OCR Text |
Show The National Enterprise , February 16, 1977 Page eleven Emory E. (Bud) Treadaway has joined Tejas Gas Corp. (OTC 12.25, 12.75) as vice president and manager of gas supply and sales. Treadaway will operate from the firms existing Houston office. For the last five years he has been with Lone Star Gas Co., most recently as director of gas purchases and sales. Prior to that he was with Texaco for eight years, having been senior gas contract representative when he left the company. Treadaway, 34, is a B.B.A. graduate of the University of Texas at Arlington. Tejas, an energy marketing and transportation firm, is involved in natural gas gathering, fuel oil transportation, oil and gas exploration and development and marine transportation of petroleum products. Ed Brody has been appointed to the d position of vice president of sales at Harlyn Product's (OTC 3.75, 4.50) Palomar Jewelry and Paramount Wedding Rings divisions. Brody was formerly national sales manager for Seiko Watches and vice president of Obtel Corp. and newly-create- Elgin Watches. Hamilton Digital Controls (OTC 2.50, 3.50) said A.G. Sheehan has joined the company as product applications engineer. His duties will consist of working with customers on design engineering along with customer service in the engineering field. For the past 20 years, Sheehan has been employed by Univac Div of Sperry Rand, and has held positions in their Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Utica plants. During his career at Univac, he has worked in the elctronic field as technician, engineer and also supervisory positions in all phases of computer manufacture. Peanuts! Do you remember the old Vietnam days? We kept having the feeling that the President knew something we didnt. How else to explain the commitment of a half a million good young men to a cuase that so clearly on the surface was not among our vital interests? In the end, of course, we learned that our leaders didnt know a thing. Or common sense was better than theirs. Lately Ive been having the same old problem. I keep wondering if Congress knows something that I dont. What they are doing and saying doesnt on the surface seem to make sense. Let's forget figures and GNPs and all the complicated terms that businesspeople and economists use. Lets just use simple English and see how far down the road we can travel together using nothing but common sense. If a man can work one place and make $2 an hour or another place and make $10 per hour, isnt he more likely to work in the second place (assuming he likes the work as well)? The answer seems obvious. Within certain limits, people will work in areas that will make them the most money. I know that the statement lacks a certain amount of idealism, but the simple fact is that most people would rather make $60,000 per year doing something they sort of like as opposed to making $15,000 a year doing something they like a bit better. causes some of our best young people to persue a life of medicine. There is a lot of money in it. So, would it be reasonable to assume that the more rewards to be found in a certain area, the greater the competition for those rewards? What would happen if Congress passed a law saying that from now on, no NFL or AFL football player can make more than $15,000 per year? Prices on tickets would also have to be lowered since not requiring lower prices would only result in windfall profits for the owners. What would happen? Would there still be football players? Im sure that there would be. Would the quality go down? Im sure that it would. Lets just assume that you are a great young athlete and coming out of high school. You can play make a maximum of $15,000 per year. Or, you can go for pro basketball and sign for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Which do you think you would choose? Can there be any real doubt that were a price ceiling of $15,000 really imposed on pro football players (and only football players) that the eventual result would be a lowering of competition for NFL and AFL jobs. Doesnt common sense tell us that the best people would go into other areas? It may be that someone knows something I dont but when I look at the current gas shortage I keep wondering if we have once again decided to ignore the nature of man. About 1954 or 1955 (weve already agreed that figures arent of great importance) someone in Washington came up Its not just a simple love of people that pro-footba- ll with a bright idea. Why not, they said, put a price ceiling on any gas that travels from one state to another state. That way, we will always have plenty of inexpensive gas in this country. It all sort of reminds you of the lady that went into the butcher shop and asked why the butcher was selling rib steaks at $1.35 a pound when the butcher down the street was Why dont you buy it selling rib steak at $1.18 a pound. from him,' he asked Because he is out, she replied. The same thing applies to natural gas. Congress has said that you cant ship gas across state lines and sell it for more than a certain amount. That means that you can always buy inexpensive gas even if there isnt any! Lets try a new analogy. Lets say that Congress passes a law saying that no professional football ticket can be sold for more than $10. In this new situation players are free to sign for any amount, but teams can only charge $10 per seat per game. For the first year or two, things might be fine. But little by little costs would keep going up. Revenue would not keep pace. Would it surprise anyone to find that less and less people would be willing to take on the risk of owning a professional football team? Why is it any different in the wmld of natural gas? The boys in Washington have kept the prices artifically low between states for years. At the same time, costs have been going up. The more oil and gas wre find, the more difficult if becomes to find whats left. Union workers want more pay. So it simply costs a great deal more to drill these days. Now if you had to take a greater financial risk, would it be w rong to demand at least the possibility of a greater gain? Not the way the boys in Washington see it. They keep expecting people to take greater and greater risks for an cvern smaller percentage of profit. Well common sense tells me that it wont work. If we arc going to attract our best minds and efforts into this countrys search for energy, we simply have to make it an area where people can make a fortune. Its as simple as that. I told you at the first that I keep wondering if someone knows something I dont. My guess is that they dont. Jimmy Carters energy policy could be so easy. Get rid of all price controls for now and forever. Let the word go out that fortunes can be made by people who arc able to bring us gas and oil and electricity. And that even greater fortunes await those who show us how to efficiently use our vast coal or oil shale supplies. Let s allow the pursuit of inexpensive and abundant energy to become so lucrative that some promising young people will even choose it over medicine or football. Lets not resent the fortunes that would be made. A half a million extra people are not working today just because Congress played with the free market system. If this country could once again get a continuous supply of energy, we would all be better off economically. And a prosperous country could afford to subsidize those who could not pay their fuel bill. The Prince Column by John Prince Partner, Prince, Iangheinrich & Greer. |