politics & economics gotta checks-and-balances each other

To those who think the economists' say-so is the only measure of what's good in this world, let me ask you this: if I can prove that child labor is beneficial to the economy, does that mean child labor laws are bad?

ABC reports that Hillary Clinton refuses to name a single economist who says that her gas tax plan is good, from an economists' viewpoint. Well, duh.

ABC News' Mary Bruce reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., declined this morning to name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax suspension.

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said in an exclusive appearance on a special edition of "This Week" from Indianapolis.

But, you know, Hillary Clinton isn't an economist. She's a politician. And lucky for us, too, because it's no great secret that capitalism concentrates wealth (and tends toward monopoly). An ideal world according to economic models would be one with no people in it. (People are irrational.)

But, fortunately for us, politics exists, to bring us quality of life to balance out painful economic efficiency:

In light of fierce criticism from economic experts, Clinton said, "We've been, for the last seven years, seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. ... I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively."

It seems to me quite clear that a real solution to the energy crisis is going to be a pretty big deal. This is just addressing one of the more untenable symptoms, and in a very short term way.

"This gas tax issue to me is very real, because I am meeting people across Indiana and North Carolina who drive for a living, who commute long distances, who would save money if the oil companies paid this $8 billion this summer, instead of it coming out of the pockets of consumers," Clinton said. "Now, look, I have long-term plans too. I mean, it's a misnomer to say this is all that I'm doing. It's not. I have a comprehensive long-term energy plan that would go right at dependence on foreign oil."

(emphasis mine)

Transport - both the ability to move and the ability to receive - is linked to poverty in numerous ways. And that means transport is also very tied up in the economy. We are already at a point where the high price of gas is already forcing some people to cut back on behaviors that are good for our economy.

Taxing people is not solving the problem. Actually solving the problem means actually addressing the issue of what exactly they are supposed to be doing instead of driving.

What is the alternative? If all you are doing is punishing the end user, you are putting it onto their shoulders to figure out what they ought to be doing to save gas. And you won't like what they come up with.

I have heard many people argue that "we must lead people away from energy consumption". Have such arguments stopped to think how much of an effect rising gas prices can and will have on the working class before it even begins to dent the SUV drivers, the ones whose behavior is truly wasteful? In my opinion, this entire argument makes about as much sense as taxing food to "solve" the problem of overeating. You incidentally solve the problem of overpopulation as well. It's not a real solution. It's not an acceptable solution. It's the equivalent of choosing to throw someone overboard on the totally untested assumption that lightening the load will somehow save the boat.