I heard recently that some poll taken by somebody somewhere seemed to indicate that as long as gas prices were under $4.00 per gallon the people would not raise very much hell. $4.00 per gallon supposedly marked some kind of breaking point. Of course I don't know what I would do if it were $14.00 per gallon except pay for the shit. I have to have it to get to and from work and at this point in my life that is pretty much all I do anyway.

But the bottom line is that the price of gas has a serious effect on the price of everything else and the consumer is being slowly boiled in oil. Groceries are more expensive. Utilities are more expensive. Hell, is anything less expensive?

That is why I believe Bush has a horrible approval rating even with the blistering economy. More people are worse off now than they were 6 years ago. I have no other explanation.

I sure don't think it is the war in Iraq bringing about the low poll numbers because I don't think most folks give a damn about that. America and American's love to bomb other countries and as far as I know we always have.

I just think the overall costs of our foreign, domestic and economic policies are beginning to sink into the purses of many Americans and they are wondering if it, whatever it is, is worth it.

Posted by Buck on May 31, 2006 02:40 PM Link to comment

Buck, I've heard the same thing about the breakpoint: a sustained period where gas is $X per gallon (I've heard both $4 and $5) will cause Americans to change the way they buy and use cars. As you say, though, it's hard to see how people who use their cars mainly for commuting, for instance, can do anything to change their habits, short of a complete life change (new job, new house maybe, etc.)

I hadn't thought about the indirect way that high gas prices affect everything else. Actually, I did think about the cost of a plane ticket, but that's nowhere near doubled in the past few years. And, to be honest, I don't think anything has risen as fast in price as it actually should, given our dependence on gas. I wonder if we're heading off a cliff? Economists seem to be making comparable predictions related to the housing market, our foreign debt, and so forth; it might all be related.

As to your last point, I sure hope that Americans are starting to think about how our leaders' actions affect everyone.

Posted by RSA on May 31, 2006 02:52 PM Link to comment

The only effect Bush has on the price of gasoline is the level of federal taxation that comes from his budget signature (which, IIRC, is around 18 cents per gallon). People have been turning a wary eye to the war for quite some time, so I dunno. Buck is right, Bush has a horrible approval rating even with the blistering economy. I don't know how "most people are worse off now than 6 years ago", since the numbers show the opposite. I know of the left-wing think tanks that put out the skewed statistics (I'm an engineering/computer geek who does that kind of stuff for a living and I can tell you that you can do anything with statistics....the GDP shows what's been done as a nation and if people want to think that the only growth has been done in Bill Gates' bracket, well....whatever makes one sleep better. I see the numbers).

Personally, whenever someone blames a politician for the price of gasoline I think to myself "one less Toby on the totem pole for me to pass on the ladder of success", because that displays the height of ignorance. Then I chuckle even more as they gulp their $4 cup of Starbuck coffee. :)

I remember people bitching during the 80s despite the flaming hot economy. The 90s were great until the tech bubble burst and then people bitched again.

I think one of the tenents of being an American is bitching because you think "the other guy" isn't doing as good as you. Are either of you guys doing worse than you were 6 years ago? Heck, during that time I lost my job, was out of work for 3 months, took another position with a 20% reduction in pay and now have a promotion and more income than I thought I'd get for quite a while.

None of it was because of Clinton or Bush, be it good or bad.

BTW, confession: I also bitch about the economy when I don't like certain things. See, I'm a good American! :)

Posted by RW on June 1, 2006 11:35 AM Link to comment

Personally, whenever someone blames a politician for the price of gasoline I think to myself "one less Toby on the totem pole for me to pass on the ladder of success", because that displays the height of ignorance.

Do you think that a nation's energy policy doesn't influence the price of gasoline?

What about foreign policy, based on the chain of cause & effect from foreign policy to political stability in major oil producing regions to prices on oil futures?

Prices are based on too many variables to say that any single one, including politicians, are responsible for the prices. But there's no question in my mind that political actions have consequences in oil prices. Look at the EPA - their regulations provide a disincentive to oil industries to invest in new refining capacity. A lack of refining capacity was the major reason given for the surge in gasoline prices after Katrina. The EPA are politicians, ergo, there are politicians partially "to blame" for high gas prices.

Of course, refining capacity could be nationalized, one way or another, and we could build away at tax-payer expense - extremely costly in taxes, but will reduce strain on refining capacity and make gas cheaper.

Then, there's the 55 mph speed limit, cafe standards, and investments in alternative energy, all of which will impact demand... And there is the oil use of in-theatre military operations overseas that also impact demand - all decided politically. And, if I remember my economics, demand has an impact on price, too. So, yeah, it's oversimplifying to point at Bush, or any other politician and say that gas is $3.00 because of "him". But it's also legitimate to ask, "what has he done to help us with gas prices?" How effective has he been? How much higher (or lower) would they be if not for the Bush energy policy... or environmental policy... or foreign policy...?

Posted by smijer on June 1, 2006 01:32 PM Link to comment

How effective has [Bush] been?

I agree with RW that the President has only a limited number of ways to try to bring down the cost of gas, directly. (And I also think we'd be in better shape, eventually, if we had a more European system of taxation on gas--but that's a completely separate issue.) But here's the thing: politicians are free, to some extent, to set the standards for their own evaluation. Here's Bush, doing just that:

What I think the President ought to do, is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots. . . And the President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the prices.

So even if *I* don't think the President can do much, *he* obviously does, unless he was lying through his teeth (the more likely case, given his history). Should we hold Bush to his own standard? Well, he's certainly not going to do it himself.

Posted by RSA on June 1, 2006 01:50 PM Link to comment

The only numbers that I pay any attention to are my own numbers and I think that holds true for most common folks such as myself. Revenues have not and cannot keep up with expenditures and that is the source of the bitchin' and moanin'. That is the reason for the low poll numbers. Not some obscure study done by some government think tank but from some poor guy looking at his own personal bottom line.

If a person is thriving in an economy things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha just "trouble" him. If he sees his bank account dwindling things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha really piss him off.

Hard times on the economic home front magnify the problems of a shitty foreign policy. Most folks, really deep down and where it counts, don't give a damn who you are bombing or torturing as long as it ain't them but when their personal pocketbooks start to get a little lighter just watch the sparks fly upward.

Posted by Buck on June 1, 2006 02:20 PM Link to comment

"what has he done to help us with gas prices?"

Heaven help our nation if we reach the point where the person in the executive office is looked up on to "help" with the price of something in the marketplace.

Politicians are to GOVERN the nation and when it comes to funding the government they decide on the avenues for taxation...when it comes to the prices of things, they're to provide oversight against such things like monopolies, fraud or abuse and the like, but otherwise they're to get the @#$& out of the way. It's none of their business how much company A charges for a widget! If company A is breaking the law then they're to clamp down. There have been endless investigations into the cost of gasoline and for the most part they've come up empty.

Do you think that a nation's energy policy doesn't influence the price of gasoline?

In the grand scheme of things? No. We've seen a plethora of health care policies and things like drug war policies over the years. Which prices have gone down once the gov't gets involved?

Two things affect gas prices: supply and demand

The scares of future supplies (the futures market) has caused the prices to go up while the markets in places like China have caused the demand to skyrocket. Thus, higher prices. Every time the ME looks more scary, oil rises. When it calms down (all twelve days of the year that such occurs) prices fall.

You're right, there's one way President Bush could directly affect the price of gasoline in a positive way: call for relaxation of regulations involved so that it's feasible for companies to build several more refineries - which haven't been built in Chelsea Clinton's lifetime. We also know that were we to open up our domestic drilling that we could stave off higher prices in the future (it takes a long time to get that stuff from the ground). What appals me is that you and I both know that there are hordes of people who would fight both of those tooth and nail, all the while bitching about the high cost of gasoline.

THAT I don't comprehend.

Posted by RW on June 1, 2006 02:45 PM Link to comment

Two things affect gas prices: supply and demand

To an extent that's true. But, my point is - what affects supply and demand? And there are a lot of things that do. OPEC affects supply. The EPA affects supply. Wars affect supply. Wars also affect demand. The absense of fuel efficient technology affects demand. Most things that affect supply and demand, if they are not political in themselves, have a political facet. That's my only point.

It's like you said - most people don't want lead in their drinking water... they kvetch about the price, but ask them to drink leaded water, and they're suddenly more generous. Some people might be willing to pay a few more cents at the pump if they found out the alernative was to refrain from invading Iraq. Extra taxes to develop fuel efficient technology still out of the price range of the average consumer? Who knows whether they prefer to pay that now, or pay increased fuel costs for a long while.

I think we're all agreed that it's kind of irrational that fuel prices equate to unpopularity. We really should be looking at what is being done, and whether we like it or not. For me, I like no lead in the water, thanks; I think pushing higher fuel standards is smart, bellyaching from automakers aside; I would rather not pay extra because we are having a war. Other people, different priorities.

when it comes to the prices of things, they're to provide oversight against such things like monopolies, fraud or abuse and the like, but otherwise they're to get the @#$& out of the way.

The price of "things"... maybe. Widgets... I can see that. Oil? Well, oil isn't manufactured. It *is* explored for, drilled, piped, and distilled - so yes those are areas where those providing the services should be able to price their services based on supply and demand in a market free of fraud and monopolistic price gouging.

But it is also a natural resource - in that sense an asset that already belongs to everyone - and everyone should have some say in how it's distributed from the get-go. Allowing geopolitical squatting over natural resources to stand unchallenged is a one way ticket to an *uncompetitive* marketplace.

And it is also a public liability. How it is explored for, drilled, piped, distilled, and used effects everyone - even those who do not explore, drill, pipe, distill, or use it. So we should have some say on that, too. And, since "our" only representation (such as it is) that can do anything about our interests wrt to oil is in government - I have to respectfully disagree that the government has no place in setting policies on those matters - so long as they don't infringe un-duly on the ability for explorers, drillers, pipers, and distillers to earn a living from their services.

Posted by smijer on June 1, 2006 07:39 PM Link to comment

But it is also a natural resource - in that sense an asset that already belongs to everyone - and everyone should have some say in how it's distributed from the get-go.

Everything made originally derives from a "natural resource", it just depends on how far down you want to go to get there. Chairs are made from wood, metals derive from mining, water from......well, water. And so on.

If smijer, Inc. owns or leases a tract of land that has oil underneath it and if smijer, Inc., follows all the environmental, local, regulatory, employment and other laws and pays the necessary taxation that derives from said business, the government should stay out of smijer, Inc's business plan. George W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Harold Ford Jr and company should look at the constitution to see what powers they have instead of continually morphing "promote the general welfare" to always include their pet projects. I always say "think of a business that is following every law just like a crack-addicted whore who is deciding on what to do with a 7 month old fetus" and then see how many people play the "it's none of my business game. I mean, if the government should stay out of Larry Flynt's business decisions, why in the wide wide world of sports are they poking into Exxon's interests, especially since we all know that politicians generally screw up almost every thing they touch?

The stuff that "belongs to everyone" is government owned land, which makes up about 60% of the property in America (no joke).

How it is explored for, drilled, piped, distilled, and used effects everyone

Already covered in the "follow the law" portion. You have OSHA for working conditions and MSHA for mining operations and inspectors have carte blanche to inspect at any time and any where they wish and they don't have to give any notice prior to arrivall (someone try that with Hanx Blix's crew). If MSHA sees nothing with smijer Inc's mining operations, there should be no problem. Once the gov't decides "hey, oil and a few other things are different, so we'll implement sanctions on those" we're back to the slippery slope of what industries are to be privy to "extra oversight on a whim" and if that's the case, what if someone says "why don't we do the same thing with Planned Parenthood?"

At one time "liberty" was a virtue in this nation.

I have to respectfully disagree that the government has no place in setting policies on those matters - so long as they don't infringe un-duly on the ability for explorers, drillers, pipers, and distillers to earn a living from their services.

Respect duly acknowledged and buddy, if you can show me where their policies do NOT infringe the ability to explore (the gulf coast) drill (Alaska) then I'll give you the thumbs up and beg off from the topic.

One reason I'm not a large L libertarian is that I want government oversight on business because unwatched capitalism can lead to destruction --- but, especially when it comes to oil, our national oversight has become a grip around the neck, IMO.

I got no problem with Senator Byrd sending MSHA to oversee drilling in ANWR...I got a big problem when Senator Byrd blocks drilling for political purposes and then blames BushCo for higher gas prices (okay, a narrow analogy but you get my drift).

Get the gov't out of the way and implement HARSH penalties on companies that break the law and we'll be fine. And maybe the Larry David Hybrid car company would turn a profit instead of his wife wanting the gov't to mandate what Detroit does with its vehicles (if someone wants to drive a Caddy that gets 10 mpg and thus they pay the extra price/tax on the gasoline, why is it anyone's business? People can criticize what someone drives but it's creeping theocracy and prudish to criticize a welfare mom who gets pregnant AGAIN?)

Posted by RW on June 1, 2006 09:11 PM Link to comment

if you can show me where their policies do NOT infringe the ability to explore (the gulf coast) drill (Alaska) then I'll give you the thumbs up and beg off from the topic.

Well the operative word I used (which you omitted) was "unduly". And, that's debatable (apart from the point that we are mainly talking about publicly "owned" lands here.... I mean surely you don't see a fundamental right for explorers, drillers, etc. to practice their art on property that doesn't belong personally to them).

I think that it's also pretty well agreed that oil exploration,drilling, piping, etc is never confined to lands owned exclusively by those doing the stuff. Their environmental footprint is going to affect the surrounding property as well - at least under the technology as it exists today.

Even further, I disagree with the notion of private ownership of natural resources in the same sense of that word as it is generally applied to human artifacts. I mean, any given tract of a couple million acres of Texas was there before you got to it. On what basis do you claim it as "yours" and send your oil explorers in to assess it (and potentially drill it) while denying me the right to do the same with it? This *is* a rhetorical question, because, as a practical matter, we have little choice but to somehow assign - then allow the buying and selling of - land and mineral rights - but the question remains - what's the ethical basis for the denial? It certainly isn't that you made those acres of Texas. And, you didn't buy them from anyone who did. The answer is that there is no real ethical basis for it. It's a practical matter undertaken by public agency, perhaps meant to be supportive of certain ethical principles, but embodying none of them in and of itself. So, in my view, there is a lower threshhold for what is a "due" limitation on how natural resources can be mined and distributed. In fact limitations that are at least as supportive of the underlying ethical considerations as the practicality of assigning private ownership should have equal weight with that notion of private ownership.

You are right about another point - all human artifacts include natural resources to some degree or other. So there do have to be rules that take into account the curious admixture of human artifice and natural resouces and respect the ethics surrounding human production as well as the underlying ethics for which natural property rights serve as a practical tool. And that's no mean feat.

And that brings us to the other point... When the Constitution was written, the primary energy source was swimming around in the ocean, and anybody could fish there. Land property was available to such a great extent that ownership of a piece of it could be treated as sacrosanct without much worry about denying any European's access and use - there was plenty to go around, so the solution was to partition more off for those who were denied by the first demarcation. Native Americans, of course, were screwed in this deal, but even then, they managed to get some (rather unhospitable) land partitioned off for their own use. The fathers really didn't have to answer a lot of ethical questions about natural resources when they wrote the Constitution. But those questions are beginnnig to loom large, and eventually - be it through the amendment process, through an extremely sophisticated legislative regime that may or may not pass constitutional muster, those questions will have to be addressed. Because, there simply isn't enough oil to supply everyone who is dependent on it indefinitely, and by continuing our reliance on it, we are poisoning ourselves and the ecosystem upon which we all depend - even those who don't get very much benefit from the energy produced from petroleum.

People can criticize what someone drives but it's creeping theocracy and prudish to criticize a welfare mom who gets pregnant AGAIN?)

I think that most of us look at the human reproductive system as sacrosanct - it goes toward liberty of conscience. If you cannot control what goes on inside your body, do you really have any freedom at all? Your body is your own, and it is your sole vehicle for practicing *any* sort of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Your car: well, it belongs to you, but...
1) it's not comparable in any regard to one's own body.
2) you can't use it without using up some amount of a finite natural resource, not of your own creation, upon which we all rely.
3) you can't use it without spilling some amount of poison into the air that all of us breathe.

In other words, your car isn't nearly as important to you as a welfare mom's uterus is to her, and it is much more important to the rest of us... and it burns on a fuel that, ethically speaking, you cannot lay exclusive claim to.

If you are, at this point, tempted to point out that babies use resources and pollute - I will remind you that the resources they use are replenishable (not finite), and are renewed mostly as a product of human labor, and that the pollution they create is only pollution if it is disposed of according to our socially agreed upon method of disposal - otherwise, it is fertilizer.

Posted by smijer on June 1, 2006 11:29 PM Link to comment

smijer,
My point was primarily rhetorical as well and I'm hardly a strident pro-lifer, but.....the welfare of fetuses (dare one say "babies") aren't as important to society as what type of car one drives?

Posted by RW on June 2, 2006 06:57 AM Link to comment

the welfare of fetuses (dare one say "babies") aren't as important to society as what type of car one drives?

"Important to" can mean a lot of things. A thing is important to me if I feel it is important. Astronomy is important to me in this sense, despite that it has no effect whatsoever on my life.

A thing is also "important to" me if its presence in my drinking water or air can kill me.

Unless you take fetuses to be *members* of society, then their importance to society is only in the same sense that Astronomy is "important" to me. There's no doubt that the use of automobiles is far more important to society in the second sense of the word than are fetuses.

That first type of importance deserves recognition, too, but the second type demands it. It's a question worthy of a lot of debate where society has rights over individual's lives or livelihoods on the basis of that first type of importance, but the it goes without saying in that debate that the line cannot be drawn in the same place as it is drawn in matters of importance in the second sense.

Or you can look at it from another perspective - relative importance without regard to type. Compared to the woman's interest in her own body, society has a proportionally much smaller interest in the fetus than it does in automobile usage compared to the automobile owner's interest in the automobile.

Posted by smijer on June 2, 2006 07:43 AM Link to comment