you want to know why? Go see lifeaftertheoilcrash.com, and learn the horrific details.
Posted by oil-starved at August 12, 2005 02:09 PMOpen those damn spiggets like you said you would Georgie boy?! It's getting rough on the wallets.
Posted by RSchewe at August 12, 2005 02:15 PMas gas goes higher, George will go lower. And he's right when he says he can't do anything about the price - he is owned by the people raising the prices. The Southern GOP base might follow Rove/Bush anywhere policy-wise, but those rednecks all got trucks with 30 gallon tanks and their poof-haired wives got SUV's with 40 gallon tanks and they are gonna get mad. And one thing can't be changed, gas was cheaper under Clinton.
Posted by T2 at August 12, 2005 02:35 PMThere are so many inaccuracies in this blog entry, that I just quit reading about 1/3rd of the way down.
The bottom line is that the Democrats for years have wanted the GOVERNMENT to force auto companies to make more fuel efficient vehicles.
This hasn't worked, because automakers make what CONSUMERS want to buy.
Guess what? Now, CONSUMERS want more efficient vehicles. And car companies are responding. In 5 years, most of the car lots will have hybrids on them because that's what CONSUMERS want.
The GOVERNMENT didn't even have to get involved to tell folks what they can and can't buy. Market forces are doing it, and people will respond.
Chalk another victory up to capitalism. It's still working after all these years.
Posted by muckdog at August 12, 2005 04:55 PMMuck, why the excuse this time? It always seems that you simply read the title, if anything, given your responses.
One problem with your analysis is that it is only temporary. Back in the 70's (the time all those reruns you watch on cable were actually on TV) there was this little blip called "the energy crisis" and lots of people bought smaller, more fuel efficient cars. But neither lasted, and we lost an opportunity to have already been free of foreign oil -- but no -- capitalism - with a lot of help -- made sure that we got to where we are today. Had money been invested in alternative fuels and had the political balls been there to support those efforts, perhaps . . .
It's useless, I know. I'm one of those idiots who has driven a fuel efficient car for years, turns out the light when I leave a room, sweats through the summer, has one of those "motorless" mowers, recycles, hasn't bought a paper or mag for 25 years, and for that matter uses paint smartly.
Yeah, capitalism. It's hard to beat.
Posted by dorita at August 12, 2005 05:49 PMpuppyboy, too bad you don't quit commenting on a post you haven't bothered to finish reading instead of you just quit reading the post 1/3 of the way down.
Yup gas/oil prices, just wait til $100 barrel oil (those days are closer than you think) and the winter heating season is fast upon us. pess is just hankering for his happy meal puppyboy.
Posted by emal at August 12, 2005 06:57 PMMuck, consumers don't design and advertise the cars that are built in Detroit (or Mexico.) Car manufacturers design and promote the cars they want to sell. If gas prices are low and Washington doesn't tell you that you must produce fuel efficient cars, don't you think that like good capitalists, GM and Ford are going to market a more expensive car even if it does use more gas? Of course they are! If a consumer will spend 40K on a SUV to compensate for feeling like a little guy, GM will make it. But consumers didn't invent the SUV.
Posted by ann at August 12, 2005 07:42 PM"the Chimporer has no Cause"
ROFLMAO
Valerie Plame's outing ruined her role with Brewster, Jennings & Associates. This much we know.
What we don't know is...
What were the effects felt by the exposure of this CIA front company that has been tied to “energy, oil and the Saudi-owned Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO?
This company is a major player that represents over 10% of the world's oil.
On that note, I don't think it is too far fetched to wonder why it is that
oil prices began to rise immediately following Plame's outing?
Could there be a connection between the CIA leak and rising oil prices?
Even more direct, if there was an exposure of a CIA front company with influence in OPEC that was exposed, wouldn't there necessarily have been an adverse affect?
Of course there would have been.
Could this have been the plan all along?
I'd sure like to know what was said in Cheney's energy summit that was cloistered from the public due to national security concerns.
Posted by at August 12, 2005 08:00 PMMuck, here is some capitalism for you--my grandaddy left me a legacy of land, mineral rights and oil&gas production. And I'm almost embarrassed about how much money is rolling in so I'm sending all I can to Howard Dean and the DNC. I think that's a great tribute to capitalism.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at August 12, 2005 08:39 PMbecause health care and auto industry problems are so related and my personal pet peeves
Posted by Sharon at August 12, 2005 09:01 PMgood for you joe. another carpetbagger as if we didn't have enough with the bushes. glad you got yours.
Posted by dorita at August 12, 2005 09:03 PMMan, that was a great post. Let me just ask, though - I know that the picture you paint here is what many have feared for a good long time, but is it really happening this quickly????-
the world's strained capacity to refine and pump crude oil. The list of [refining capacity] outages includes several units at BP's giant 460,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) refinery in Texas City, and the loss of capacity at ConocoPhillips refinery in Illinois. A new snag on Friday in the U.S. refining system, this time at Premcor's 175,000 barrels per day (bpd) refinery in Tennessee, threatened gasoline supplies.
The List of Outages?
A New Snag On Friday?
In places like Texas City, or "Illinois" or "Tennessee" gasoline supplies are threatened?
Since when have those been common reasons for supply threats in the US? Daily stuff in Iraq, of course, but since when do these sort of things conspire to drive the price of petroleum to its highest level since....ahem....the Iranian revolution in 1979, when it reached $80 per barrel? And now they all happen somewhere buried in a lower paragraph of a newspaper clipping?
And throwing the $80 per barrell figure in there - what did that mean?
Posted by KD at August 12, 2005 10:18 PMyou want to know why? Go see lifeaftertheoilcrash.com, and learn the horrific details.
Interesting read to say the least. So what I gather we are screwed no mater what we do based on his many assumptions. Also according to this guy he is giving credit to Bush for already starting the "Oil War" and securing our oil interests abroad. So maybe you guys on the left have been right all along. Bush is just going after the oil. Well, good then. Because we are fucked without it. Time to start buying Oil Options!!
Posted by Centrist at August 13, 2005 06:23 AMjust wait til $100 barrel oil
you say that like it's a bad thing. ROFLMAOCMM! ( . . . and Counting My Money)
Posted by dubya at August 13, 2005 09:36 AMLOLCMM!
Posted by prince bandar at August 13, 2005 09:37 AMyeah, it's really a, um, shame about that war and those, er, oil prices. bwah!
Posted by dick cheney at August 13, 2005 09:40 AMAnn, the car companies build cars consumers want, otherwise they don't sell too many. Think about it. Notice how Toyota and Honda are leading the pack in hybrid sales. While GM and F are struggling trying to make a profit selling SUVs.
Emal, the reason I didn't make it through Pessimst's blog entry is the same reason I don't read too far down in alien abduction or crop circle stories. A rational mind can easily dismiss it within a paragraph or two. Why bother continuing?
As market forces drive up the price of crude, alternatives will surface. That's just the way the markets work.
But right now, oil is cheaper than water.
A rational mind can easily dismiss it within a paragraph or two. Why bother continuing?
So, mucky, by the same token, you don't mind that I scroll through your comments whenever I see your name. Otherwise, your comment could be construed to mean that while you dismiss the writing of a poster on his own site, you can feel free to inject your more rational and obviously more important point of view and expect it to be more valid, right? And you wouldn't be that much of an asshole, would you?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 13, 2005 09:47 AMMuckdog doesn't know shit about the car industry, obviously.
Posted by Brian Bell at August 13, 2005 10:35 AMMuck, who designed the hybrid? It was NOT the consumer, I can guarantee that. The piece of understanding of capitalism that you seem to be missing (or overlooking) is who creates the demand. Advertising and marketing create the styles and fashions, not the consumer. If no one had invented the SUV no one would buy it. But a car company invented it, marketed it as the hot new car, and then consumers demand it.
Posted by ann at August 13, 2005 03:31 PMann, like you said, the car company built them. didnt need the govt to say boo.
of course, the car company built them hoping consumers would want them...
Posted by muckdog at August 13, 2005 04:13 PMthe loser Bush apologist mucktroll fails to mention, of course, two critical points: One the GOP controls Congress, and, Two, Bush controls the GOP. What have they combined to do? Give big tax breaks to "small business" (i.e. anybody) to buy the most giant possible gas guzzler monster dual rear tire, double cab pickup trucks that get about 8-9 mpg. Face it folks, the GOP is in the business of making money for giant oil conglomerates. That is the whole plan.
Posted by T2 at August 13, 2005 04:15 PMPerhaps, muck, if the government hadn't made it possible for SUVs to be exempt from emissions standards that other passenger cars are not exempt from and hadn't given consumers such an outrageous tax deduction to buy SUVs then maybe consumers would have thought twice. But the government made it very desirable to buy SUVs. Add that to all the advertising that the car companies did manufacturing an illusion of sex and safety in the SUV, and, well, look at gas prices now. Shocker. I am so glad I got rid of my fuel efficient Nissan turned to public transit.
Posted by ann at August 13, 2005 05:32 PMjoe,
The demographics in TX are getting interesting. Maybe you can help liberate TX fron its current shame.
muckdog,
If you are not familiar with advertising psycology, I recommend you google (sorry my link isn't working) a book titled "The Hidden Persuaders". The lessons of the energy poor 70's were forgotten too soon because some had a finiancial interest in forgetting them. This is an example of why capitalism works best when it is well regulated.
IN GENERAL:
When Bushites realize that the president they follow will not help them by releasing any of the strategic oil reserve it will be a very rude awzkening. They're paying more in gas than they are "saving" in taxes.
We are indeed screwed no matter what:
In addition to Matt Savinar's website (lifeaftertheoilcrash.com), I urge everyone to check out:
peakoil.com
energybulletin.net
jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
Posted by JB2 at August 13, 2005 08:59 PMHere all the most best Travels!
travels-Travels
Best regarts.