+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: The price of gas in America (/showthread.php?tid=2617)
The price of gas in America - Great Rumbler - 20th September 2005
Quote:I don't respond because it is truly depressing to see people so deluded and convinced that lies are true...
He probably says the same about you. That's politics, sure enough.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 20th September 2005
The burden of proof lies on the claimant Darunia.
The main thing I have a problem with is the idea that we shouldn't be complaining about our leaders. Weltall made a daily habit of that himself not but scant half decade ago :D. In a democracy, politics is something the people SHOULD be thinking about, and it is silly to assume that people weren't concerned about it until recently.
Yes, a house "divided against itself can't stand", but does that mean we can't critique our leaders at all? I was under the impression that only meant you couldn't just make a NEW government and declare war on the old one.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 20th September 2005
It's not the same now as it was five years ago. Now, people blame absolutely everything on Bush, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous (see: the people who blamed Bush's economic policies for causing Hurricane Katrina).
Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple. And normal human beings like myself tire of it.
The price of gas in America - Geno - 20th September 2005
This kind of hostility is why I normally stay out of political discussions. It's not just one side that does it either. "Liberals need to grow up." "Conservatives are living a lie." "Anyone can read what I said, but it takes intelligence to see that I'm right." Yes, because someone has a different view than you, they are inferior creatures. Just keep telling yourself that. There's no such thing as a well-informed person of a different political stance. I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative, but more of a comfortable medium. To some people, this neutral stance is also primitive and childish.
Quote:Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple. And normal human beings like myself tire of it.
Really now, I'd expect better out of you. Anyone with that mentality is having a hard time acting their age. I know from previous experiences that you're more intelligent than that, so I won't use that to back any negative claim against you.
Well, anyway... I'm back from class, but I didn't see how much gas costs here. It's probably about the same though.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 20th September 2005
Geno Wrote:Really now, I'd expect better out of you. Anyone with that mentality is having a hard time acting their age. I know from previous experiences that you're more intelligent than that, so I won't use that to back any negative claim against you.
...You must have totally forgotten about the ONSP, haven't you? :D
The price of gas in America - Undertow - 20th September 2005
Ryan Wrote:Liberals are children who refuse to grow up. It's really that simple.
You need to stop eating every bit of bullshit Ann Coulter spouts out of the sewer she refers to as a mouth. Politics is a dirty, vulgar entity where people try their best not to rock the boat to much so they can meet the quota and earn another term of power. I'm tired of the "my party is more smart than your party" bullshit (ie: the map of IQ vs. Red/ Blue states map Stern tried to use to prove the collective voting demographic of Bush voters were dumb, which was eventually proven to be fake.) Anyone that has been alive for more than a decade, unless convient memory kicks in, can remember the partisan bullshit republicans tried to pull to get Clinton out of office and constantly defying his decisions. Equally stupid shit is being pulled now, including blaming Bush for a poor economy (no one's been able to explain this one yet), to Bush purposly allowing NO's levees to break...even some people go as far to say that he had ordered them to be broken, but I'm not going to get into that. I could go on and on forever on how retarded politics is on both sides of the political spectrum, but I'm not going to.
Moral of the story: people are fucking stupid. Period. (not you, you at least bring some good points into debates even if I don't always agree)
Also, since I bashed Coulter, I'm obligated to bash Michael Moore who is Coulter's equal in "durrrr durka durka"-ness (such as his habitual lying and hyperbole in F. 9/11). I'm personally tired of the American public being manipulated by these two assholes' agendas.
The price of gas in America - Geno - 20th September 2005
Well said, Undertow.
And you bring up a good point there, Ryan, you faggy PSXer scumbag douche! :D
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 20th September 2005
Michael Moore might have a few inaccuracies in his films, but at least he's trying to show the truth... Ann Coulter is just a viscious attack dog like so many others on the far right.
Quote:Anyone that has been alive for more than a decade, unless convient memory kicks in, can remember the partisan bullshit republicans tried to pull to get Clinton out of office and constantly defying his decisions. Equally stupid shit is being pulled now, including blaming Bush for a poor economy (no one's been able to explain this one yet), to Bush purposly allowing NO's levees to break...even some people go as far to say that he had ordered them to be broken, but I'm not going to get into that.
Bush is partially to blame for the economy because of the impact of his budgets... that is, the massive tax cuts for the rich (tax cuts for the rich, aka "trickle-down economics" or whatever you want to call them, don't work, never have worked, and never will work. Give rich people more money and they just keep it.). Yes, the recession didn't start under him, but he made it worse, no question about it. He made the levees break? No. As for Clinton, I would definitely say that that shows the massive double standards here. Attacking Clinton for everything he did is the most noble thing you can do, while attacking Bush for everything he does is vile, anti-American country-hating. It's a political ploy to try to convince people that only one side could possibly ever be right, and thus it's a direct attack on everything that this country was founded on... it's about free debate, not the squelching of ideas for being on the other side of the aisle. But that's not what conservatives want, they want a dictatorship... or better yet to most of the ones in power, a theocracy... where only their views are heard. I hope they can't get away with it, but the American people are pretty stupid... I know saying 'the nearest state that was stupid enough to vote for Bush is five states away' makes me feel a bit better, but then what about the rest of the country... :(
Darunia: I'll reply to the highlighted sections.
Quote: politics were left to the politicians to argue over. Americans were all one, and it's always true that a people cannot stand divided.
One by the opression of everyone who wasn't "normal", yes... race, gender, etc...
Quote: In WWII, what would have happened if the New Deal Democrats who loved America had been the Michael Moore ones of today?Could American had won WWII with the problems it faces today--?
Of course they could have, because the only people who believe that Democrats hate America are deluded radical right people like you, not the actual Democrats who would be doing the governing.
Quote:It was in the 60's that the new age of liberal thinking began to divide the country on large issues... abortion, women's rights, etc., which right or wrong, could only serve to cause conflict within our society.
I get your point, we should still be living in the 1200s. Serfdom today!
Equal rights are among the greatest things modern humanity has attempted. We're very far from being there, and we're not moving forward on all fronts (gay rights are sloowly moving forward, but women's right seem to have stalled... and abortion seems like it'll always be an issue.), but at least we are trying, unlike anyone before. This is an unqualified Good Thing.
Quote:Liberals went further, pushing to destroy American industry with ever-more-powerful unions and increases in minimal wage (wage increases are a great thing, don't get me wrong, but not when the competing markets (China) don't share our fondness for improving humanity.) By the 1980's, the political dissension had also made American no longer respect the sitting president: Nixon.
This is why I don't like replying to these things... so many things that are so, so wrong, and I know you won't listen to a word of truth ever in your life... Unions? Helping to create equality in industries that have always enforced opression. Foreign trade relations? Unfortunate acceptance of weak foreign labor laws that I wish was different... we should not have China with any sort of favored-nation trade policy given what they do to their own people. Nixon? It's his own stupid fault for being so paranoid he needed to spy on his opposition... WHO HE WAS CRUSHING IN THE POLLS ANYWAY...
Quote:By today, the flag-toting, proud, patriotic Americans of the 1950's have become more infatuated with promoting their political beliefs than the general good of their country. Whether or not Iraq was just, the Democratic response was atrocious: fuck our president, we don't need to respect him! Today, there is so much anti-military hype, how can any foreign dictator fear us, knowing that his Democratic allies in Washington will keep the US military from lifting a finger? Such slander would have been enought to get one lynched at the beginning of the century. Suddenly, liberals blame everything on the president: even things that are very much out of his control, like gas prices. Come on now, what kind of stupidity is this? We no longer support our government, but seek to ferment unrest. Once a people no longer believe in their country or support their government, that people will inevitably fall. Democrats hate Republicans, and vice versa. Both sides are guilty of this.
Is a single word here true? So when someone does something that is blatantly illegal -- saying you don't believe in the law doesn't excuse you from having to follow it (that's referring to international law, by the way. Conservatives saying that they don't believe in international law and so it doesn't matter that we illegally invaded Iraq doesn't change the fact the invasion was, definitively, illegal by the standards of international law. I should know, I took a course on it last year...). But even so, most Democrats supported this president for a while, I'd say... the nation only began turning on Bush when it became clear the the reason for going to war -- WMDs -- was false, and that there was in fact no exit strategy. Now, Bush only has a 40% approval rating. There are non-war reasons for that yes, but this war is the main cause. Americans don't have much tolerance for casualties, and once people start dying unless they see a really good cause (like WWII) they want to quit... this is both good and bad, of course, depending on the situation. Here? Ignoring the 'why we went in' part that so blatantly shows how bad this administration is... I don't know. It looks like there will be civil war whether we're in there or not... the question is if it'd be worse with us there or with us gone. I suspect it'd be worse with us gone, so we should stay... but if there is a point where it looks like the overall violence (that is, INCLUDING violence to Iraqis! It's disturbing how easily people here ignore the reports of dozens of people dying just because they aren't American...) would reduce by us leaving, then that is probably when we should leave.
Quote: Bipartisanism in Washington, more than anything, weakens our national resolve and identity. As we go into the next century, the liberals hasten their dismantling of the United States' hegemony by 1.) constraining our military budget 2.) ballooning the national deficit and raising taxes to support their asinine political agendas; and increasing the waste of the ominously over-sized bureaucracy 3.) shackling our ability to use our withering military might by insisting that we take our orders not from Washington or from the values of our forefather and democracy, but from Europe, 4.) undermining our international image and integrity by allowing anti-American zealots like Michael Moore to make huge fortunes by pushing their backwards, destructive, hate-filled political hot air propaganda, 5.) subduing patriotic fervor by declaring that the US is no longer good and just but rather a rogue, self-centered, redneck, villainous state... and that as the only (current) world super power and therefore the trend setter to the rest of humanity, we should not be proud and strong as before, but weak and submissive to the international community. "Don't support our president", shout the liberals! "Support the presidents of France and Germany instead!"
You say "bitartizanship" and then produce a list that shows how little you are truly interested in "bipartizanship". You want "rule by us and those few on the other side who can be convinced to agree with us"... not bipartizanship, which implies actually giving in a bit and admitting that sometimes the other side has a point... 1) is done because it is overly large and bloated in a lot of ways. 2) happens these days because of tax cuts more than anything. Clinton, scourge of people like you, balanced the budget. While slightly expanding social programs, and reducing others (like kicking so many people off welfare). Bush, gave us a deficit in the hundreds of billions. Yes some of that is because of the recession, but not NEARLY all of it... not when we've squandered so much revenue by cutting taxes at the worst possible time. 3) International cooperation is the only way to get anything done worth mentioning. As Iraq should prove, going it alone does not work, and won't. 4) the right has just as many people speaking in a hateful fury (which, I would say, Democrats are not... Moore is angry, not hateful. Coulter or Limbaugh are hateful.) who are just as allowed to excersize their right of free speech. 5) I know countries want to build up their image, but the truth, hurtful as it is at times, is a good thing... now, of course, some countries go too far in attacking the US, but that's not what you mean and we all know it. "Support the presidents of Germany and France"? No, not just two countries... it's a big world. We are citizens of it, and should act accordingly... use legal means to punish where it is appropriate, use our power for good (peacekeeping, aid, blockades on truly bad regimes, etc), etc... not for the kind of thing we had in Iraq.
Quote:This sends the wrong message to our enemies. Suddenly, crackpots like Kim Jong Il feel strong enough to challenge the US. Naturally, when the next Democratic president comes in, the Republicans will counter with equal hateful fervor... and then constructive cooperation and reasoning no longer direct our foreign policy, but rather the petty squabbling of the bipartisanism. Gay marriage and welfare are fine in the imaginary world where there are no real problems to work on, but on planet Earth, there are madmen and evil foreign countries that want to kill us and destroy our benevolence. America has, for 60 years, been the guardian of democracy and humanitarianism, but with the internal division we face today, we're too busy broadcasting how much our president can't orate to notice that the ground is crumbling beneath our feet. In the real world, real problems need to be handled with firm action and unwavering force...THAT is what won us both the world wars, and lack of that is what lost us Vietnam (thanks to the advent of schismatic new liberalism).
Ah yes, the current refuge of the Republican... that world events mean we must all "rally 'round the flag" which is conveniently being held by them and them alone. Just like John Ashcroft's terror alerts -- notice how they went away with him? Shows how truthful they were, and how much they were a scare tactic to keep the American people in line-- there is far more hype in what you say than there is truth. In fact, quite the opposite. Suspending our liberty in order to fight a war that will last forever is unquestionably wrong. This "War on Terror", or your stated threat from China, are convenient excuses you need to fall back on to stop that oh-so-hated "change"...
Quote:America has, for 60 years, been the guardian of democracy and humanitarianism,
One final thing... I had to deal with this seperately. We have done so many things so counter to this supposed philosophy that when I read this I literally laughed out loud... democracy and humanitarianism? In fits and spurts, but the other two thirds of the time we've been quite adept at supporting dictatorship and terror, as long as those dictators weren't "red"... or Muslim, now... (them having natural resources we want is also a good reason to ignore "democracy" and "humanitarianism", of course... notice how we sanction Burma and not China? Yeah.)
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 20th September 2005
Perhaps instead of appeal to emotion, arguments stemming entirely from logic would be more productive? Perhaps a basic concept or goal both sides agree on, and from there it's all logic and empirical evidence and nothing else. At least then people have to admit when they are wrong and there's some progress...
*is stared at like a plague scorpion*
Well... I better be hitting the ol' dusty trail...
...
*riiiing*
Whoops, fire door...
*squeezes through some other rows and quietly exits*
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 20th September 2005
Quote:Perhaps instead of appeal to emotion, arguments stemming entirely from logic would be more productive? Perhaps a basic concept or goal both sides agree on, and from there it's all logic and empirical evidence and nothing else. At least then people have to admit when they are wrong and there's some progress...
That would be a fine idea, except for the fact that one of the problems with politics is that with people who disagree as much as we do, finding such basic concepts are just about impossible...
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 21st September 2005
Thats why, like I said, bipartisanism is the biggest foe.
The price of gas in America - Undertow - 21st September 2005
We should only have one party, and everyone should agree with the one ruling body. We'd call it "Unism", or "United Politics". Oh, wait, there's a word for it already: totalitarianism.
The price of gas in America - CoconutCommander - 21st September 2005
Gas is free today. All you have to for it is put your lips around my anus.
Darunia already filled up two tanks today
The price of gas in America - Geno - 21st September 2005
My state voted for Bush, but I didn't. :D
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 21st September 2005
There is one basic thing I think both sides can agree on. Do that which causes the least amount of harm. From there, it should become a debate as to what constitutes "harm". Should harm be seen as whatever the individual who may potentially be harmed sees as harmful, or should there be an absolute standard of harm which some may or may not agree with?
That debate should be examined using logical standards, like, are there any paradoxes, ridiculous conclusions that one side MUST reach if they stick with that logic, or perhaps a question on whether or not one or the other is something has to use some sort of arbitrary method of establishing harm.
And, once that standard is agreed upon logically, rather than emotionally, some actual work can be done.
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 21st September 2005
We should only have one party, and everyone should agree with the one ruling body. We'd call it "Unism", or "United Politics". Oh, wait, there's a word for it already: totalitarianism.
What Undertow fails to understand is that, as incredible as it sounds, there's definitely a very slight chance that a republic could function without corrupt parties. If memory serves me right, and I could be wrong, ancient Greece and Rome didn't have democrats and republicans. American democracy is a joke. It's really just a competition of wealthy aristocrats why vie for positions so that they can push their private agendas. It SHOULD be citizens who seek office to serve and help their country. Say, any good, hard-working Joe Schmoe runs for office in a country without parties because he wants to take public office. Everyone running against him would also be on their own, without corporate kickbacks or mud-slinging bipartisan opponents... they all prevent their standings to the public, and the public (which isn't bitterly divided between two political polar opposites) makes the decision who will serve.
This is how things are run in the Goron Republic.
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 21st September 2005
Ancient Rome didn't need parties because it wasn't a democracy, and was only a "republic" in name only. In truth, it was an oligarchy controlled by the rich. Greece? Every city was different, so it's impossible to generalize...
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 21st September 2005
George Washington, and many of the other Founding Fathers, were very critical of the two-party idea. Honestly, it's doing no good for us today.
On that same token, it's practically impossible for a single-party system in a truly open government like ours, because human nature is to disagree.
On yet another token, the currently smaller half of the pie is quite dangerous to it's own nation, worse still because they're blind to it (and some are openly in favor of it).
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 21st September 2005
Quote:George Washington, and many of the other Founding Fathers, were very critical of the two-party idea. Honestly, it's doing no good for us today.
... while also setting the groundwork, from the very beginning, for the very liberal/conservative two-party system we still use today. :)
Quote:On that same token, it's practically impossible for a single-party system in a truly open government like ours, because human nature is to disagree.
As said, a one party state in a democracy isn't a democracy... what exactly you call it depends on the country (for instance, Japan. Is it a democracy? Well, they have free and fair elections... but one party has controlled the nation for around 49 of the last 50 years, and the population as a whole doesn't quite understand competitive elections based on differing views on issues (on the latter point things are improving, maybe (that is, on having the elections actually be about positions on issues, and having parties actually have to have platforms, instead of just being about which party gets more bridges for your local district...), but not on the 'who is in control' point...). Is this really a democracy? Maybe not quite... but it's also certainly not totalitarian, or a dictatorship, or anything like that.). But yes, in this country, it's extremely unlikely and, I would definitely say, unwanted. Maybe it would be better to have a Europe-style system where small parties can actually matter, though, because that'd increase popular input in government and force parties to work together more often... but one party? No. Bad idea.
The price of gas in America - CoconutCommander - 21st September 2005
I think there should only be one party. I know for me two having two or more parties is insane, unless one of them sucks and then the choice is all but made for you. The reason more than one party is no good unless you have a willing DD is, if you are drinking at one party, you have to commit to that party and stay. Sure you could risk driving drunk, but thats silly. Plus you never know if you are at the better party or not. What if you did drink at one party and then decided to drive to the other party, only to find out that the second party was the worse of the two. You would want to go back. Annoying as hell. Very dangerous too. One big party is by far the better option. It's less complicated, and a lot more safe. Something like a block party, Im thinking. Or a kegger where the guy who bought the keg doesnt charge for cups, because he is slow/generous.
Im glad to settle this for all you.
The price of gas in America - Geno - 22nd September 2005
Instead of parties, I think there should just be individuals running for public office, stating their views on various issues, and not having to worry about whether or not their party will back these views. Not a one-party system or a two-party system, but a system where everyone is independent, and the election is decided based on an individual's views, not their party's views. And also this way, we should have more than just two likely candidates. (Sure, we had Nader in last year's election, but we all know he had next to no chance of winning, right? That is because he wasn't a member of either major political party.)
The price of gas in America - Great Rumbler - 22nd September 2005
I don't think ANY democractic nation does that.
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 22nd September 2005
Right, Geno, that's exactly what I said... rather than agree that it might be a good idea, ABF spat back "well THAT's not real democracy! There is no real democracy!" Well, then let's get rid of what you call democracy and create what it should be. Get rid of lumbering, counter-productive, bickering political parties, and get back to what made America great: people who CARE.
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 22nd September 2005
That would never work... political parties seem to form naturally whenever politics is opened up. As I said, our best chance would be to have a European-style system where small parties can exist and matter.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 22nd September 2005
I don't exactly like the idea of a thousand independents either. It would lead to far more factionalism and division.
I think the best way to handle this is to keep the two-party system, but cull the democrats to an easily-managable minority, preferably with hammers. That way, we have a legitimate dissenting party, but it's too weak to be little more than the political curio it should be. :D
The price of gas in America - CoconutCommander - 22nd September 2005
The best solution would be to give each party a spending limit on their electoral campaigns and give more funding to third parties. As it is right now, Bill Gates is the only person with enough money to become president by himself, say nothing of his ideals.
Also, the electoral college is grossly outdated. In the age of the internet, CNN and cell phones. People are suffieciently well informed (or could be) to vote themselves. That will never happen though, because of the division of legistalation, too many people dont want to give up whatever unfair advantage they think they have.
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 22nd September 2005
The coconut is right, in today's age everybody COULD vote--we could have a real democracy wherein the people, not over-paid aristocrats, have the say. Not only would it be more effective and more democratic, but it'd be amazingly cheaper... so much bureaucracy would be slashed off.
And yes it would too world, ABF. The way politics are today, it's far too expensive for a commoner to run. Does that mean that commoner's have no right to take office? Eliminating the commercialization would solve the cost.
But now, because for the government, the end justifies the means.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 20th November 2005
So like, gas here is back down to a managable $2.08.
The price of gas in America - Great Rumbler - 21st November 2005
I've seen it as low as $1.93 here.
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 21st November 2005
$2.04 now, but I'm sure it's in the 1.90's up the street. It's been dropping really quickly, God be praised.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 8th May 2008
So like, I paid $3.54 per gallon today.
The oldest posts in this thread make me laugh and cry simultaneously.
The price of gas in America - Great Rumbler - 8th May 2008
Yeah, it's almost doubled since November of 2005. That's not cool, yo.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 8th May 2008
We should all travel back in time and buy good ol' fasioned 1990's oil.
Ah those were the good ol' days... When ice cream was ice cream and not "rice dream". When you named Windows after the year it was originally going to come out, not pleasent scenery, and when vidya games came on CDs, not these fancy DVDs. When all we had was a color TV and 40 channels of Cable and we were happy with it! When the larger downloads took a couple days and we just let it happen, and when we called "blogs" "guestbooks" and had the good sense to be ashamed of our personal life and only make our web pages about stuff we like.
The price of gas in America - lazyfatbum - 8th May 2008
hahahahaha fuck :(
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 8th May 2008
Or we could go to the prehistoric era and just attach our gas pumps directly TO the dinosaurs. Cut out the middle... geographic layers.
The price of gas in America - DMiller - 9th May 2008
Weltall Wrote:So like, I paid $3.54 per gallon today.
The oldest posts in this thread make me laugh and cry simultaneously.
I wish it was that cheap here. I paid $3.90 yesterday.
The price of gas in America - Fittisize - 9th May 2008
I'm paying $1.24/L, so that translates to... (1.24*3.785) $4.69/gallon. Adjusted to USD, I'm paying $4.67, your guys' price (is this conversion correct?). And gas where I live is far cheaper than pretty much anywhere else in Canada. But I don't complain. Only poor people worry about gas prices.
The price of gas in America - lazyfatbum - 9th May 2008
Quiet, Anus.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 10th May 2008
Wow... THAT was insulting...
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 10th May 2008
Higher gas prices get people to drive less and use less oil, thus they are good.
However, as always, I would much, MUCH rather that that money was going to the government (via high gas taxes like you find in Europe), and not straight into ExxonMobil's coffers. :(
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 10th May 2008
Your assumption isn't correct ABF. Higher gas prices mean people just get punished more. Gas is a necessary evil right now. What would you have the average person do? As it is most people are only really able to drive to work and back. Would you havce them stay home until they starve to death? Lots of people are barely able to get by, and these high gas prices could very well break them. There are no alternatives for most people. Car pools only work if you have a lot of coworkers who live near you (rarer than you think) and public transportation is only an option in some situations (and not an option at all for those like plumbers who need to drive constantly to other's houses).
This is NOT a good thing ABF. The solution isn't raise gas prices until our entire economy collapses, it's finding a new source of fuel and enabling those who are too poor to buy a new car to switch to it.
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 11th May 2008
Ah, but that's the thing. The best impetus to push people to change is scarcity or higher prices. Look at what has happened since gas prices started rising -- fewer SUVs, an actual decrease in US gas consumption, hybrids... people are suffering, but the longer it continues (without a sudden large drop in gas prices) the more pressure there will be for real change -- for much better and more comprehensive public transportation in this country, higher gas milage, etc. Just 'it's bad for the environment' isn't enough for most people... but this? This does it.
The issue of whether the economic hurt is too much and would cause a worse disaster is a good one, but even so, I am not opposed to high gas prices. America needs to reduce oil consumption.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 12th May 2008
It's all well and good to philosophize but while you sit and think about it, real people with real lives are suffering. It doesn't seem like this concept is very "real" to you.
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 12th May 2008
The problem with this line of thinking is that the poor and a good portion of the middle-class, our largest economic demos, are likely to replace old cars with used cars. Hybrid cars are pretty awesome (my next one will very likely be hybrid), but there are vast numbers of people for whom those kinds of cars are simply not economically feasible, and they are the ones who suffer from inflated gas prices.
Higher gas prices alone do very little towards forcing people into purchasing more efficient vehicles. Moreover, it's not even really necessary, because over time, most new cars will get to that point anyway. Five and ten years from now, hybrid cars may make up a majority of the mid-range used car market, making them more accessible, and the more accessible they are, the more improved the newer ones will be. Economic principle will drive the trend, as it almost always has. Hybrid vehicles offer a pretty dramatic increase in fuel efficiency over the standard powertrain, but cars in general have always been trending towards the economical since the 1980s, coinciding with a period in which gas prices sharply receded from the historic inflation of the 70s. Legislation and economic tampering were never required, it simply happened because most people realized that the small new Toyota needed about half as much gas as the old Chrysler Nimitz-class battleship they already in the driveway, and they liked the idea even when gas wasn't at a premium.
People also enjoy adopting new technologies. Remember, no laws or price-inflation was necessary to convince people to abandon the horse for the automobile. The innovation itself, if it serves a useful purpose, will invariably be adopted at large once the common man can easily afford it.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 12th May 2008
That is true though to a more limited extent (market pressure sometimes results in downright stupid trends), though there are still a group of people who buy gas guzzlers like the "H2" or "Humscalade".
However, this isn't much of an argument for ABF because the class of people buying those massive tanks are not the ones who are feeling the hurt of gas prices. They can actually afford it. The earlier statement in this thread "Only poor people care about gas prices" drives the point home (though I will note in the most stereotypical rich jerk way, though that might have been an intended joke).
The people who are most hurt by this are, as Weltall points out, the same group that can't afford to buy a new car. Yes ABF, it is very clear that this would provide motivation, and further if they only DID buy a new more efficient model (hybrids are better, but only a small step) they would save money in the long run.
HOWEVER, the "long run" is simply not going to buy the car right now. If they can't afford it right now, it doesn't matter how much money it saves in the long run. The catch 22 is they, quite literally, can't afford to save money. The initial investment is prohibitively expensive. It's just like how a lot of homes could save money in the long run by adding solar panels to the roof (for heating water and the house at the very least) but simply can't afford to.
On the other hand, more and more people, even the poor, are starting to buy a lot more of the energy efficient light bulbs. This is a big change. Mind you there are bigger changes to be made, but the key point is the initial investment in these new lightbulbs is not prohibitive, and the poor are able to actually make that investment to see the returns later.
ABF, the rising cost of gas also indirectly hurts the economy. Look at the price of food. Milk and other quickly perishing goods are hurt the most (and for someone with a milk addiction like myself, this is pretty noticable). I mean a gallon of milk currently costs over $4 here, and I expect it to steadily rise with the price of gas. This applies to pretty much anything that has to be shipped quickly, and things that don't have quite the energy needs like refrigeration are still going up.
Even if they cut out car travel entirely, managing to be one of the lucky few to work within walking/biking range of their work and the local store, they are still getting hurt by the rising cost of gas.
The cost of gas going up is just hurting everyone. Poor people ALWAYS were motivated to get something more efficient, but for them buying a brand new hybrid is about as realistic as opening a worm hole. That's just how it is. Just to put things in perspective, keep in mind that there are people who have had to put off getting tumors surgically removed because they just can't afford it. They can't afford to save their own life! This is an argument for universalized health care as well I suppose, but the main reason I point this out is no matter how expensive gas gets, if you can't afford to replace your car with something that runs cheaper, you can't afford it. It's likely one of the most frustrating things in the world, to know that you'd be better off finacially if only you had one of those more efficient cars but being completely unable to actually get one.
It's an insult to say "well it motivates them to buy one" because the poor are always motivated to get out of their situation, and the rich aren't really going to mind paying a little extra to power their stretch-monster truck (I've seen some obscene cars around), and if you raise the price of gas enough to hurt the rich, the poor are out of work, out of food, and on the streets.
That said, perhaps you mean motivation for further research into more efficient designs. There's some truth to that, but first I'd say that's not nearly enough to justify the harm it does to the poor. Second of all, as you said, most of this money isn't going to research, it's going to the gas companies and you should be able to figure exactly what research they are putting that towards. Third, there's no reason the government can't take a portion of the taxes we already pay out, divert it away from useless projects like "abstenence only sex education" and start funding the research directly, without increasing the price of gas. In fact, in this way it uses the greater amount of taxes that the rich pay and the poor aren't hurt as much.
If the result you want is more research, there are better routes to go that our government is capable of funding without going through the odd route of raising the price of gas. If the result you want is to motivate people to switch, the poor are incapable of it, and made more incapable the more money they lose to gas, and the rich often don't really care enough about the price of gas to be deterred.
The price of gas in America - A Black Falcon - 14th May 2008
Want a couple of reasons why higher gas prices aren't bad?
1) People will NOT change without financial incentive. "They will change, just give them time"? That just is not true. Without incentive, people won't change. Leave gas prices low, and people will buy huge, gas-guzzling vehicles for as long as they can. Financial incentives are required to push people to care. Higher gas prices do that like few other things could.
2) Hybrids aren't the only answer. Simply buying small cars instead of huge ones is another answer. Even more important than that, though, we need to build, and rebuild, our public transportation infrastructure. Why don't we have high-speed trains like the Shinkaisen or TGV in America? It's absolutely crazy. Why don't we have local commuter trains nationwide, so that people can get from their town to the city they work in without driving? Why do most American cities have no public transportation worth mentioning beyond a city bus system? It makes absolutely no sense, when you think about it! The best a town of 40,000, largest town in over an hours' drive, can manage is a bus system that runs hourly and doesn't run on Sundays? When in the early 1900s there were trains and trollies in the area, running frequently and carrying many people? But we ripped up all the trolley tracks. Great move... a massive expansion of public transportation is a key part of this.
3) Global warming. We're talking about this in the other thread.
4) Peak Oil. See, for instance, the new article on this in the most recent National Geographic. Pessimistic predictions say that we are currently AT peak oil (85 million barrels a day production). Moderate predictions say that we'll hit it by 2015. Unrealistic ones put it farther off, on the assumption that there are massive deposits we haven't found yet. As the article points out, though, in the past huge oil price spikes have caused huge jumps in new oil finds. Companies have reacted to the high prices and limited supply by going out there and finding lots of new oil. This happened in 1980, for example. This is not happening now, and there is no precedent for that. Why isn't it happening? Do they know that there isn't as much left as the more optimistic predictions say?
Realistically, peak oil is either already here or will be in under a decade. With the massive growth of demand in China and India, due to the people in those nations deciding that they want to be like us and improve their lives, oil demand keeps reaching record highs. But there simply isn't enough oil for everyone in China and India to live like we are now. So what can we do? It's a huge, huge problem, and hiding under the bed and pretending that the way Americans lived in the 20th century can indefinitely continue is just not realistic.
The price of gas in America - Dark Jaguar - 17th May 2008
Food for thought: I just saw a car lot commercial advertising that new purchases would get a year's worth of gas paid for. Not sure what sort of fee that would involve but it really says something...
The price of gas in America - Weltall - 4th March 2010
$2.47.
Quote:Financial incentives are required to push people to care.
Agreed, but progressive incentives are better than punitive incentives any day. What good is it to inflate gas prices when no viable alternatives exist?
One reason we don't have high-speed commuter trains like Japan is because the United States is twenty-five times as large as Japan. HSCTs are perfect for Japan because there is a large population condensed into a relatively small area--not so much for a nation with our large size and relatively sparse population. It would be a good idea to implement around our large population centers, but this is, by any reasonable measure, a solution which solves only a small part of the problem.
The incentive should, instead of punishing people with high gas prices, be to accelerate development of alternate technologies, and make them as inexpensive as possible, as quickly as possible. Thrift is what drives technology. You can look at any consumer technology or industry, anywhere, that has seen large success: it doesn't happen until the technology becomes affordable. A fantastic example exists with the automobile himself, and Henry Ford lowballing the price of his own product so that everyone could afford a Ford.
Raising gas prices artificially hurts the economy, and a poor economy is less able to bear the burden of technology development. The only thing such a move would accomplish is burdening us with the need for hydrocarbons longer than would otherwise be the case. It would also cause huge damage to millions of people for whom public transportation is, even if applied to its ideals, wholly impractical. It would also have a negative ripple effect to every level of industry and commerce, driving up prices as we saw two years ago when the consumer cost index grew steadily out of our favor for a while.
I can't conceive of a worse idea than inflating gas prices. There is literally nothing positive that can result from it.
The price of gas in America - Geno - 5th March 2010
Ugh, summer 2008 had the worst gas prices ever. They're still too high, but after having seen gas go over $4 a gallon, I rarely complain about paying $2.60 anymore.
The price of gas in America - Darunia - 5th March 2010
The last I saw, it was $2.53 here in rural southern Massachusetts.
Quote:after having seen gas go over $4 a gallon, I rarely complain about paying $2.60 anymore.
They're counting on that. Gas went from $1.50 to $4.00, and settled at $2.50. That's an increase of about 70%. But, nobody minds it anymore, after having seen the $4. What wonderfully manipulative treachery!