Re: China to Raise Fuel Prices By 17%-18% in Surprise Move
You wrote a good article on how China's oil price controls distort markets;
you clearly describe how bad government policy disrupts the functioning of
global markets for petroleum.
I challenge you to tell the rest of the story. Ask your editors to let you
write about how bad government policy creates and subsidizes dysfunctional
markets for petroleum and other fossil fuels and eliminates incentives for
use of cleaner, safer and more efficient alternative fuels and technologies
that can mitigate, if not completely eliminate, pollution.
Ask your editors to allow you to follow up with an objective article about
how America's failure to provide leadership to create policy that assigns a
cost to external services provided by government or society, like the
negative health and economic effects of pollution, security services, wars
to ensure supply of oil and ecosystem destruction, from the exploitation of
fossil fuels, especially petroleum, has distorted the functioning of
international oil markets.
When government policy does not properly account for the costs of
externalities, then it becomes necessary for government to impose regulatory
approaches to control of all forms of pollution.
Historically the Journal editorial staff has fought both regulatory and
market-based solutions to fundamental pollution control problems. Now the
Journal is fighting market based approaches to controlling, if not
eliminating, greenhouse gas pollution.
Here is my suggested headline for your article: Why do mainstream economists
and Journal editors oppose harnessing the forces of market capitalism to
mitigate the spectre of global climate chaos?
My opinion is that too many economists did not read the last chapter in Adam
Smiths book on the role of government in market capitalism. So rather than
be intellectual honest they subscribe to a perverted versions of the "Golden
Rule" (see footnote). After reading the Journal on and off for over 30-years
it is obvious to me that the Journal editors have consistently refused to
adopt an intellectually honest editorial position on the proper role of
government as defined by Adam Smith himself.
Smith states very clearly that the proper role of government is to set
policy that defines the bounds of the market and that protects "The Commons"
from exploitation, the poor from exploitation by the rich, etc. The proper
role of government is to set policy uses market forces to motivates people
to eliminate self-destructive acts driven by greed and unrestrained resource
The Journal has a 30+ year history of consistent editorial bias to resist
legitimate efforts to eliminate pollution or stop destruction of ecosystems.
How can Journal claim to be an advocate of market capitalism while at the
same time supporting policy that fails to protect clean air and water, not
to mention the stable climate needed to feed 6.7 billion people?
How can you work for a newspaper that fails to follow one of the fundamental
tenets of market capitalism? A newspaper editorial staff that consistently
takes news and editorial positions that are intellectual dishonest, creates
or sustains market inefficiency and undermines one of the founding
principles of market capitalism.
Ps/ The Golden Rule - Them that has the gold make the rules to suit their
own short-term self-interest and everybody else is on their own.
David E. Bruderly, PE
Bruderly Engineering Associates, Inc.
920 SW 57th Drive
Gainesville, Florida 32607-3838