From 1.20 in 2000 when Bush took office, to 2.65 in 2005.
Remember when Cheney LAUGHED at conservation?
Remember when Bush put in a TAX BREAK for people who bought Hummers and Suburbans???
Remember when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton?
Remember when ENRON was the #1 campaign contributor to George W. Bush from election of Governer of Texas through his first Presidential election???
Remember when Bush invaded a country because they had tons and tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction and were about to attack us?
Remember when Bush spent 5 straight years crusading for Tax cuts for the WEALTHIEST Americans?
This what America voted for.
No matter how ignorant we were, we don't deserve this.
<T>
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
To be fair, it's not all Bush's fault. Demand for oil is growing at a very fast pace throughout the world, especially in developing countries like China. Basic economics says that if demand increases and supply stays the same, the price will rise. The demand curve is certainly scooting to the right, currently.
Bush seems to be trying to counter this by trying to shove the supply curve to the right as well... i.e. drilling in Alaska. In my eyes, that's a fool's game, because we're dealing with a good that most certainly has a limited supply. We need to decrease demand.
So, while the problem is not entirely Bush's fault (or even most, I would say), he's not helping us find a long-term viable solution.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: No matter how ignorant we were, we don't deserve this.
Um, actually, yes we do. And most Americans are pretty satified with it.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Yeah, gas prices are going up and what makes you think they would be any lower if Kerry was elected? Besides haven't you told us a thousand times that we fought that war in Iraq for the oil?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
From what I had heard for the last five or six years from my father and others employed in that industry, the gas price should have been much higher than it was back in 2000. Now we might be slightly higher than we should be, but we are closer to what it's supposed to be. Or at least that is what I hear. Of course, I don't complain about gas prices myself. I drive sparingly and use a very fuel efficient car.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't know why I bother. Its not like he actually makes legitimate arguments or engages in real discussion or debate. When are people like him going to realize that acting in this manner is a real turnoff to those that are neutral or moderate? When am I going to give up trying to help people like him be more effective at convincing people especially when they're the opposition?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, remember when President Bush tried to get an energy bill passed when he first got in office because he foresaw this. Gee….. go figure. So we should blame Bush since he tried to do something about it but liberals blocked him. Ok. Sounds reasonable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: From what I had heard for the last five or six years from my father and others employed in that industry, the gas price should have been much higher than it was back in 2000.
I'm sure to people in that particular industry, the gas price is never high enough. Posted by LordRahl (Member # 8512) on :
Well I am wondering why our Most Esteemed & Generous President George W. Bush did not put on the Energy bill any thing to lower demand for oil.
What we need is a bill to be passed that set a standard for more fuel efficient engines and also does research into non-fossil fuel burning engines.
Let's see what Demosthenis and Locke have to say on the issue.
Conservatives please don't slaughter me... just giving an opinion... thank you for you cooperation.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
What gets me is that the price of oil is (allegedly) coming down, but the price of gas is still rising. Sure, maybe we're waiting for the effect to trickle down, but then why is it that as soon as an oil increase is announced, the gas prices surge? To me, this feels like price gouging, and it also needs to be stopped.
Today's price at my same gas station that I've been posting about throughout the Gas Prices Near You thread - 2.83. Yesterday's price - 2.74. When the thread bumped, I believe it was at 2.45 or so.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"So we should blame Bush since he tried to do something about it but liberals blocked him. Ok. Sounds reasonable."
I think the argument the liberal used was that Bush's energy bill would not have worked. If thats the case then i dont fault them for opposing the bill. Ive looked at the energy bill he tried to pass and I looked at the one that passed and I dont think either would have worked. And I dont think that you can say "well we should have given it a chance" because of one reason. What would happen to a doctor who gave randomn medication to a patient to try and help them, even though they did not know what was wrong with that patient. In essence, they were just throwing medications at the patient. He would be blamed and possibly fired. He would, at the least, face a considerable amount of criticism. One other thing, Bush has had a republican congress and senate and has failed to do anything about rising gas prices. Thus, I dont fault anyone who is angry that a man, who has recieved contributions from many oil companies, has failed to help lower prices which hurt them and help oil companies. It certainly looks like a conflict of interest, whether or not it is. It is, of course, the old political quandry, the battle between what something is and what it looks like. Until Bush overcomes the latter objection, the critiques he faces about rising oil prices are valid and the blame is wholly his.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: From what I had heard for the last five or six years from my father and others employed in that industry, the gas price should have been much higher than it was back in 2000.
I'm sure to people in that particular industry, the gas price is never high enough.
I'll take the smilie face to mean you didn't mean any harm or anything, but I'd still like to bring up a point. The people I am referring to (my father and the others) aren't the people who would be profitting from the high gas prices. In fact, they are the ones complaining because they are getting overlooked and underpaid for what they are doing. So any money from higher prices wouldn't be going in their direction.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Maybe if gas prices keep going up the public will get annoyed enough to actually start supporting alternative forms of energy. But maybe I'm just dreaming.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Maybe if gas prices keep going up the public will get annoyed enough to actually start supporting alternative forms of energy. But maybe I'm just dreaming.
Ideally, yes. That's how the free market works, anyway. A high price, or perceived high price that is sustained for long enough will cause a majority of people to look elsewhere or demand that an alternative be provided.
Altnernative energy sources won't work practically until a majority of people want them AND want to use them. Right now, a majority of the market doesn't want to move away from oil and gasoline because those are still the easiest and cheapest relative to other souces.
Alternative sources won't be used until there is a big regular demand. I don't mean the environmental desire to use them now. I mean when alternatives become as practical and as cheap as oil. That won't happen until there is a large enough demand to justify such a general mass supply. Until then alternatives will be essentially a niche market, even though many are quite large now.
I know that it seems that I have introduced a paradox here. We won't get the demand until there is a supply, and we won't get the supply until there is a demand. But the market almost always works to satisfy a demand. People have wanted alternatives for years. Oil companies are finally getting to that. Governments are attempting to fund research, and do other things that governments love to do to keep getting elected or stay in power. But I digress.
I really don't see any of this happening for a while. Despite our "shrinking supplies", there is plenty of crude oil to satisfy the world market for a while. This is tragic, really because use of crude oil really is damaging to Earth. The degree is debatable, and I won't attempt that here for fear of my head.
My point is, alternatives won't be practical until we really, really want them for everyday use.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Get a Prius. Awesome cars. I rented one (don't have the $ to buy one yet) and drove from Salt Lake to Provo and back and didn't even use a gallon of gas. Show those gas companies what we think of oil and gas! Or better yet, move so you can take a bike or bus to work and don't even drive.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Well I am wondering why our Most Esteemed & Generous President George W. Bush did not put on the Energy bill any thing to lower demand for oil.
Did someone actually make that statement? Seriously?
Yes I agree President Bush should have made part of the American bill the requirement for China (only ONE of the countries to have consumption/demand raise at unheard of levels the last few years due to their very small population of course) to lower it's consumption and also include in the bill a clause requiring all other countries we import from to build NEW factories (at their expense of course) and to have them online within 6 months. Oh yes, he should also be pumping that Iraqi oil to the US instead of to it's neighbors. How dare they, it's not theirs, it's our oil. Liberators? Hhahahaha suckers! We just want your oil!
Oh and he should have warned the world that if they don't follow the demands of our American bill and lower their consumption that we're going to cut off our regulated opium supply from Afghanistan, except to our heroin hippies here in the US, you'll still get your fix CHUM! AHHhhhhh that's better.
Now back to reality. There's not any less oil flowing into the market due to ANYTHING President Bush has done besides the oil consumed during War (beginning with Afghanistan which is where all our Iraqi boys would be if they weren't in Iraq, just to kill that argument before someone attempts it), which the largest part was used during the initial invasion and everthing since then is of course slightly higher.
I think the blame for prices at home are spread pretty evenly over everyone and every party.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Get a Prius. Awesome cars.
A guy at my work drives one. Good idea, but it only delays the inevitable. Switching from fossil fuels.
I'm a hardline when it comes to Gas. If I was pres. I'd make a law requiring all consumer cars to be hybrids in 5 years, all commercial vehicles in 10 years and all automobiles to be fossil fuel free by 20 years.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't think that plan is realistic enough time-wise, CStroman. I mean I agree with you that there needs to be a shift, but it's going to have to be gradual.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't think you have to mandate that cars be hybrids, but if you mandated increasingly tougher fuel efficiency standards, car companies would be forced to turn to hybrid or alternative fuel technology in order to comply.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I find it tough to feel bad for Americans about this when they still enjoy some of, if not the lowest oil prices in the world.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: If I was pres. I'd make a law requiring all consumer cars to be hybrids in 5 years, all commercial vehicles in 10 years and all automobiles to be fossil fuel free by 20 years.
I agree. But something like that could never happen. Too much money to be made by too many powerful people by keeping things just like they are.
And are consumers really upset by the prices? How many people have changed their behavior? (other than to complain more) How many trucks and RV's drive out every weekend towing boats, dirt bikes, or 4 wheelers? I like to have fun too, but it comes at a price and we are all putting it on our "Terra" debit cards and we don't have the money to pay it off.
I think eventually the gas will simply run out and it will all hit the fan and life as we know it will radically change. There wont be any 5 years to get ready. People wont be able to get to their jobs and will have to move so they can take alternative (electric) transporation, walk, bike, they will have to take jobs near their homes, or work at home. Mom and pop corner stores will make a comeback... and freeway fatalities will fall and road rage will vanish, and everyone will quit being so busy because they have 2 extra hours in the day that they use to spend driving, and we will be happy people again. Hahaha. Not likely, but it is fun to write.
Oh, I'm not an environmentalist. But I drive as little as I can, I ride my bike to work when I can, and work is only 4 miles away, so I am lucky enough to say I can ride. And when I buy my next car, it will be a hybrid.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Bob - there are actually a number of countries that get much better gas prices than we do.
As of March of 2005 (yes, I know it's outdated...), assuming a car that gets 35 miles/gallon, $20 of gas would let you travel:
Germany: 127 miles
Japan: 147 miles
United States: 342 miles
China: 385 miles
Saudi Arabia: 771 miles
Venezuela: 4,624 miles
That's from the March/April issue of Foreign Policy, courtesy of marginalrevolution.com.
Now, even if US gas prices have been skyrocketing relative to other countries since March(which is probably not true - I'd assume most other countries are also seeing the price rise as demand increases), I really doubt that we've got as cheap as gas as in Venezuela. I'd be willing to bet that gas is cheaper in China still, as well. This isn't the full list, clearly, but there are probably a good number of countries between the US and Venezuela, in terms of gas price.
Edit: I'd have to disagree that the s*** is very suddenly going to hit the fan, if only because different oil supplies will run out at different times. Supply will slowly decrease, prices will rise, and people will start making life-style changes before all the oil is gone.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: To be fair, it's not all Bush's fault.
We agree totally, 100%.
It's not his fault, the current situation is do to a million factors that date back to the beginning of civilization.
What Bush is responsible for is the fact that he sold America that he was the Best Man in America for the Job, Leadership, and Power of The President of the United States of America.
What Bush is responsible for is all of the actions and ideas and ideals he has sold or given or forced on this nation and the world from 2000 to 2005.
quote: Demand for oil is growing at a very fast pace throughout the world
Also true. The Demand grows greater as the Supply lessens. Oil is a finite resource. it will eventually run out.
We knew this in the 70's when Jimmy Carter was struck down by the Oil crisis.
The America Government should have turned it's energies to finding the best solution, and from now on, every second they do not do EVERYTHING they can to find the best solution possible, is a crime against humanity.
quote: We need to decrease demand.
We must decrease demand and come up with great new technologies.
Bush is a lousy leader for selling that he has a GREAT PLAN, and THE BEST PLAN, when the plan he and "his people" have is blindly foolish at best and very evil at worst.
Bush and "his people" have profited GREATLY from the Energy Crisis. They have profited more from oil and energy with wealth and power than 99.9% of all living beings.
Enron? HELLO!
MUTHER FREAKING ENRON
Enron BANKROLLED George W. Bush's run as a National American Politican. True.
Halliburton? HELLO!
MUTHER FREAKING HALLIBURTON
Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, and still owns $440,000 shares of Halliburton stock.
Exxon Mobil was the #2 election bankroller in his 2004 campaign.
Jesus says, "You cannot serve two masters."
You REALLY think Bush believes he is putting forth the BEST energy plan possible for America and the world's next 100 years???
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Rove Incorporated's energy plan makes them and their party wealthy and powerful, and it sucks for us lowering our quality of life.
quote: he's not helping us find a long-term viable solution.
Agreed.
quote: Yeah, gas prices are going up and what makes you think they would be any lower if Kerry was elected?
Kerry was a piss-poor choice for President. He would have been highly ineffective as president. Kerry and Bush representing both sides of America is a sad reflection upon the last generation's cream of the crop.
We should have better leaders than these men. My heart tells me that Al Gore would have been a better modern president than George Bush #1 or 2, or Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton. Al Gore is a cool, smart, kind American. And he FOR SURE would have had a much better energy plan that George W. Bush, who's Vice President LAUGHED at conservation.
Al Gore would have been a great innovator and cheerleader for the push for greater, newer, cleaner source of energy.
quote: Besides haven't you told us a thousand times that we fought that war in Iraq for the oil?
I have stated many times that I do believe the Iraqi War had more to do with Oil than Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Facts back me up considering we found ZERO weapons of Mass Destrution and we now control their oil until further notice.
I think the war in Iraq is being faught for many, many reasons, one of the main reasons being an American Stronghold/Base in the middle east.
Bush controls Babylon.
He admits he loves power.
Is he the Great Maitreya?
Does he deserve the power to control Babylon?
quote: I don't know why I bother.
Because you care about America, Our future, and you feel strongly about your beliefs.
quote:Its not like he actually makes legitimate arguments or engages in real discussion or debate.
Many many many times when I actually pour my heart into a Hatrackian Thread, the issue i would like to discuss gets totally derailed. So I try to keep my heartfelt attempts at good discussion about passionate important American issues up as much as possible, and many days it is hard to get so inspired.
quote:Its not like he actually makes legitimate arguments or engages in real discussion or debate.
Bush Incorporated's Energy plan sucks shit.
That's my agruement.
Their Energy Plan makes them Wealthy and Powerful and worsens our future by offering us no real plan at all. They fill their coffers and the situation gets worse. They enjoy the power it give them.
That's my arguement.
quote: When are people like him going to realize that acting in this manner is a real turnoff to those that are neutral or moderate?
I can only speak what I believe. I cannot worry about turning on or off people.
If stating the Truth turns people off or makes them run away, so be it.
quote: When am I going to give up trying to help people like him be more effective at convincing people especially when they're the opposition?
quote:especially when they're the opposition?
That is why you fail.
We are both Sons of God.
We are brothers.
quote:Yes, remember when President Bush tried to get an energy bill passed when he first got in office because he foresaw this. Gee….. go figure. So we should blame Bush since he tried to do something about it but liberals blocked him. Ok. Sounds reasonable.
"tried to get an energy bill passed"
And what fantastic ideas were in this bill that were not passed? What radical ideas about the future of Energy was not allowed to be born? What great gem was lost?
Bush just got an energy plan passed. It is heavy in Government Taxpayer Handouts straight to Oil and Energy companies, and it's filled with Political human Pork.
quote: To me, this feels like price gouging, and it also needs to be stopped.
Exactly. It is price gouging. And it isn't price gouging on Diamonds, or Baseball Tickets, or Chocolate or some luxury we can "live without. It's price gouging us on something 99% of American NEED in the current living era, something that Americans PAY just to get to WORK.
that's criminal.
and it sure ain't Christian or family values.
quote:Thus, I dont fault anyone who is angry that a man, who has recieved contributions from many oil companies, has failed to help lower prices which hurt them and help oil companies.
I agree. Well put.
quote: Maybe if gas prices keep going up the public will get annoyed enough to actually start supporting alternative forms of energy.
We HAVE to set our minds hearts and souls to finding new energies. When you find out you have cancer, how soon should you start to fight it?
quote: Right now, a majority of the market doesn't want to move away from oil and gasoline because those are still the easiest and cheapest relative to other souces.
The Market isn't a human being, it's a beast with a hunger to profit as much as possible.
It's like asking a Heroin Dealer to give up selling Heroin because it is bad for people, his response is going to be "it's good for me. gives me lots of money and it always gets me laid."
How can we act like "the market" gives a shit about humanity or the future?
quote: Alternative sources won't be used until there is a big regular demand. I don't mean the environmental desire to use them now. I mean when alternatives become as practical and as cheap as oil. That won't happen until there is a large enough demand to justify such a general mass supply
Imagine the day where Gas is $5.00 dollars a gallon and the minimum wage is still Five dollars. Or imagine the day oil runs out. If there is no plan, it's freaking mad max man eat man armegeddom.
We must do what is right, not what is easiest or most profitable.
quote: But the market almost always works to satisfy a demand.
Without a stable society there is no market. Allowing the Market to control society and civilization and governments could lead to a catastrophic destabilization.
quote:My point is, alternatives won't be practical until we really, really want them for everyday use.
My point is we need them now.
If we wait until we want them, we're fubar'd.
quote: Show those gas companies what we think of oil and gas!
They own our government, and have us the people buggered over a barrell, they don't care what we think.
quote: I think the blame for prices at home are spread pretty evenly over everyone and every party.
Are the contributions between the parties evenly spread out? I don't think so.
And to say that working americans who do not or have never worked in the oil or energy field or profited from their profits are equally to blame as the politicans and Corporate cronies is a total joke.
We are guilty of being apathetic and lazy, but we are not equal to those who gain wealth and power from the core of the crisis.
In closing.
Today I went to the pump to put gas in my truck, right before I went to work, the price had jumped a whole dime from yesterday, and a total of .40 cents in a month.
My electricity bill is almost HALF my rent, and me and my roommate are doing everything we can to conserve energy and keep the air conditioning off when possible. (we live in houston, it is the summer)
The ONLY electric company I have to choose from is price gouging me, AND they just got ordered to pay an $800 million dollar fine for Pricing Gouging California during the energy crisis of 2001.
I get screwed and tattooed by a freaking criminal company that donates heavily to politicians local, state and national, they get to committ a crime scott free while recording record profits AND they get their name on the football stadium here.
This crap is driving me nuts.
I may have to single handidly separate Christianity from Capitalism.
Capitalism is evil and it owns our Gvernment.
If I were President, I would Socialize Energy.
We'd build as many Nuclear Power Plants as Needed and give Americans Eletricty for Business and home EXACTLY what it costs them.
The nuclear power plants would be heavily gaurded and protected at all times.
I would state a 1% tax on all goods, and the sum of those monies would go into finding a better alternative fuel to run the vehicles we NEED to get to work, and work so we can take them to play and adventure.
I would TOTALLY revamp the Political Campaign Contribtuion System, at NO TIMES would corporations have more control or influence than people.
Maybe this means giving all politicians equal funds and powers when running for office.
A election campaign salary cap.
I would ask Americans to Limit their ownership of SUV's to One per family.
I would require automakers to provide the most fuel efficient technology at their disposal.
These are my Ideas for a better future for all Americans.
I say this as a monetarily poor full time working man.
I say this with as much wisdom and empathy as I can under the Light of God.
<<<T>>>
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Just here to put in my two cents:
As much as people would like to blame Bush and his policies for the increase in the price of gas, I'm afraid it's just not that simple.
The price of oil is determined by supply and demand, that's true. The increase in the demand for oil across the globe is of course partially responsible for the steady increase in gas prices but it is far from being the only cause. What you're seeing here is international turmoil affecting your lives.
I may have mentioned in one of my first posts that I'm from Venezuela, one of the world largest oil producers and exporters. Here's a little link to fill you up on what's happened over there, economically:
Now, I don't think that link really explains the full reality of the situation over there. The country is in chaos and the economy is severely affected by it. The brain drain caused by Chavez's rise to power has left the country's oil industry in shambles, therefore giving way to the recession they discuss on that website.
I could go on and on about the situation over there (trust me, my family keeps me posted) but let me assure you that it's one of the many reasons for the increase in gas prices. When the supply of oil goes down the prices will go up. Oil in this day in age has become a necessity rather than a commodity, when one of the largest exporters of crude oil in the world (top ten) has internal struggles that affect it's capacity to produce and ship said product, the market is going to respond.
Bush can't really do much to stop the increase in gas prices. The U.S buys oil, they don't sell it. He could make an impact using internal policy but that still won't fix the problems faced internally by oil producing countries.
Bush is not the problem.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:China: 385 miles
Saudi Arabia: 771 miles
Venezuela: 4,624 miles
Look at which countries these are. The latter two are two of America's biggest oil suppliers along with Canada and Mexico. It's hardly surprising that gas is cheap in those countries. It also isn't too surprising that it's cheaper in China.
However, American drivers enjoy some of the lowest gas prices in the industrialized world. It's ironic that your prices are lower than Canada's considering we have one of the largest reserves in the world and are one of your biggest suppliers. Our gasoline taxes are higher than yours. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: I don't know why I bother. Its not like he actually makes legitimate arguments or engages in real discussion or debate. When are people like him going to realize that acting in this manner is a real turnoff to those that are neutral or moderate? When am I going to give up trying to help people like him be more effective at convincing people especially when they're the opposition?
So I guess you're not getting one of these t-shirts then?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
TSB, your post was so long and rambling that I have the patience and the time to reply to what you replied to my post.
quote:The Market isn't a human being, it's a beast with a hunger to profit as much as possible.
It's like asking a Heroin Dealer to give up selling Heroin because it is bad for people, his response is going to be "it's good for me. gives me lots of money and it always gets me laid."
How can we act like "the market" gives a shit about humanity or the future?
The market is all of us human beings and what we demand throughout our lives. You don't seem to understand this. You seem to think that "the market" is all of "them evil companies." When I say "the market demands" I don't mean we say we want it, I mean that we have both the means and the desire to want and need it. We can act like the market gives a shit because WE give a shit!
quote:Imagine the day where Gas is $5.00 dollars a gallon and the minimum wage is still Five dollars. Or imagine the day oil runs out. If there is no plan, it's freaking mad max man eat man armegeddom.
We must do what is right, not what is easiest or most profitable.
When oil runs out, we will have already been working towards new energy sources. It's happening now. Most people know that oil won't last forever, so people are working to get something new. I think when we run out, which may not be for another 150 years for all we know, we will be ready, or nearly ready because of the work of thousands of people who did all they could to get new sources up. I know it sounds way to optimistic to be real, but many good people are working, and in the long run they will come out on top because a large majority of the rest of us want them to succeed and are actively supporting them. Many even have our money.
quote:Without a stable society there is no market. Allowing the Market to control society and civilization and governments could lead to a catastrophic destabilization.
Again, the market is US as human beings. We are society. So therefore we control the market, not the other way around.
quote:My point is we need them now.
If we wait until we want them, we're fubar'd.
That's what I said!
quote:I really don't see any of this happening for a while. Despite our "shrinking supplies", there is plenty of crude oil to satisfy the world market for a while. This is tragic, really because use of crude oil really is damaging to Earth. The degree is debatable, and I won't attempt that here for fear of my head.
We can't accept alternatives practically until we are prepared to have them for everyday use. We just aren't and it has nothing to do with oil companies. It has to do with our desire for cheap and easy energy. I didn't say it was right! But it's better to wait for a little bit for alternatives to work practically rather than have them forced upon us by well-meaning dictatorial fools because when when things are forced upon human beings, we tend to act to the opposite of the intended effect. That would be the Mad Max Scenario.
I will continue to stick with what I said. Alternatives will not be practical until we have both the means and the desire to want and need them. Right or wrong, it's true.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude We are screwed when peak oil ensues. Which it already has. Frightening. Civilization could end. Unless folks could try to do something different.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Thor, you might not need baseball... Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
quote: Most people know that oil won't last forever, so people are working to get something new. I think when we run out, which may not be for another 150 years for all we know...
Won't mass environmental chaos ensue from global warming in less than 40 years time from now though? (At the rate we are emitting harmful gas byproducts and not convincing the public to make the switch to the very limited choices we have for more Earth-friendly fuel sources). We (humans) are not putting the time, effort, or money into supporting and developing new, healthy technologies that will become needed in the next couple decades. I don't think it’s a matter of how much longer will oil supplies last us, but how much longer will the environment be able to take the beating that it has from the increase in temperature occurring globally, rising year after year. A change in our habits can only happen gradually, and the sooner we pursue that fact with more enthusiasm, the better. There is only so much time left before the environment will be in such a downward spiral that it cannot pull itself out, and the technology we have will not be sufficient at slowing this down to allow for new technology to be developed. Even if today, the government started an aggressive project (think Manhattan) to develop new cheap, environmentally sound technology that could be put into use publicly. Even IF something like this happened, and in 2 years we have a grand solution, it would take a long time for it to be put into effect. Car companies, factories, gas stations, all of that would have to change, AND the public would have to accept it, and use it.
I'm not quite sure what point we are trying to reach in this thread though. It seems as if this thread was started just to argue about who to blame for the problems faced in the world right now, with the intention of most of it going to George W. I don't see what we are accomplishing. This seems to me to be the work of the Unmaker. (I'm almost done reading Alvin Journeyman)
Posted by Joseph Stalin (Member # 8514) on :
"When we hang the capitalist he will sell us the rope we hang him with"- Me
America's consumption of energy is indeed the direct fault of not only Bush but every single President since the start of the cold war for you see as the world was beginning to divide into 2 camps America needed a weapon in which to fight Communism and 2 weapons became availiable, Liberty and Affluence.
If use use Liberty there is no shield, no counter attack, no means in which Liberty could be destroyed and if the enemy in order to defeat you had to use Liberty themselves then you have won and there is no cause for conflict, however instead you used affluence.
America bent its efforts into making sure that they had to have the highest living standards and to do that you have to encourage your citizens to consume, and inorder to supply this rapidly increasing demand the oil industries had to be given a say in policy inorder ot ensure that they grow fast enough to supply the demand, also the huge amount of wealth that America had was when it wasn't used ot increase your own living standards was put into use in other countries.
You rebuilt West Berlin and made it a jewel when you knew that the USSR couldn't do the same, you used your wealth to fund military coup d'etates to ensure that Communism wouldn't encroch on the Manroe Doctrine, you invested BILLIONS to ensure that not only you had one of the best equiped armies but also made sure you had one of the most comfortable armies, you didn't just walk or hop onto a truck you helicoptered, you flew you developed one of the most effective airforces in the world.
So when your troops were defeated in Korea and Vietnam your generals complained of overwhelming numbers, the enemy could just as easily complain about being overwhelmed by calories! And the result is that the Soviet Union by gaining their own affluence had gained enough influnce to get the PRC onto the Security Council, to force detent e with the West and to have built up a large enough of an Army and Strategic Rocket force to ensure that any conflict would be costly at best and suidcidal at worst.
Embrace Socialism! The capitalist overseers have taken control of your government and will try to do their best to ensure profit against public outcry, begin the North American Revolution! Worker's of the World Unite! Your have nothing to lose but your chains!
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
No, Hamson, it isn't the point we were trying to reach. I even said that I didn't want to address it for fear of my head, and also because I don't know much about environmental science.
You do make a good point. 40 Years may or may not be a worst case scenario. I don't know, and it seems a little overstated to me to give it such a short time, but that difference of opinion doesn't matter in this argument. I agree pretty much in full with what you said.
Joseph Stalin, thanks but no thanks about socialism. I prefer to be a self-made man. So, how's hell this time of year? Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
Stop complaining silverblue, all americans are tired of high gas prices, but it was inevitable, wether Bush or Kerry was elected it was going to happen.
Also, some high gas prices reside in state taxes. for instance, NJ just got a tax on gas, mabye you should start blaming your state government.
I think it's getting pretty redonculous how people see something wrong that would have happend to this country and immediatly blame the president(not just in our times, but during for ever)
And thats why we want HYDROGEN CARS!!!! WOOOT!!!!
Posted by Joseph Stalin (Member # 8514) on :
Religion is the opiate of the People, hell doesn't exist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Capitalism = evil = LOL
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Gas price comparison Gas Prices vs ?
People have been complaining about the rising price of gasoline recently, but I have always thought that gas was a good value (especially if you were to take the $0.30, $0.40 per gallon tax off at the pump)! Obviously others need a little convincing. So the article in this week's "Autoweek" magazine brought it all to light. What if you were to buy a gallon of . . .
- Diet Snapple 16 oz for $1.29 = $10.32 per gallon
- Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz for $1.19 = $9.52 per gallon
- Gatorade 20 oz for $1.59 = $10.17 per gallon
- Ocean Spray 16 oz for $1.25 = $10.00 per gallon
- Quart of Milk 16 oz for $1.59 = $6.32 per gallon
- Evian (water) 9 oz for $1.49 = $21.19 per gallon
- STP Brake Fluid 12 oz for $3.15 = $33.60 per gallon
- Vicks Nyquil 6 oz for $8.35 = $178.13 per gallon
- Pepto Bismol 4 oz for $3.85 = $123.20 per gallon
- Whiteout 7 oz for $1.39 = $254.17 per gallon
- Scope 1.5 oz for $0.99 = $84.84 per gallon
So next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't run on Nyquil or Scope or Whiteout!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I don't think that's really revelant. If Pepto Bismol became unaffordable, the economy would still function just fine. But if gasoline becomes unaffordable, people can't get to their jobs, the costs of products rises (due to increased costs for transporting these goods) making inflation soar, and in general the economy does very poorly until we find a replacement. White out just doesn't have the same consequences.
On a personal note, I recently got rid of my car because I decided I just couldn't afford it anymore. Gas prices played no small part in that decision.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
I know that, this is just to put some perspective on things.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It doesn't really, though. I bet the bulk statistics for those same products would put almost all of them well below the cost of gas -- including their fancy packaging. After all, gas is bought in what would be bulk quantities for those things.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Exactly what fugu said.
Zarex, that's also an unfair comparison because the 16 oz price is heavily reliant on the price of packaging, not the fluid. For instance, a 16 oz bottle of Arizona green tea is $1.65, whereas a gallon of it is $5 - and is often on sale for $3.
Buying massive quantities always lowers the cost, because there's less packaging. A gallon of milk, for instance, will cost a lot less than buying 8 pints, or 16 half pints, in their individual cartons.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Naturally, but buying a gallon of milk- an endless resource- is still more than double the price of gasoline- a nonrenewable resource.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, you're paying for the additional inventory control, the additional shelf space taken up by individually packed items that aren't even bound together, the extra marketing for luxury consumer goods, et cetera.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, if you buy at full price. Buy when they've got milk on sale and it'll be less than a gallon of gas. Granted, its usually a loss leader in such a situation
And that's an individually packaged gallon of milk; imagine if you bought individually packaged gallons of gasoline. Gasoline is cheap in large part because its bulk. If they could ship milk in tanker trucks then dispense it into giant containers consumers had at the ready, the price of milk would be at least as low as the price of gas.
Not to mention that the price of milk has a very large constant price of production per unit, as there's a limit to how much each cow can produce.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
quote: - Vicks Nyquil 6 oz for $8.35 = $178.13 per gallon
- Pepto Bismol 4 oz for $3.85 = $123.20 per gallon
- Whiteout 7 oz for $1.39 = $254.17 per gallon
That can't be right.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Milk prices are pushed up by the supermarkets I hear. Farmers hardly see much profit... old second hand info, so take it with a grain of salt.
Also, you are paying for the gas used to get the milk from the farm to the grocery store. Which is why the price of everything will go up if the price of gas doesn't stabilize.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hamson:
quote: - Vicks Nyquil 6 oz for $8.35 = $178.13 per gallon
- Pepto Bismol 4 oz for $3.85 = $123.20 per gallon
- Whiteout 7 oz for $1.39 = $254.17 per gallon
That can't be right.
Yeah. White-out is 1.39 per ounce.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Okay...So people who complain about gas prices whine because it's expensive to drive a car and we should start conserving gas...Okay. Quit driving. That's conservation. I think if everyone who whined about gas prices and blamed it all on the government just stopped driving (Instead of being hypocritical about it) there wouldn't be a problem. It seems like everyone who does this wants to enact laws to govern companies. What are new laws and government action going to do? Nothing for the next few years. The recent energy bill that was passed took 5 years to make it through the labrynth known as the American government. The only thing that is going to actually have an affect is if enough people stop whining and start acting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The vehicle I drive gets over 100 mpg.
I feel perfectly comfortable driving it, particularly as I don't drive all that much (well, when school starts I'll drive more, but its still a relatively short commute).
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
Is it a moped, fugu?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, a Honda Metropolitan II
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Tehehe
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If you think gas is becoming unaffordable then I repeat what has already been said, be glad you live in the US and not Canada or Europe.
Yes, there are packaging costs for those other products, but they don't have to go through the same amount of refining and shipping that those other products do. Basically gasoline has its own equivalent to packaging that drives up the price and unlike those other products you can't compensate by buying in bulk.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
I think it is kind of funny, but he (?) is saving gas, and that is serious. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zarex: Naturally, but buying a gallon of milk- an endless resource- is still more than double the price of gasoline- a nonrenewable resource.
Milk is not exactly an endless resource. The cows gotta eat. No cow food, no milk. And dairy farms pollute the water and land (all that cow poo).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Naturally, but buying a gallon of milk- an endless resource- is still more than double the price of gasoline- a nonrenewable resource.
Here in Wisconsin, milk is $2.34 a gallon; gasoline is $2.69.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Here milk prices depend in large part on the grocery store. Two of our large chains (Jewel and Dominicks) are both being sued for price fixing because their prices are so much higher than everyone else - by as much as a full dollar more.
Regular price for 2% "generic" at Jewel and Dominick's is about 2.99; Dean's is even more expensive. Regular price "generic" at Cub and Meijer is about 2.59. But I can routinely buy Dean's brand at CVS pharmacy or at gas stations for 1.99, and Meijer frequently puts it on sale for 1.65 (typically advertised as 3 gallons for $5).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You know, probably the biggest mistake that many are making here is the assumption that most Americans can buy cars at a whim. Frankly, I don't care how many super-cool-gas-saving electric-running automobiles are available for purchase. I still can't afford a new car. At best I would be able to afford a used car. Guess what, that would end up being a gas guzzler.
I don't doubt that new cars are bought by a large number of people. However, I would first have to know how many people buy new cars vs those who don't within a five to ten year estimate. Its just not as easy as saying "buy a new car" as the assumption seems to be here.
I would love to buy a hybrid or even non-gas running vehicle. My guess is that a number of people woul love to, but simply can't. Buy me one and I promise to get off my need for gas.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think CStroman's idea, if I understand it correctly, would take care of that problem. If all new car's were REQUIRED to be hybrids, then after a few years there would be used hybrids that were affordable to the average person. Gas guzzlers would still be around for quite a while, but hybrids would slowly become the norm.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I've never owned a "new" car, and my current vehicle is 11 years old. And I went almost two years without a car at all before getting this one from my father.
So we could easily be looking at 10 years or more before non-hybrid vehicles are off the road. And then what are we going to do with all of the old cars that are being replaced? Filling more junkyards with cars that can't even be scavenged for parts?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So we could easily be looking at 10 years or more before non-hybrid vehicles are off the road.
I think it would be a lot longer than 10 years, but I don't see that as too horrible. Within ten years, hybrids would be the norm. If we tried for sudden change, it would be too costly for most Americans and probably cause the economy more harm than good. Gradual change seems more effective.
quote: And then what are we going to do with all of the old cars that are being replaced? Filling more junkyards with cars that can't even be scavenged for parts?
Whatever we do with cars that stop working now. And the only parts that couldn't be scavenged would be the engine and other fuel-specific parts.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
So long as people keep buying trucks, SUV's, Hummers and convertibles because they're cool or "tough" car manufacturers will keep making them.
I don't think forcing manufacturers to adopt hybrids is the answer. If a regulatory agency steps in and starts telling them what to do I can only foresee trouble, I also think that this whole issue will eventually end up resolving itself. People will get tired of paying so much for gas and slowly gravitate towards fuel efficiency and the market will respond by putting more fuel efficient cars on the market.
I'm really not so sure govt. intervention would help in this case.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
While I don't know that government intervention is necessary, I think it would be very helpful in this case. Hopefully, the issue will resolve itself. I'm certainly not pleading for more regulation. But my fear is that nothing significant will be done until after our economy starts collapsing. I'd much prefer that we averted the danger.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Start with smaller steps. Everyone here is talking about technologies that won't be mainstream or affordable for at Least 20 years.
Step One: Get the government to announce there is a problem, and get them to commit to solving it.
Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
Step Two: Use the tools we have.
We currently have the ability to create mass amounts of energy through renewable resources, but we choose not to. Yes, it's more expensive, bite the bullet. If you don't pay the higher price now, it will never get cheaper in the future. So swallow that realization, we'll have to pay for it, but it's an investment, both in our environmental, and defense future. So short term plan, is to use the tools we have, we have hybrids, so build more and sell more hybrids. We have solar power, built more cells, create more jobs, sell more solar panels. The price drops, innovations lead to better PVC, and that's the future.
Step Three: Innovate.
Step two will make step three a lot easier. Also, by the time step four comes about, it will be a much easier transition once step two is in place.
Step Four: Energy Revolution.
Once we innovate and get the technology, we make the switch to new 21st century forms of power, whatever they may be. Hydrogen, fusion power plants, mass transportation with mag-lev trains, whatever. But this way, we can spread out over a 30 year period the money we will have to spend, and won't be as badly in debt by the time the revolution is at hand. Also, people will be weaned off of fossil fuels, it won't be some massive switchover that freaks out a lot of people.
I don't think the movement is going to get as far, as fast as they want without setting attainable short term goals, steps, to success. "Get an energy plan that works!" sounds really great, but then what? You haven't even gotten everyone to acknowledge that we NEED a new energy plan that works.
Anyway, after much thought, I think that is the best, national policy the environmental movement could take.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
The only fact is that climate change is happening, it is not an established fact that human activities have anything to do with it. There is still much to debate about regarding climate change.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Even so, the argument goes beyond global climate change. Is there any argument at all that the air quality in America is poor? That those living in industrialized cities have higher rates of lung cancer than those living in rural areas? GCC is important, but if it's the sticking point, let it go. There are plenty of other arguments that can be used to get America to steps 2-4.
Freeing America from oil gives us incredible independence and safety. It could make America an energy exporter, rather than resource importer. It will create jobs. It will bolster America's image in the world as a leader. It will reestablish some of our moral superiority, which we like to claim anyway, but makes us all that more resented around the world.
The reasons are there. Our leaders just need to stand up, say them all out loud, and make it a national priority. This isn't about fringe environmentalists, or teams of scientists. This is a matter of national security, just as important as terrorism, and in the long run more important.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
"This isn't about fringe environmentalists, or teams of scientists. This is a matter of national security, just as important as terrorism, and in the long run more important."
I agree! Well, calling it national security isn't much of a slogan though because it is too vague of an idea. But I agree with it, our dependence on gas has funded terrorism. And in computer security terms, why would we be so silly as to have such a weak single point of failure. Take out fuel and what do you know, nobody in cities will be able to eat because the trucks can't bring in the food or other resources we need.
And climate change or not, bad air quality and stupid gas prices and Middle East dependence are reasons enough to get government involved in moving technology ahead. Places like LA have already stepped in (because of air quality).
If we really wanted to be intelligent on this, we would study what LA has done. Being lazy, I'll just spin off what is on the top of my head, which probably is ludicrous, but I'm not really caring much right now...
Car makers pop out gas guzzlers because the public demands them and making fuel economic cars just isn't very profitable. Well, the government can get involved and make it profitable. Subsidize hybrid cars!
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Has anyone here read the book RingWorld, by I forget-who-wrote-it. In that book there is an interesting alien named Nessus. Nessus describes the economic and environmental problems of his civilization. One of the most interesting statements by Nessus is that the waste product of any civilization is heat. He goes on to claim that no intelligent civilization can live in a world and not change its environment. I thought that it was extremely interesting, especially since it was written far before global warming.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
How would subsidizing hybrids help? All that might do is let automakers build cars that no one will buy. It might let automakers get a profit, but at the expense of our taxes and without a majority consent. If automakers are going to get a profit on hybrids, then it should be through our direct purchase of them.
And since when did private companies deserve subsidies? They are a waste, and they encourage overproduction of an unused product.
This brings up another problem, though. How does a majority of the public come around to buying enough hybrids to make them profitable? Through peer pressure. If it becomes a niche trend, then people will begin buying hybrids in larger quantities, especially when they see that they can spend money that they saved on gas on other things. That's what it will come down to, too. People will definately want to help the environment, but it usually comes down to income decisions.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
WHOOO GEORGE DUBYA!!!!
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Subsidize hybrids to make them cheaper so more people buy them.
Just an idea anyway. I don't really feel that strongly about hybrids. I just think they are cool and want one and wont be able to afford one for a long time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Reader:
First, even if hybrids existed in a vacuum, subsidization would enable automakers to produce cars at a lower price, which would lead to increased sales, though it would also lead to a surplus due to the supply curve being messed with a little. So that's something more than letting carmakers build cars no one will buy, right there.
Second, hybrids do not exist in a vacuum. For many people they constitute a near-substitute good to other vehicles. Even assuming consumers will choose between vehicles based purely on price (when for many consumers there will be a preference towards hybrids, and for some a preference against), if the government can bring the price of the hybrid down to a price-competitive point with other automobiles, sales of hybrids will skyrocket.
Private companies deserve subsidies to serve the appropriate (meaning largely relating to safety, security, and stability) aims of the government, largely due to externalities which are beyond the capability of the market to adjust to. For instance, the EU chose long ago that it was important (for reasons relating to war) for each country to be self-sufficient in agriculture. The free market will almost certainly not lead to this, so instead a system of subsidies is in place to ensure sufficient incentive to produce for local farmers. There are now other externalities greatly influencing it as well; for instance, CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) subsidies are often seen as payoffs to member countries for integration.
There are other instances where subsidies might be appropriate due to externalities . . . such as where it is in a country's best interest to reduce dependence on oil, even if market pressures keep it advantageous for consumers to buy high gas consumption vehicles (absent subsidies).
Much as some might like to make it some, economics is not a moral science. There is nothing immoral about subsidies, they just lead to certain inefficiencies. This is a cost societies which use subsidies should be aware of, but it is one many are willing to bear for aims which will not come about under the operation of free market economics.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
A year ago I put my car in the shop and rented a car. The car rental place offered me the hybrid for $25 more and I didn't want it. But the guy said it uses virtually no gas and it was a really COOL car. I'm a sucker for cool, so I got it.
It was cool. Everyone gave me envious looks. Oh, and it was quiet. No starter motor and no idling.
But more impressive was the millage. I drove at least 90 miles. They said to fill the car back up when I was done. So I drove to the gas station, put the nozzle in, pulled the handle, and "chug, clink!" It clicked off. I pulled the handle again, "chug, clink!" I thought I broke something, but I couldn't see anything wrong. Finally I looked at the dashboard and the gas meter said the tank was full. How could that be? My car goes down at least 1/4 a tank after 90 miles.
Now I'm feeling completely stupid for trying to put gas in a full tank, and I click the handle a few more times to see if I can get more than $.25 in the tank. I think I actually got it to $1 before I gave up and drove it back.
Before driving the hybrid, I couldn't care less about them. After driving hybrid, I want one TOO badly.
So I've paid attention to hybrids. They aren't all peaches and cream. They are a complete maintenance unknown. The only place you can have them repaired is the dealership. Non-dealerships don't have a clue how they work and wont touch them. There is also some question as to how long they will last. And every hybrid is different. There was a problem that hit the Prius where it would sometimes stall at freeway speeds. It didn't happen to me, but it happened enough to make it to the papers. I believe Toyota fixed it, but it goes to show that the hybrids aren't the status quo.
Anyway, I think it is a good idea to start adopting hybrids. Until a year ago, I don't even think consumers even had hybrid choices that made sense. Now I hear they are very popular. With or without government help, hybrids are cool and will make everyone happy. Hybrids are like iPods.
Perhaps everyone should just go rent one and see what I'm talking about.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
You make a good case, Fugu13. So, are the subsidies ended when hybrids become common and competetively priced? Subsidies are hard to end on a bureaucratic level when they become unnecessary and counterproductive. That really isn't the point, though. What I want to know is, should they be the only option? Are they the only option? If they work, then that's good, but often subsidies end up being a political payoff rather than sound economic policy. This is what I'm afraid would happen, and that's why I'm not fond of the idea of subsidizing hybrids.
Your case is good, but can it work? I'm not criticizing you, but I just want to know if it can work as you say. Honestly, I don't think free market economics can work to the same end either because that would make us rely on foreign oil, and all oil, for a long time. That is dangerous. (I might be introducing a point counter to what I said before, but I was dealing with an ideal scenario, which rarely happens. Please call me on it if it is a real contradiction. I hate those, and I'll try to fix it.)
I can't solve the problem, I just think that there must be more options than subsidies and completetly free market economics, and the possibilties haven't been adequately explored.
Edit: I might rent a hybrid, because I think they are kind of cool, too.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know whether its the right policy; I suspect its better to target fuel economy than the means for achieving that end, both in terms of economic support and in terms of regulation (for instance, get rid of the SUV loophole -- sure, drive an SUV if you want, but there should be a pretty decent minimal fuel economy required for new ones).
Also, subsidies are hardly the opposite of free market economics, they're just inefficiencies in a still generally free market (as we practice them).
They are politically frought because of their tendency to stay around past need, that's part of the cost that needs to be included if one is making a policy decision to implement one.
There isn't an easy answer, what's needed is to do careful analysis of the options and weigh likely outcomes using sound economic and policy thought.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm sure to people in that particular industry, the gas price is never high enough. [Smile]
My father worked in that industry for his entire career.
Higher gas prices didn't help out the people in that industry at all.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
quote: Has anyone here read the book RingWorld, by I forget-who-wrote-it.
Ursula LeGuin? It's on my list of books to read. (not school related)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ringworld was written by Larry Niven.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
If you like free markets, then higher gas prices are good. It encourages conservation, development of alternatives and better reflects the macro costs of using a substance that creates environmental waste.
At about $75/barrel the Alberta Oil Sands kick into high gear unlocking the world's largest reserve as a virtually domestic supply.
Sounds cheaper than pouring all that military money into the middle east all the time...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought the technology didn't exist yet to make that oil sand stuff competitive. I was under the impression that it was being worked on, a process to extract the oil in a more efficient way.
Subsidizing Hybrids is hard, at what point do you say "they are competitive now, we can stop helping them?" When you can make an Escape hybrid and an Escape for the same price? That'll never happen, the Hybrid has more parts, it will always cost more.
Subsidies can be messy, but the other route is tax incentives to the people who buy them. The problem with that, is getting the word out. How is someone going to know they can get $2,000 off their hybrid unless it's advertised, and that requires 1. Car companies to actually start advertising for hybrids like they do SUVs, and 2. for the government and private car companies to get a lot closer and work together. Either way, a lot has to change first.
The major roadblock for hybrids right now is price. If everyone in America could get a hyrbid vehicle version of the car they want to buy, I think the majority would choose to get it, so long as they didn't have to pay a lot more for it. And I think people are willing to pay more for it, but not too much more, not three or four thousand more for the car, that's almost another third of a second car. There won't be a surplus of cars that no one wants to buy, people will snap American made hybrids up all over the world.
It's all part of Step 2 =)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Everyone here is talking about technologies that won't be mainstream or affordable for at Least 20 years.
Toyota now makes the prius and a hybrid SUV, the Highlander. Lexus makes a luxury hybrid SUV and next year there will be a hybrid version of the Camry. Honda makes three hybrid versions of their cars. I'm pretty sure they are signigicantly more expensive than the regular models if at all. Hybrids are definitely affordable for most new car buyers and are becoming increasingly mainstream as they become availabe in more versions and different types of automobiles.
quote: Step One: Get the government to announce there is a problem, and get them to commit to solving it.
Bush still won't even admit that human exhaust is part of the cause of global climate change, or for that matter, that global climate change is even a problem. The first step to solving your problem is to admit you have it.
What does global climate change have to do with gas prices, granted that's a concern if humans have any control over it, but that wasn't part of the conversation at all. The problem that Bush has to "admit" to is that gas prices are getting out of control and that oil may not be around forever and I'm not so sure Bush has denied that to be a problem. I just don't think there's much Bush can personally do as president to combat either problem.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
1) Production viability at $75 per barrel means most of the oil produced will be burnt to provide the energy to get the oil out of the deposit. The Alberta fields are large only in the total amount in the ground; what can be gotten to the gas pump is small. 2) China has bought a couple of Canadian companies' holding drilling rights, partnered with a couple more, and is in negotiations with several others for either partnership or outright purchase. With China's ~$200billion trade surplus with the US, "Wal*Mart"Americans are essentially providing the money for China to purchase Canadian oil fields.
Federal subsidies for hybrids ends when 60thousand* vehicles are sold. Annual sales of new cars in the US are approaching 18million. ie When hybrid sales reach one out of three hundred new cars sold, there will be no subsidies for hybrids. Compare that to the federal subsidy for the purchase of Hummers, Navigators, limousines, and other automobiles weighing over 6000pounds, which essentially says "The taxpayer will buy the car for ya. All you hafta do is burn a LOT of gas." So basicly, it's cheaper for a business to buy a gas guzzler than an economy car over a six year period. How many company cars are kept for more than six years?
With the exception of the Prius, hybrid systems are not being used to maximize fuel economy, but rather to boost power: eg the HondaCivic hybrid goes from 0to60mph / 0to100kph a half second faster than the non-hybrid version of the same vehicle.
[ February 11, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
newfoundlogic
quote: Hybrids are definitely affordable for most new car buyers and are becoming increasingly mainstream as they become availabe in more versions and different types of automobiles.
Affordable? To who? Hybrids on average cost a couple thousand more than the non hybrid version of the same car. If there had been a hybrid version of my Focus I would have loved to get it, but never could have afforded another even 1,000 on the sticker price. Mainstream, yes they have the recognition they need, but affordibility is somewhat arbitrary when the median income in America hovers around 40K. Further, if you think the average household can afford a Lexus, regardless of hybrid or not, I don't know how firm your grasp is on the finances of even the slightly above average American right now.
In the other sense though, I guess I was referring more to future technologies like hydrogen power, and mass produced solar power, that kind of stuff.
quote: What does global climate change have to do with gas prices, granted that's a concern if humans have any control over it, but that wasn't part of the conversation at all. The problem that Bush has to "admit" to is that gas prices are getting out of control and that oil may not be around forever and I'm not so sure Bush has denied that to be a problem. I just don't think there's much Bush can personally do as president to combat either problem.
It's all interrelated. On a subject like this you need the widest possible range of reasons to start an aggressive, far reaching, and expensive campaign for chance. I was just tossing one more element into the mix. Gas prices are important yes, but that hasn't worked thus far to convince anyone to change the way we get energy, it has simply made many demand that we fidn more OIL. If someone won't accept gas prices, you try global climate change, if that doesn't work you try national security, if that doesn't work you try health concerns...and the list goes on.
Bush has repeatedly scoffed at conservation for the sake of conservation. His primary goal is to secure more oil to make American energy independent. That addresses our security issues, and in a dozen years will address our gas price issues, but does nothing for health concerns, and even at that, it's a short term solution even for the issues it does solve.
As for his personal power, there is much that he can do. People don't like the Iraq War and he spends a lot of time defending it. Many don't want Social Security changed, but he spends a lot of time out there defending it. Many don't like his Education Bill, but he spends a lot of time defending it. What's my point? Many many people want energy independence, they want conservation, they want lower gas prices, they want cleaner air, and they want to help the environment. Why does he spend so much time drawing national attention to things that the public clearly doesn't support when he could devote national attention and CONGRESSIONAL attention to something the majority of the population would like to see discussed and solved as quickly as possible.
His power to actually get something done is limited, that is Congress' domain. But his power to raise the level of debate, to call attention to an issue, and to force people to talk about it is immense. He is the leader of his party, and it wouldn't take much for him to make his party the party of energy independence.
Claiming he has no power to effect change in the price or gas is giving the President a convenient escape route from his duties. He can't snap his fingers and change it no, but he can start right now, right here (with Step One I might add) and proclaim this the centerpiece of his administration and declare the War on Fossil Fuels off and running. He can start the fight, or he can pass it off to the next President. But if he passes it off, it isn't because he doesn't have the power to change anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Among other things, the President has considerable power to get a large number of federal agencies to conserve energy.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Claiming he has no power to effect change in the price or gas is giving the President a convenient escape route from his duties. He can't snap his fingers and change it no, but he can start right now, right here (with Step One I might add) and proclaim this the centerpiece of his administration and declare the War on Fossil Fuels off and running. He can start the fight, or he can pass it off to the next President. But if he passes it off, it isn't because he doesn't have the power to change anything.
For the sake of our future as humans, this is something that needs done more than almost anything else. If he doesn't start it first, and he won't, then we as a people will have to go on to conservation on our own. Or wait until 2009.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:At about $75/barrel the Alberta Oil Sands kick into high gear unlocking the world's largest reserve as a virtually domestic supply.
Do you consider Mexico and Venezuela virtually domestic reserves? They're probably just about as close to an American border as the Alberta sands.
The American sense of entitlement to Canadian natural resources really does irk.
/derail
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A couple thousand balances out when you consider the money saved on gas long term. Honestly, if you couldn't afford to pay $1,000 more than you did, maybe you should consider being more conservative with your purchases.
quote: In the other sense though, I guess I was referring more to future technologies like hydrogen power, and mass produced solar power, that kind of stuff.
But that's not largely what was being discussed in the thread and you argued that other people were discussing technologies that were too far in the future.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The Honda Civic Hybrid costs under 20k for the manual transmission, and gets ~48MPG. I bought mine without the deduction (the car was technically used, though it only had 100 miles on it), and after haggling, and adding LoJack, extended warranty (due to previously mentioned maintenance unknowns) the car came out to about 21.5k. A similarly equipped non-hybrid Civic would cost about 2-3k less... And honestly if lots of people got regular Civics instead of the hybrid (or anything else), it would be nice to see.
However, I don't buy the argument that Hybrids are out of the range of normal Americans... Those large SUVs (which outnumber the hybrids even here, near the People's Republic of Cambridge) have to cost about the same.
EDIT: My last paragraph above is dealing with statistics, not individual cases.
-Bok
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peace keeping, NOT policing. DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation, AND THAT THE BEAVER IS A TRULY PROUD AND NOBLE ANIMAL. A TOQUE IS A HAT, A CHESTERFIELD IS A COUCH, AND IT IS PRONOUCED 'ZED' NOT 'ZEE', 'ZED'!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
1,000 dollars more would have added something like 30 dollars to my monthly payment, and I carefully budget my money, don't have a 30 dollar leeway. Irresponsible would have been buying a car I couldn't afford to begin with, like many teenagers do, rather than buying a less expensive, less cool car with good fuel economy. But that's neither here nor there.
I'll give that hybrids are certainly more affordable now than they were before. I'm not arguing against the purchasing or selling of hybrids, I'm advocating the selling and buying of hybrids. I just think we should make it as easy as possible to buy them. With gas prices being so high, it might more than balance out, the difference in price versus the savings in fuel, but not by a whole lot, it's more of an investment. Plus, repair bills are higher on hybrids, and you have to replace the batteries in the trunk every so often, and they aren't cheap. Those things must be taken into account.
quote: But that's not largely what was being discussed in the thread and you argued that other people were discussing technologies that were too far in the future.
Okay, no, it wasn't what was LARGELY being discussed here, but it was mentioned, and it has been mentioned at length in other threads on Hatrack. So sue me, I'm pulling it into the conversation. The conversation at many points in this thread has turned to how important energy conservation and the energy crisis is to America, and in that sense, future technologies is perfectly fitting within the context of that discussion. Thus, I don't feel I was that far out of line.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
At the risk of derailing, what about biodiesel? I've heard people say it's the wave of the future, in fact there is a biodiesel refinery being built right now in Alabama, and I've heard people say that if we made the switch to biodiesel we don't have enough acreage to grow enough soybeans to produce the amount Americans would need in their cars.
I don't know enough either way, but it sounds good - I mean, we already know how to make diesel engines, diesel engines that are already on the road can use biodiesel with no modification to the engine (so I've heard) and we certainly wouldn't be dependent on foreign sources for biodiesel raw materials, we have plenty of ability to grow crops in America.
So what's the deal on it? Are there downsides I haven't heard? Is it true we can't produce enough of it?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
All batteries on all hybrid models are covered for 8yr/80k or 8yr/100k warranty...
With the standard 3yr warranty, you'd have a while before any repairs cost anything directly out of pocket (though I got the extended warranty in order EDIT: to alleviate any possible worries about extra maintenance... Not that I've heard of any on the Civic Hybrid side, and some folks have 100k miles on them!).
As I said in my edit though, individual circumstances will override generalities, but hybrids aren't expensive, at least compared to the vehicles (SUVs) that people are actually buying in their stead.
Now, SUVs have their place, but IMO 90% of those buying them aren't using them for those reasons. Lest you all think I'm a rabid environmentalist whacko (really, I'm just a regular type whacko).
---
The biggest thing with diesel is that while it is as efficient as hybrid/gas vehicles, the emissions, particularly CO2 I think, are much worse than even conventional gas engines. CO and NOX emissions can be made fairly equivalent in any cases.
One lesser joy of owning my hybrid is that not only is it efficient, it's also a ULEV vehicle (SULEV in california).
-Bok, in the land of $2.60 gas prices (for regular)
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Some of y'all follow Bush as blindly as the al-quedians follow Osama Bin Laden.
Here's the Facts:
The #2 contributor to George W. Bush's re-election campaign was EXXON/MOBIL.
In the Last Quarter, during the Gas Crisis, EXXON/MOBIL recorded RECORD profits, 8.8 billion dollars of pure profit, a 35% increase over last year at this time.
Jesus Says "You cannot serve two masters."
How can you people HONESTLY say there is no conflict of interests here?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????
Fricking loons.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Come on.
I want someone to honestly explain to me how this isn't a direct conflict of interest?
Looks like Crisis and War profiteering to me.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I know your thread title is sarcastic, but believe it or not there are plently of people who do believe America deserves a pat on the back for electing and reelecting George W. Bush, so maybe you should consider spending more time figuring out why they would think that way and less time calling them "fricking loons." Just a thought.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bok -
Didn't know that about the Hybrid warranty on the batteries. Surely, compared to more expensive SUVs they are affordable yes. I agree with that.
Biodiesel isn't petroleum based regular diesel though. It burns much cleaner, and more than meets every regulation ordered by the Clean Air act, and thensome. It is made from vegetable oil, and can be used in most diesel engines with little to no modification. It is slightly more expensive than regular diesel, but the many advantages of using biodiesel make it preferable I think. Biodiesel could replace all diesel used in America one day, but that won't solve our entire problem, it will take care of the fleets of trucks carting goods across the country. That's certainly a vast improvement over the present though, and a good start.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:I know your thread title is sarcastic, but believe it or not there are plently of people who do believe America deserves a pat on the back for electing and reelecting George W. Bush, so maybe you should consider spending more time figuring out why they would think that way and less time calling them "fricking loons." Just a thought.
And risk an open debate? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I didn't realize calling the opposition "fricking loons" was a common characteristic of an open debate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Reader is implying that the hyperbole of "fricken loon" shields the speaker from the scrutiny of an actual open debate.
Rhetoric is a single edged sword. It shields you from the rigors of vigorous debate, and totally fails to bite back in the other direction.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I'm asking you loons to tell me HOW ON EARTH it's not a conflict of interest?????
Can you do that?????
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Yes, remember when President Bush tried to get an energy bill passed when he first got in office because he foresaw this. Gee….. go figure. So we should blame Bush since he tried to do something about it but liberals blocked him. Ok. Sounds reasonable.
Jay, his plan was crap, and would not have helped this at all, that is why it was blocked.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No Kwea, it was only blocked because Democrats are obstructionists, and don't any legislation passed.
At least the Energy Bill that ended up passing was at least somewhat bipartisan.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: I'm asking you loons to tell me HOW ON EARTH it's not a conflict of interest?????
Can you do that?????
I support Bush, and there are many things he has done I don't like. His administration blocked the break up of Microsoft. That is my biggest problem with him, he does support big business and in the case of MS, I'm really pissed off about it (still... <sigh>).
But honestly, after the leadership of Bill--fire off missiles only when threatened by impeachment--Clinton, I would rather take everything bad with Bush then risk what Kerry might do, or *not* do.
But ultimately, I support Bush because he is a good man and I trust him because of that. I think this is what his opposition hates most about him and tries to paint him as a big fraud and deceiver (how often have I heard that he lied/lies?). Sometimes the people throwing around all the accusations are the ones who are actually guilty.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've never caught Bush in a lie, but several high-up members of his administration have been.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
human -
Two things. One: Had Clinton not attacked when he did, he would have been lambasted by the right for being weak and not taking aggressive action. He was in a lose lose situation. And the firing of missiles or dropping of bombs did almost nothing to distract from the impeachment proceedings. Clinton was savvy enough to know it wouldn't detract from that, thus I think his decision to do so was less "wag the dog" and more good sense.
2. If you think his opposition hates Bush most becuase he is a good and honest man, you really don't understand his opposition much at all. I think he might be a good man, at heart, and I certainly don't dislike that about him, but as a President I don't think his good intentions manifest themselves very well. To paraphrase The West Wing, 'The voice of his better angels are being shouted down by his demons.'
I don't trust him at all. He has shown no capacity to learn from his mistakes, as he refuses to admit that he makes them. He hasn't been proven to have lied outright, but there is enough evidence against him, matched with his continually frail defense of his actions to prove to me that he isn't worthy of my trust.
I think it comes down to a Friends style Ross/Rachel "we were on a break" type argument. I guess this is a reference only Friends fans will understand, but it's the first thing that occurred to me. It didn't matter to Rachel whether or not they were on a break, what mattered to her was how she felt about Ross afterwards. Technicalities didn't erase the emotion. Thus, we relate it to Bush. I don't care if it turns out he lied, technically or not, about what he has done. If he hasn't lied, then that means his judgement is so awful he should never make another decision anyway. Which won't be much of a problem for him if he stays on vacation forever.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I just remember my feelings and thoughts when Clinton sent the bombs was that he was responding to the impeachment, not the terrorists.
Granted, who am I to trust my feelings and thoughts? I am not in much of a possition to judge what *really* happened because the amount of info I have is very limited. But I do trust those feelings and thoughts.
My comments were mainly to explain why I support Bush, not try to sway anyone because I certainly don't have the debate skills or enough information to be able to even put up a case for Bush.
About Bush's judgment. Again, I have seen enough about him to convince me he is a good man. To me a good man is more valuable than an ambitious, skilled, or smart one. Good men will try to do what is best for you. The other types might not. Do I think Bush's judgment is so bad it will do us more harm? No. And there is enough evidence to support that.
I could be wrong. Nothing is certain.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
See, the flaw I find with that theory is that I think there are plenty of good people out there, but I wouldn't vote for half of them, because they aren't qualified. Yes, good men will attempt to do what they think is right, but they might not have the skill or smarts to know if what is right in principle is always best for his citizens in the long run.
It's not as simple as telling a child "the hard choice might be the right choice, and don't take the easy path." It's a great truism to teach children the basics of choosing right from wrong, but global politics and national defense are more complicated than a child deciding whether or not to tell on a friend who stole a candy bar.
Well not always, sometimes they are exactly that easy. But regarding decisions this President has made, most of them have been more complex than that, and have led to unforseen consequences.
Posted by Swede (Member # 7560) on :
When you are talking of gas prices, is it per gallon or per litre? In Sweden the gas is almost 12 swedish crowns a litre. a dollar is about 7 crowns and a gallon slightly more than 3 litres, if I remember correctly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Gallons for me. It just went down to 2.59 a gallon where I live.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: See, the flaw I find with that theory is that I think there are plenty of good people out there, but I wouldn't vote for half of them, because they aren't qualified.
Bush is qualified. As much as I don't want to admit it, Kerry is too. You don't run for office and not be qualified. I suppose it could happen... Either way, if you weren't qualified, it would become obvious after 4 years in office. I suppose if his staff were really skilled, they could cover up the president's lack. But is that what is going on?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd prefer someone who tried to understand what I thought best and allow me to act in that way as much as possible than someone who thought he knew what was best for me and tried to bring that about. Guess which one Bush pretty clearly is?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I fail to see how Bush is qualified to be president considering the bungling he has done in every department.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, the qualifications for President have never been well-enumerated.
For instance, Bush's lack of ability to run a business well (even after several tries) and being able to do in at least some manner the 3rd most powerful public post in Texas seem little endorsement, but we've had comparably qualified Presidents before.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I love West Wing, I really do.
But it's a bit interesting that all the vast majority of good guys are Democrats, the majority of bad guys are either Republicans or nakedly ambititious Democrats, and the good guys usually end up with a clean conscience Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
RE: biodiesel emissions
I looked at some pro-biodiesel sites, and it appears that NOx/Hydrocarbon emissions are just as good as conventional gas (although all the comparisons are done with petroleum diesel, not gasoline), but they do some hand waving with CO2, claiming that the CO2 created by biodiesel is okay, because the plants use it up and then we harvest them for biodiesel... But using that rationale, we could just plant more trees and cut down on conventional gasoline's emissions. Or so it appears to me.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There've been plenty of good republicans on West Wing. Ainsley Hayes is probably the best example, and Vinnick, I can't remember the name of the character Matt Perry plays, but him too. Walken was seen as a little loopy, but in the end came off as a good guy. Mostly Congress is demonized on all sides in the West Wing, not just Republicans.
However, I agree there is an obvious pro-democratic tilt to the show, and Sorkin admitted it when he created the show. He said he wanted to create a sort of fantasy shadow government, as if to show how it could have gone if Democrats had been elected into power instead of Republicans. Many of the issues they faced on the show mirrored events being discussed in real life. After he left the show, the people who took over said that the real life election would effect the race between Vinnick and Santos.
As far as Bush being qualified, yes, I think it is extremely possible that he could have been elected twice and still be horribly unqualified, for the very reason that a large number of people vote based purely on the character (goodness, "trustworthiness") of the candidate and not his actual skill or accomplishments. That is precisely how he got elected the first and second time. And if his bungling of both domestic and foriegn affairs isn't proof enough, I don't know what is.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
if honestly was introduced into the system the system would collapse- George Carlin
EDIT: My opinion of this is that its funny not that I agree with it or not agree with it.
[ August 24, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Sid Meier ]
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Well, I don't know if he is qualified or not! On the issues I think are most important, I like the choices he has made.
I know that many don't like him. Oh well. I'll just be unpopular and unwanted. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you mind sharing which issues those are?
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:I think Reader is implying that the hyperbole of "fricken loon" shields the speaker from the scrutiny of an actual open debate.
Yep. When someone uses 45 question marks after an accusation, then all caps in another paragraph, and doesn't cite anything, that person isn't looking for an open debate. He is looking to shout down opposition with inflammatory rhetoric. My arguing skills aren't very good, but I won't argue like that.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
The war mainly. Inspite of how badly it is going, I feel it is necessary.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Ok.
Once again, allow me to simplify.
Exxon/Mobil was the #2 campaign contributor to George W. Bush's 2004 victory.
Last Quarter Exxon/Mobil posted a $8.8 billion dollar profit, a 35% increase of a year ago.
We are in an oil crisis.
Jesus Says "You cannot serve two masters."
How can Bush be loyal to both Exxon/Mobil and to the People of the United States?
How is this NOT a conflict of interest????
Can someone PLEASE address this point????
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, something which Kerry and many Democrats came out in support of. Do you have any decisions of his you like we can use to differentiate him from others?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Can someone PLEASE address this point????
No, and here are the reasons why:
1. In the past when I have tried to actually engage you in open debate you didn't bother making any responses, but instead repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims my favorite possibly being that 40% of Americans were in poverty. Where you pulled that number out of I haven't a clue, but you certainly never bothered to defend your analysis.
2. You repeatedly call people like me a "loon," even after I pointed out that it was foolish to do so.
3. You keep on quoting Jesus.
I'm Jewish
I don't like religion being used in a debate. If you can't back up your points without resorting to the supernatural then they are meaningless in the realm of a debate regarding the policies of a secular nation. In short, Jesus is not a valid source unless the debate involves religion, the Christian Bible, or Jesus.
4. You're clearly not open to anyone's opinion. You're like Cindy Sheehan demanding for the President to tell her why her son died when she's already stated that he died for oil and George Bush's friends.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Ah, something which Kerry and many Democrats came out in support of.
I thought Kerry's final claim on that subject was that he only voted to authorize the war as a last resort and Bush carried out the war before that was the case and therefore Kerry is actually against the war as it was carried out.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic:
quote: Can someone PLEASE address this point????
No, and here are the reasons why:
NFlogic, I don't think we probably agree much on politics, but I absolutely love that response. Just that first line gave me major giggles at work.
--Enigmatic
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Kerry's claim was that he thought the war was necessary based on the evidence presented him, that he thought it should have been started differently but still started (back when it was being considered), and that given current evidence of numerous administration deceptions he might have reconsidered those positions had he been in Bush's shoes, but he has no way of knowing now.
A remarkably consistent position compared to Bush's habit of opposing or ignoring something politically, not vetoing it (like he doesn't veto anything), then if it becomes popular claiming it as a success of his administration.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I've got a feeling human wouldn't agree with that interpretation of Kerry's position nor would the majority of people who voted for and against Kerry. I think even most people who voted for Kerry will tell you the platform he ran on was anti-war.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He ran on an anti-how-the-war-was-currently-being-run platform, certainly.
But he was quite upfront during the campaign about supporting the war, though with large reservations, before it started.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Neither here nor there, but I think you can quote Jesus without it necessarily being a resorting to using the supernatural. If there were a religion that surrounded Shakespeare, I don't think it would stop people from quoting him. The quote "you cannot serve two masters" may be rooted in religion, but it functions well on its own.
And Kerry's position on the war has been rather consistent. He voted to give Bush the power to use war as a bargaining tool, but Bush never went through all the steps Kerry thought should have been taken before using war as a last resort. As soon as those conditions were broken, Kerry became a vocal opponent of the war and its handling, which I think is consistent, and follows logically. Conservatives called him a flip flopper, whereas Bush is steadfast and resolute. I'd rather a flip flopper that knows when to adapt to a new situation, then a mule who won't change his position no matter how much the situation changes.
For the sake of wonder, why human, do you think the war was necessary?
And I'll settle the whole Exxon conflict of interest thing right now. Is it a conflict of interest? Yes. There, point addressed.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I included the Jesus thing in my list of reasons, because when people bring religion into a non-religious debate its usually a bad sign regardless of whether the quote independently was appropriate or whether the point expressed is correct in the first place. Besides that was just one out of four listed reasons and those were just the ones I felt like expressing at the time.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I am convinced the terrorists will kill us if we slack off the fight against them. We had 3 things against Iraq that (to me) justifies the war.
1). Saddam was not on full nation status with us because of the earlier war (which I admit was entirely for Oil reasons--how many times do we step in to stop African nations from stomping on their neighors). He surrendered. I'm not sure of the details, I just know it happened.
2). Saddam wasn't cooperating with the deals of his earlier surrender.
3). Iraq was a petri dish for terrorists. Sure, they weren't *our* terrorists, but it is like the war against terrorism had no where else to go, and because of reason 1 and 2 it was justified. And I do not buy the argument that we are causing more terrorism and death. I once had cockroaches in my house and you do not really know how many there are until you try to get rid of them. And I love this quote:
"When you make decisions for a world where killing is already going on, you ought not to then think that by intervening in the situation it is creating killing. Sometimes intervention is needed to stop the killing." Dr. Ravi Zacharias says concerning the war in Iraq.
I'm also aware that my opinion isn't the only one. I've given up freaking out over people having different opinions than mine. Most of my friends and coworkers disagree with me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll give you one and two, but not three. Terrorists thrive and multiply in Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but they didn't thrive in Iraq. Ideologically the terrorists that have plagued America in the past are far removed from Saddam. Other than supporting Palestinian terrorists, which arguably were never a threat to America before, Saddam never allowed or supported Al Qaeda knowingly. Al Qaeda was in fact an enemy of Saddam, as their ideological differences made them opponents rather than allies.
Was he a bad man? Yes. Was he failing to live up to obligations made from the previous war? Yes. Was he actively supporting anti-American terrorists? Possible, but doubtful. Did Iraq pose the biggest threat, terrorism wise, to America in the region? No.
And now we have removed the ideological difference between Iraq and terrorists, making it possible for Al Qaeda and other groups to recruit there. If we really wanted to wage war on terrorism, we would have attacked Syria, or most especially, Saudi Arabia. Iraq was the best military and politically viable target. Factoring in the reality that terrorism wasn't prevelant there before though, I don't think it was sensible at all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
1) the analogy to us and losing Vietnam after trying to stomp on someone else's region is almost funny.
2) We didn't expect him to. Also, this is a recurring theme in international relations, so its not like we should act all surprised.
3) Not hugely. We managed to find out about a few terrorist training camps, but as far as I know, even nowadays extremely few terrorists are exported from Iraq (nobody who's been known to be involved with any non-Iraq terrorist activity has been Iraqi, that I've seen). That may well change, though. But while Hussein gave some token gifts to families of terrorists to piss us off, and there were occasionally some terrorist camps in regions of Iraq he didn't even control, as pointed out if we wanted to go after the terrorists we had many countries higher on the list.
I even think Iraq needed to be taken on (again, just as John Kerry did, you haven't addressed that the war doesn't even differentiate Bush). But the case for it needed to be constructed on a solid foundation, unlike the stuff the Bush administration fed us (much of which was found to not only be laughable, but known to be either laughable or unreliable well before we invaded), and there needed to be a solid plan including for after the war, unlike the botched job the Bush administration did. They even had a pretty decent blueprint of how to avoid many of these problems, all made specially for them, and not paid attention to (see: The Future of Iraq plan from the State Department, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_pre-war_planning ).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:I'll give you one and two, but not three. Terrorists thrive and multiply in Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, but they didn't thrive in Iraq.
But you can't attack any of those countries because of the potential to pretty much wage war on every Muslim in the world by so doing.
Syria, Lebanon you CANNOT attack as the US with Israel being your ally in the area. I'll say it again, you CANNOT attack them while having Israel as your ally.
Saudi Arabia you CANNOT attack because that would in fact ignite every Muslim in the world to war against the United States for plainly obvious reasons.
If your aim is to militarily intervene in the Middle East to establish a democracy, you have Iraq and Iran.
You can't invade Iran because the whole country is united in their Hatred of the US and also the UN had at the time NO "ultimatum" resolutions that could even be used from which to base action.
Iraq you can because it was a country under the boot of a dictator the majority of people wanted removed and had attempted to do so in the past. They also had UN Resolutions to use as weight against them that basically said "Do this or else..." and the US determined the "or else" was invasion and removal from power.
I'm not agreeing with the methodology of WHY. But I can see how that target was selected.
And unfortunately our dependency on Foreign Oil has required us as a nation to take an interest in the stability of the region.
I'd much prefer we say screw it, let them kill each other, we'll give guns/money/support/trade to those fighting to establish a democracy akin to ours, but otherwise let's treat the M.E. with a "containment" policy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aye, that's the point I was making. The nations we needed to fix, weren't militarily or politically viable to attack, so we picked an almost non-existant evil, made it sound a whole lot worse than it really was, and moved on it.
quote:You can't invade Iran because the whole country is united in their Hatred of the US
This however isn't entirely true. The older crowd in Iran is very anti-US true, especially the old guard and the Mullahs. But the youth of Iran are surprisingly pro-US. We don't hear about it very often, but polling data shows that amount 16-25 year olds, the majority of that age group has a positive view on America, one of the highest in the region. They just can't do anything about it.
I tend to agree with supporting stable democracies, but playing third party nation builder has been disastrous in American history. Nation building in general has proven ineffective when the nation being built isn't asking for the help. Japan and Germany are exceptions to the rule only because we bombed them into the ground, and then helped them rebuild. Also, after the fall of the Empire in Japan, and the fall of Nazism in Germany, they were ready and waiting for democracy and our style of economics (though they both ended up going their own ways).
Iraq will be added to the same list as the Phillipines, and perhaps Cuba, though that never got off the ground, as a list of nations we thoroughly screwed up. I pray we actually learn our lesson this time
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Iraq will be added to the same list as the Phillipines, and perhaps Cuba, though that never got off the ground, as a list of nations we thoroughly screwed up. I pray we actually learn our lesson this time
I hope not, but that may be the case. We should leave if they can't meet the standards we put in place for them to meet in order for us to be there. We should also leave if they ask us to (the popular majority or the President/Prime Minister). We have been VERY open in Iraq in terms of them forming their own government. It may come back to bite us because what we THINK they want may not be what they end up really wanting. They are on the brink of forming a government with Islam as it's backbone (no problem there but what Version of Islam) and a reduced status of women's rights. I'm really torn if we should be pushing them to give women more rights or if we should continue to be so hands off in an "observer/security" type role.
I hope for the Iraqi's sake that they are able to continue to gain some backbone and self initiative towards what they want.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The version of the draft constitution being floated now is pretty good about women and about Islam's role in the country.
The problem is Federalism. The Kurds and Shiites want autonomy, whereas the Sunnis want one united country with no division into separate states. The Sunnis have the power to undo all of it, regardless of what the other two groups want. But I don't see the Kurds caving on Federalism. They've lived the last 10 years with virtual autonomy, why would they trade that to be ruled by the Sunnis who murdered them 15 years ago?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
And the only parts that couldn't be scavenged would be the engine and other fuel-specific parts.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)