No, history is not promising.
In a totalitarian state, it doesn't matter what people think, since the government can control people by force using a bludgeon. But when you can't control people by force, you have to control what people think, and the standard way to do this is via propaganda (manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusions), marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy of some fashion.
— Noam Chomsky
Dave
Is manipulation responsible for the skyrocketing price of oil?
by nvrgnbk 52 Replies latest jw friends
-
PrimateDave
-
sammielee24
In regards to the header question - YES. Turn on CSpan and watch the experts who are now testifying that in their opinion - 70% of the rise is speculation. sammieswife.
-
Indo_Dude
Could the falling dollar be responsible for the skyrocketing price of oil? Have you compared US currency to other currencies lately? It's dismal.
How much of the dollar's slide is directly attributable to the policies of this administration? Binging on borrowing and flooding the world market with IOUs instead of a balanced budget have helped create this in addition to huge new spending programs. Now as oil is at $125 a barrel, that means America is exporting an additional $ 639 billion of US Dollars overseas every year, thereby putting more pressure on the dollar to decline. Inflation, just as with Vietnam and the huge increase in spending of that time frame roared mightily. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out.
-
BurnTheShips
The flipside is that low gas taxes make us more sensitive to changes in the core price because a core price fluctuation expresses itself as a larger percentage of the consumer's final cost in a low tax environment. To the end consumer, the price is more volatile as a percentage. It seems painful but it more accurately communicates the cost of the resource. The problem with gas taxes (besides the fact that I have to pay them) is that they mask price signals. They are also horribly regressive. Another problem with a gas tax increase is that it makes the state dependent on the new source of income. We want less dependency, not more. The state then has an incentive to get as much gas sold as possible. The state becomes a player on the wrong side of the table. We can bark "tax credits" for alternative techs but that has given us ethanol, E85 Suburbans, and photovoltaic technology that isn't viable without the tax credits.
This is academic anyway. Taxes of more than a few dollars a gallon couldn't be sold even as strategic sacrifices to people, and the actions would be reversed after the next election. Look at the anger on this very thread and the conspiracy theories it is spawning.
I think it will be a resource war, a real war before it is over.
We need a silver bullet right about now. The Euros have been navigating in a much more punishing consumer fuel environment for a long time now and they haven't come up with anything close to what is needed.
BTS
-
Indo_Dude
Sorry but they are NOT 'horribly regressive' as the poorest and most unable to pay already live close to work, and take mass transportation. Those 'hurt' most are those who drive the furthest, thereby using the vast majority of the roadways and the resultant costs of constructing said roadways to live 35 miles away from work.
-
BurnTheShips
Sorry but they are NOT 'horribly regressive' as the poorest and most unable to pay already live close to work, and take mass transportation.
Maybe in your part of the country (perhaps you live in the city), but by and large America is a suburban country. Here in Florida for example the farther the exurb, then the less expensive the housing is. That is the general rule. Close suburbs are more expensive precisely because the quality of life is higher (short commute more facilities). Poorer people commute further because of this. You also forget lower income rural people that would be crushed by these kinds of things.
BTS
-
Indo_Dude
No. People moved further and further out so they could buy a bigger house. One which as the latest trends show, they clearly couldn't afford in the first place. They CHOSE to move that far from their places of employment. They CHOSE to make driving to the supermarket, schools, and every mass chain a commute via car. I guess they CHOSE poorly then.
-
BurnTheShips
You reek sympathy for those who may have chosen poorly.
-
hillbilly
duh..yea!
Markets are manipulation...the essence of the trade.
Hill
-
Indo_Dude
You reek sympathy for those who may have chosen poorly.
For those who have chosen poorly, they can buy hybrids, diesels, or commuter cars that get 35 mpg to 50 mpg. Even those people who drive 20,000 miles a year @ 37.5 mpg would use 44.4 gallons a month. At $2 that's $89. At $4 that's $178 per month. If an increase of $89 kills your monthly budget, someone's living way beyond their means. They can change jobs. Or move closer to their jobs. I view these people as being responsible for such a massive urban sprawl the past 20 years.