Nate Phelps at the Reason Rally »« Riehl: Lighter Skin Less Menacing

Rove Group Puts Out Dishonest Campaign Commercial

I’m sure it will come as a shock to no one that Crossroads GPS, the group founded by Karl Rove, has released a highly dishonest commercial blaming President Obama for soaring oil prices. It would have been more surprising if the ad had been honest and reasonable.

Factcheck calls the ad “bogus” and says it offers “false and misleading evidence.” They’re right, for all the reasons I’ve explained before. Domestic oil production has almost nothing to do with the price of gas. Never has, never will.

Comments

  1. Who Knows? says

    Unfortunately, there are millions of idiots in the United States that will believe every word.

  2. unbound says

    Supply side economics in general has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point. Due to the lack of sufficient competition, the prices the public pays for just about everything has no relationship with the cost of the product or service at all.

    But the masses don’t understand that. I’m sure, as Who Knows? points out, there a millions of idiots (I would say many tens of millions of idiots) in the US that will believe every word and will start chanting “Drill Baby Drill!”

  3. says

    Who Knows? says:
    “Unfortunately, there are millions of idiots in the United States that will believe every word.”

    No worries. Anyone stupid enough to be swayed by that shit is already a lost cause, and therefore already a republican.

  4. bahrfeldt says

    Oil prices have not been soaring. Crude oil cost approx 70% of its peak under shrub in 08. Gasoline on Northern Boulevard (my four local stations) costs nearly 95%. Okay, not a scientific survey. Oilman are gouging the consumers to discredit the administration while making obscene profits for themselves.

  5. says

    Oh, and did I mention that my life would be much improved if one day I woke up (let’s say tomorrow) to discover that Karl Rove had choked to death on his own vomit while fully conscious? I’m pretty certain I hate him more than any of the other goons. My “vomit” wish aside, I do hope his death is painful, slow, and humiliating. Cheers!

    I gotta stop doing this! My ire is starting to get the best of me. When I think of these miserable sociopathic fucks lately, I get shaky and red in the face. Up until recently, when someone would wish harm on the “enemy” I would join other commenters in admonishing the poster who had suggested such violence. There has been a shift. I really do want the sociopathic sons of motherfucking bitches to die.

    I’m doing it again

    breath…………..

  6. says

    “Domestic oil production has almost nothing to do with the price of gas. Never has, never will.”

    Actually, I’m pretty sure domestic production strongly determined gas prices in the first half of the 20th century when the US was the world’s major oil producer and before the days of OPEC. Also, if we were to stop domestic production completely, that would almost certainly have an effect. We still produce roughly 10% of the world’s supply (while consuming 25% of it).

    It’s more accurate to say that any changes in domestic production we might implement, whether drill-baby-drilling or putting certain areas off-limits, aren’t going to have any noticeable effect on prices. Those variances are much too small.

  7. dingojack says

    “Rove Group Puts Out Dishonest Campaign Commercial”
    And in other news – water discovered to be wet, Film at 11.
    Dingo

  8. Chiroptera says

    ashleybell, #4: No worries. Anyone stupid enough to be swayed by that shit is already a lost cause, and therefore already a republican.

    Actually, plenty of worries. It is the already Republican lost causes that elect people like Inhofe and Bachmann who waste perfectly good legislative seats while choking off rational discussion of public policy by spewing their toxic stupidity.

    (No criticism of you, by the way. I know what you meant. Just venting.)

  9. says

    “Oil prices have not been soaring. Crude oil cost approx 70% of its peak under shrub in 08.”

    Oil remained consistently below $40 a barrel in real terms for roughly two decades from the mid-80s to the mid-2000s. Then it shot up to nearly $140 a barrel by 2008, crashed back down with the Great Recession, and is now back up over $120.

    This is not a fluke. This is due to a complete lack of excess capacity, brought on by a peak in conventional crude production and ever increasing demand in the developed world. It’s not going to reverse itself either. New sources are increasingly marginal and expensive and typically cost twice as much to pump out of the ground as oil was selling for just 8 years ago. The only viable solution to this is to use less of it.

    We’ve known this was coming for a long time. What makes the Rove ad and the others like it so especially despicable is that these are very same people who spent the last 20 years denying that the world would ever run short of oil, and consistently thwarting any attempts at conservation, increasing fuel efficiency, or research into alternatives.

  10. Michael Heath says

    unbound:

    Supply side economics in general has been pretty thoroughly debunked at this point.

    That’s not true. Instead conservative politicians mutate its principles for partisan purposes, are illiterate of what it actually contributed to economics, and suffers from one of its most well-known adherents selling out, Art Laffer – primarily because he’s an incompetent economist. If you want to appreciate supply side economics than I recommend reading Bruce Bartlett, who does an excellent and honest job of putting its ideas into the proper context, and how they’ve been grafted into mainstream economic thinking.

  11. slc1 says

    Re unbound @ #3

    Actually, supply side economics is based on two incontrovertible facts. A tax rate of 0 brings in no revenue; a tax rat of 100% also brings in no revenue. Thus, it is an obvious fact that a tax rate somewhere between 0 and 100% will maximize the revenue collected by the government. Thus, the supply siders argue that there is a curve connecting these two points and that there is some point on that curve at which revenue collected by the government will be maximized.

    Laffler’s contribution was to to imagine a curve in which the first derivative was monotonically decreasing and is equal to 0 at the maximum.

    There are several problems with this theory.

    1. The assumption of a simple curve in which the first derivative is monotonically decreasing is an assumption based on nothing. As the late Martin Gardner argued, this assumption is pure poppycock.

    http://everything2.com/title/neo-Laffer+curve

    2. Even if the assumption were true, it is not clear that the best tax rate is one that maximizes government revenue. There are other considerations, particularly relative to stimulation of economic growth, as Heath points out. Thus, this becomes an optimization problem which may have several independent variables and associated constraints.

    3. The response surface for the optimization problem cited in 2 may, in fact, be complicated with many local optima.

Leave a Reply