate conservatism and welfare-state liberalism alike are uncompassionate. Inheriting from the neocons a basic philosophical comfort with the concept of the welfare state, compassionate conservatism—which also goes by 'big government conservatism' —sees no pressing need to pare government down to its core functions. Traditional conservatism, on the other hand, considers a lean government essential to the task of fulfilling its core responsibilities... Ultimately, this is the core problem with all ideologies that try to make government an extension of the family. Welfare-state liberalism wants the government to act like your mommy. Compassionate conservatives want the state to be your daddy. The problem: Government cannot love you, nor should it try. Love empowers us to do some things government must never have the power to do and other things the government can almost never do well." —Jonah Goldberg

"If you want to understand the Left, the best place to start is with an understanding of hysteria. Leading leftists either use hysteria as a political tactic or are actually hysterics. Take almost any subject the Left discusses and you will find hysteria... America neglects its poor, beats up its gays, oppresses its women, fouls its environment, ignores its children's educations, denies blacks their votes, and invades other countries for corporate profits: These are common accusations of the Left. No event is free of leftist hysteria. On the third day after Katrina, civil rights activist Randall Robinson reported that blacks in New Orleans were resorting to cannibalism. Indeed, most of the news media coverage bordered on the hysterical. Not to mention the hysterical predictions of 10,000-plus dead in New Orleans... [T]he irony in all of this is that the Left sees itself as the side that thinks intellectually and non-emotionally. And that is hysterical." —Dennis Prager

"Nobody doubts that [John] Roberts is a conservative. Presumably he has 'feelings,' conservative ones. The record is pretty clear on that. But this doesn't mean he's playing possum and waiting for the chance to give these feelings the force of law. That's the liberal racket. Liberals celebrate precisely those justices who love women and minorities not wisely, but too well—the ones whose 'feelings' impel them to overturn law and precedent and tradition in search of penumbras formed by emanations unsuspected by the authors of the Constitution. So when liberals ask you if you recognize the constitutional right to 'privacy,' the last thing they want to hear is a politely skeptical, 'Well, it depends what you mean.' Have you no feelings, man? Hence liberals are forever complaining that conservatives 'lack compassion' and are 'mean-spirited.' The only feelings they can imagine conservatives having are nasty ones, primarily 'hate.' Ignoring such childish spite, Roberts has taken a quiet and dignified stand for the sovereignty of reason." —Joseph Sobran

"[Ruth Bader] Ginsburg [doesn't] like the idea that she might be the only woman on the Court. She said that the president should nominate a 'fine jurist' to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and that she—Ginsburg—had 'a list of highly qualified women,' but, she continued, 'the president has not consulted me.' I wonder under which penumbra she fits this idea... Ginsburg has her list of prospective women nominees, because, as she said, the president must be particular to choose which woman, and just 'any woman will not do.' She said there are 'some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights.' Advance. Not interpret. Not apply the Constitution according to its principles to protect. Advance... Because Ginsburg believes her job is to 'advance human rights [and] women's rights,' she is, [under Title 28, US Code, Section 455], disqualified from ruling on those cases. Which means that she may not legally vote on any case that may affect Roe v. Wade or—for example, in the 'human rights' arena—any case that might affect the manner in which America treats terrorist prisoners in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." —Jed Babbin

"One of the many negative consequences of America's defeat in the Vietnam War has been the uncontrolled proliferation of Vietnams since then. Nicaragua threatened to become another Vietnam. Lebanon nearly became another Vietnam. Had Grenada been only slightly larger than a manhole cover and lasted one more hour, it would have become a Caribbean-Style Vietnam. The invasion of Panama was rapidly degenerating into a Narco-Vietnam, right up until we won. Likewise, the First Gulf War was certainly developing into another Vietnam, but then sadly, it ended quickly and with few casualties. For people of a certain age or political stripe, Vietnam is like Elvis: it's everywhere. For example, during a long wait at a Chinese Buffet in Georgetown in 1987, Ted Kennedy was reported to have exclaimed 'QUAGMIRE!' and attempted to surrender to a Spanish-speaking busboy. And that was probably the smart thing to do, because the lesson of Vietnam is: it is best to lose quickly, so as to avoid a quagmire... If you liked what our quick, casualty-saving withdrawal from Somalia did for us at the Khobar Towers, at our embassies in East Africa, at the waterline of the U.S.S. Cole, and at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then you'll love what a quick 'casualty-saving' withdrawal from Iraq will do for us for the next twenty years. It'll finally make you stop worrying about Vietnam." —Mac Johnson