That isn't good enough. On top of the high cost we are paying, we have the political question. It is humiliating to do nothing when, for instance, the Peacock Throne of the Ayatollah calmly advises that it proposes to reduce oil production by 220,000 barrels per day. That means, after the decree is implemented, that the price of oil would rise about 10 percent.
What we do hear every now and again are proposals for reducing our consumption of oil. Most recently, the formidable Martin Feldstein, the Harvard economist who writes for The Wall Street Journal, proposed a voucher system of considerable ingenuity. Feldstein, remember, is a free-marketeer and is alert to keeping the covetous hands of government, to the extent practical, out of the way. What he proposes is that everyone be given at the start of every year vouchers for X amount of gasoline (with allowances for geographical location and profession), the design being to cut down gasoline consumption by increasing the cost of the incremental post-voucher gallon.
But do not confuse this with wage and price controls, because if you ran out of your vouchers, you could buy somebody else's, buy from the guy or gal who drives less and looks forward to selling unused vouchers. All of the above, by the way, would be automatic at the gas pump, which would sell you the gas and buy and sell vouchers in a simultaneous transaction.
Then, of course, there are the supply-siders, who reasonably urge that obstacles to the development of oil and gas reserves be reduced. It is good rainy-day stuff to dream about the day Bill Gates III discovers how to decoct energy from the sun's rays. But meanwhile we have to live with the consequences of our huge appetite for energy and the caprice of OPEC, an oligopoly we have never seriously figured out how to deal with.