At What Price Oil?
Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his October essay, “Running on Empty,” says, “We should not be discussing whether to increase the amount of drilling off our shores,” calling the issue “marginal.” Meanwhile, California has soaring ­budget deficits and rising unemployment. Doesn’t he realize that increased oil production in the state would add businesses, jobs, and tax ­revenue, not to mention the reduction in oil prices it would bring? Schwarz­enegger and other California leaders try to save the planet, while Alaska, Texas, Russia, and Venezuela are laughing all the way to the bank.

Randall Harris
Redondo Beach, California

If Denmark is able to get close to 20 percent of its power from wind, why isn’t the State of California building windmills in Sacra­mento? To say that we should not let energy price determine our energy policy would suggest that a price mechanism that has made our country second to none is not as effective as an energy policy developed by the tree-hugging ­Governor Schwarzenegger and his ilk. Do I think we need to end our ­reliance on foreign oil? In the words of our friend from Alaska, “You ­betcha!” We need the oil, and we need it as cheap as we can get it—until wind powers everything, as Schwarzenegger suggests.

Ben Pierce
Warrensburg, Missouri

It’s interesting that the price tag for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s bailout package, $700 billion, rivals the amount the United States spent on imported oil this year. Even more interesting is that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called for the reduction of the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. By importing this fuel, made from sugarcane, we will reduce the amount of Saudi Arabian oil we import. Cane-based ethanol will not drive up food prices, as corn-based ethanol does. Which is it going to be, Brazil or Saudi Arabia?

Robert Quirk
Laredo, Texas

The Conversation

Condé Nast Portfolio’s Wall Street columnist has been right on the money.

Jesse Eisinger’s October ­column, “Reining In the Speculators,” examined the unprec­edented trading volume and proposed that we consider a trading tax to tamp down the negative effects of the high turnover of stocks: “The more you trade, the more you pay,” he suggested.

The bulk of our online readers—many of whom appear to earn their living through short-selling—were dead-set against such a levy, no matter how small. “Eisinger has come up with the single most effective way to move the financial markets from New York to Dubai,” Jack Pearson wrote.

Some readers liked Eisinger’s idea, though: “Such a tax would trim the worst excesses of professional investors,” wrote Charlotte Verver. “If you don’t have the discipline,” she added, “then the rest of us would have to force it on you—just so we are not left holding the bag for your avarice and myopic ignorance.”

Others revealed that they haven’t exercised that kind of trading discipline: “When I was trading by voice broker in the 1980s, 100 transactions a day was considered busy,” wrote Tim Heaton, who says he now averages 100 trades an hour. “If the goal is to control risk, then all we need is a regulated exchange.”

A reader simply identified as Cringing reminded us that “investors should look themselves in the mirror every morning and say, ‘Markets are cyclical.’ ”