Something there for you to think about OJ? Guess his approaval will go up if he pushes AMTRAK?

jd:

Obviously presidents can't afford to have their approval ratings tied to something out of their control. There's ample reason for him to establish control over energy prices therefore.

oj. Shouldn't there be a 'not' at the end of your comment above.

No.

What's especially funny about this is that the graph suggests that if the retail cost of gas were to drop back below $ 2/gal, Bush's approval rating would go above 50% - but American gasoline consumption averages out to about 1,200 gallons a year per household, and that includes all use by business, as well.

So if the cost of gas at the pump were to drop a dollar per gallon, the savings to the average American household would only be maybe $ 75/month.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 20, 2006 4:36 AM

oj. You're proposing price control so the president's approval ratings will go up!

Hearken back to Nixon's price and wage controls and remember how that led to those Ford WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

No, taxes, so you can gradually raise the expectation of what gas will cost. Rising CAFE standards and forcing alternatives will also help.

If presidential approval is inversely related to gas prices, gas taxes seem a sure way to lower presidential approval.

But raising expected gas prices through a gas tax might increase the approval of a future Democratic president.

The price doesn't matter in the abstract, it only matters when folks expect gas cheap and then it costs a lot and no one seems to have any control of it. It heightens insecurity which is the death of political leaders.

Michael:

It's not about costs, just about the psychology of price spikes. That's why Volcker and Reagan defeating inflation was the single most important happening of the 20th century.

OJ:

For Heaven's sake, anything but CAFE, the poster child for unintended-consequences tweaking-the-economy-by-regulation-is-free thinking. Perhaps a gas tax that scales up, rather than down, as the price drops.

Mike:

Mandate miles per gallon and let companies innovate their way to meeting them. It's pretty non-intrusive.

OJ:

Well, it mandates average miles-per-gallon for cars. It hasn't produced more fuel-efficient cars, but rather:

a) Replaced large station wagons with more dangerous and less fuel-efficient SUVs (because they're *trucks*, not cars)

b) Caused automakers to subsidize their cheap, compact, high-MPG vehicles, rather than working on increasing milage of more expensive cars. This actually causes more cars to be sold, increasing total gas usage and reducing the viability of things like mass transit. (Actually, in the US most everybody who wants a car can afford one - the real effect is probably to increase auto penetration overseas, as prices fall in the saturated US used-car market and the surplus is shipped to be sold in Latin America et al.)

Mike:

Yes, the loopholes have to be closed.