This thread embodies everything that I find enjoyable about this forum. We start out with gas prices, and turn it into a philosophical discussion about capitalism and exploitation. It accomplished nothing, but it offered me a stimulating diversion from the mundane.
Cause even a rabbit will bite if it gets pushed to the corner. The only way the general population and the government will make a dramatic change is when gas price raises sky high. Right now even though people are b****ing and moaning about it constantly, they are still not willing to give up their SUVs and the house 50 miles away from their job. Let's see if that will change when the gas goes over 8 bucks.
33.3 miles to be exact and I do drive a Honda Civic now, but guilty as charged. As soon as I have a regular schedule downtown (i.e. graduate from the part time law school at night) I will start using Metro to get downtown.
i never knew china practiced thoughtful capitalism. they are pretty rabid capitalists. i love china but they have done some pretty drastic things in the name of progress especially under their non-capitalist government. further, they are one of the most corrupt major economic powers in the world. i'd just like to know what you mean by thoughtful capitalism with respect to them. granted they do have a lot of the communist vestiges but things are changing very quickly.
well you are ignoring any kind of progress that capitalism has produced so i don't know what to say. you act as if it hasn't increased the standard of living of human beings. when you make an insane statement that feudalism was not much better than capitalism then it really makes it hard to take you seriously. would you like to be a serf out farming land and fighting wars for your king instead of sitting in front of your tv watching a rockets game after a day at work? clearly, unbridled capitalism is bad and if that is all you are talking about then you need to state that clearly. if you are saying that the modern capitalist model is not much better than feudalism then you seriously need to re-evaluate your ideas on modern capitalism.
I had one job offer with more $ but a 1 hour commute. I accepted the job for less $ and a 10 minute commute. Everytime gas goes up its like getting a small raise. Since I don't drive as much, I also bought a smaller car and therefore get even better mileage. So I used to fill up about every 8-10 days. I now fill up about every 3.5 weeks. More important than saving gas, I set my alarm for 7am and be sitting in my desk at work by 8am (I never hit traffic jams since I don't get on a freeway). My coworker who lives in the Woodlands gets up at 5am. Thats two extra hours of sleep everyday. ...and I'm home before 5:30. Priceless.
ummm. you have really misinterpreted my post. I was talking about sustainability (as I subsequently mentioned). Not the social aspects I have since hashed out with weslinder, nor the obvious difference between our current standard of living and the repressed peasant of the middle ages. From a sustainability aspect, the two are not that different - in fact, capitalism's efficiency is a bad thing in this case. The modern capitalist model (whatever that means) is not that different from unbridled capitalism. There is regulation, but it's hampered. Capitalism thrives on the love affair with private property - but such a model is fundamentally flawed. Symbiosis would dictate that my neighbor's actions are not wholly his own to make - everything affects me. From a societal and cultural aspect - it's clear capitalism's improved social condition is preferable. But the materialism, the greed, and the lack of appreciation outside of fiscal values saddens me. Maybe that's not a "bad" thing, but it has me depressed occasionally.
I've become desensitized to the high prices. I see $80 and I don't even flinch. However, those plans for a Honda Ridgeline is awfully shaky right now.
Profits alone are a pretty poor way of judging financial success. A more meaningful number to me is profit to revenue %. Yes, ExxonMobil posted record profits in 2007 ($40B), but their revenue was $350B, which means they had to spend a whole lot of money to realize that profit. Microsoft 'only' made $13B in profit last year, but their revenues were $44B, meaning they had to risk far less investment capital to make their profit than Exxon did. But I don't see people up racing to slap a windfall tax on Microsoft, or any of the investment groups like Citi, Wells Fargo & Bank of America. Nor do I see any resentment of Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Time Warner, Intel, AT&T or GE, all of whom had better profit/revenue ratios than any members of the Big Oil conglomerate. Source - 2007 Fortune 500
Have no fear, Congress is here! House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure. The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow. The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto. The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force to aggressively investigate gasoline price gouging and energy market manipulation." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080520/pl_nm/congress_opec_dc
Its funny how people are angry at AMERICAN oil companies when they have much less than 10% of the global oil market. They are price takers, not price makers. In the midst of incredible energy prices, Venezuela's and other countries production has declined because of their lack of investment into their own infrastructure. Most of global oil is controlled by inefficient, corrupt totalitarian regimes, yet we blame our government and our companies??? That is laughable. What we should do is help to stabilize and create democracies in these countries which will allow their capitalist ideals to efficiently extract oil and welcome foreign investment. If there is a democracy than the best and brightest become leaders which can help them from making silly mistakes. Oh yeah.....thats what Bush was trying to do in Iraq! I wasn't a big proponent of the Iraq war, but maybe they knew global demand was rising and commodities would be the future. Maybe Bush and his allies knew that by getting a stake in Iraq, we would help AMERICA have a stable flow of oil in the future. Hmmm.........
i thought the war was about (according to this administration)... 1) preventing iraq from building nukes and other wmds 2) stop iraq from funding and training al qaeda 3) establishing a democracy so now the war was really about securing oil supplies for america to ensure its future economic prosperity??? so has america established a steady flow of oil? if so, then why did bush beg the saudis to pump more oil?
A great post. There is no single issue where the American voting public displays greater ignorance than on the topic of energy. To make American energy producers the enemy in this debate is outrageous. These are the companies we need the most in times like this! To blame Exxon or Chevron for prices when you have a CARTEL of oil producers dictating the supply of oil on the world market is just beyond laughable. Furthermore, NO ONE can stop the industrialization of China and India, which has shot demand through the roof. So let's review the libs' logic: OPEC's cartel and supply setting ability + worldwide demand growth = American oil companies' fault. Typical lib naivete.
I agree with F.D. Khan's post... As for me, I notice I pay more on gas and I can honestly say it influences my decisions on travel etc...I don't have a long commute for work, but when it costs $70 to fill up my tank, I can't help but take notice...I paid $3.71/gallon the other day...that sux... Will that make me buy a smaller car or hybrid, probably not...I'm actually wanting to buy a truck so I'll be looking for a great deal...
