HN Explorer

$10/bbl Oil Tax

4 points by matterofact ↗ HN
Obama, just does not have correctly formed ideas. If his $10/bbl tax was only on imported oil and those proceeds where to be dedicated to a good and universal idea, like loans to manufacturing companies that commit to 100% American jobs, then it would become immensely popular. Proposing a new tax to fund the manufacture of Chinese solar panels is just plain stupid. Granted, Obama is consistent.

6 comments

[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 25.3 ms ] thread
matterofact
I just read the 'approach to comments' and the 'official guidelines'. If you think this post has a problem, maybe you should explicitly point it out. Most of the electorate understand we need jobs, particularly higher paying technical jobs, here in American. Calling out a politician for anti-American ideas is not with the bounds of HN, or are you just expressing personal bias? Surely the $10/bbl is a grossly stupid idea, no?
paulddraper
"good and universal idea, like loans to manufacturing companies that commit to 100% American jobs"

This idea is neither good nor univesally accepted.

External manipulations of the market cause deadweight losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

You have to argue that the gain of manufacturing jobs will be worth more than the loss of inexpensive manufactured goods. The market currently says that argument is false.

matterofact
Well, if you replace welfare with jobs, most would agree it's a positive more. Major conglomerates will not go for this, so it becomes a low cost financing for main-street and small to mid size manufactures. I doubt any currently available goods will be effected, price wise because it'd be less that 1/1000 of the products in any given space. It would encourage continued energy product, of all kinds, here in the USA.

"You have to argue that the gain of manufacturing jobs will be worth more than the loss of inexpensive manufactured goods. The market currently says that argument is false"

Huh? Wrong. Nothing currently being manufactured would be effected until thousands of new manufacturing plant are brought (back?) online here in the USA. Your you must prove your idealized statement is valid by your metrics; and it is not.

tumdum_
So let's say there is tariff on imported oil at 10$ per barrel. This means that US companies will buy oil locally, which means that all domestic oil producers can raise oil prices by 9$ and still be competitive on domestic market. But that means that cost of production will raise for US companies. Reduced margins (or lower profits) will force domestic companies to reduce work force.

As you can see tariffs on imported goods can have negative effect on domestic jobs.

pil4rin
I read somewhere recently (likely reddit) that this could likely be an election year strategy to vilify the opposing party, as Congress will likely shut this down.

That ties them, and the party to support of non-renewable energy sources, which are not exactly popular among voters(there might have been a specific demographic attached to that, but I'm not certain).

Even if this turns out to be the strategy, I think your idea about a commitment to US jobs would only help- not sure why he didn't do that..

ScottBurson
For anyone who wants some background on this:

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/02/obama-oil-tax-b...

My own view is that we should raise taxes on gasoline at the pump rather than broadly taxing petroleum, and that the new tax should scale with population density, so it's higher in urban areas where the negative externalities of burning it are more concentrated, and roughly zero in rural areas.

I wonder if that might not be an easier sell than it sounds in Congress. If urban liberals want to tax themselves and leave the rural conservatives out of it, why should the latter object?