+1

MinutemanMedia.org

BORROWED OPINIONS

I BUY, THEREFORE I AM – by Donald Kaul

Did you see that the price of oil got up over $100-a-barrel the other day, before falling back a few cents?  If you didn’t, don’t worry about it; you’ll get another chance.  Soon.

While experts are predicting a near-term retreat from $100 oil---because we seem to be teetering on the edge of a recession---they also predict a surge to $120 or so in the summer when the driving season kicks in.

That’s a lot, $120-a-barrel.  It represents an all-time high and will translate into $3.75 at the pump.

There are those who will say, “Why doesn’t the President do something?”

And I will say back: “He did do something.  He gave us $100-a-barrel oil.” As recently as 2003 the price of a barrel was as low as $25.  That was before George Bush’s energy (ha-ha) program kicked in.  The good old days.

If, in 2001, you had laid out a plan to make oil cost $100-a-barrel by 2008, it would have been pretty much the plan that George Bush and his oil-field cronies executed.

First you fight all efforts---international and domestic---at energy conservation as though they were terrorist plots conceived in the mind of Osama bin Laden.

Then you go to war in the Middle East not once but twice to destabilize the world’s top oil-producing region and send oil prices shooting up.  It has been said that as much as 30 percent of the price we’re paying for oil is due to the risk of that instability.

You also make sure to propose a series of half-hearted, too-little-too-late measures to develop alternative fuels, just so you can say you’ve done something.

And, of course, you keep trying to go where Man has not gone before.  And drill for oil.  Wilderness preserves are especially good.  It is a pathetic response to the kind of shortfall we have in oil production, but it would make a few billion bucks for your oil industry buddies (the ones writing the big checks for speeches when your time in office is done).

Anyway, it’s worked.  Congratulations George.  And congratulations too to the American people, nearly half of whom voted Mr. Bush into office---twice.  (If this is democracy I’m not so sure it’s a good idea to spread it to the rest of the world.)

The sorry fact is that advocating real energy conservation is a form of political suicide.  People embrace conservation in the abstract, but when you get down to details, where it becomes painful and expensive, they act as though you’re trying to take away their birthright.  And, in a sense, you are.

To the average American, conservation of energy is un-American.  Our economy is based on consumption.  Less is not more, less is less and bigger is better.

Consider the television set.  It arrived in the world with the promise of being the greatest educational tool since the book.  And instead we made it the greatest sales tool in the history of the world.

Think on that.  A machine that can bring the entire world into your living room and instead we turn it over to lying hucksters selling junk.

The American public has swallowed the absurd notion that they are defined by the things they buy and consume.  Happiness consists of owning the right combination of cars, hair products, clothes and soap.

They’ve bought the lie that they are consumers before they are workers.  That’s why the labor movement is dying.  Unions make things cost more.  They protect jobs too, but we don’t think about that until it’s too late.

So to ask a society like ours to conserve, to do with less, not to buy, is ridiculous.   I buy, therefore I am.

That’s why ideas like the $2-a-gallon gas tax will never fly.  People don’t want to use less gasoline.  They want to use more.

Which means, whether they know it or not, they want $120-a-barrel oil.

And they’re going to get it; good and hard.

Vaughn Tolle said:
 
I've often wondered why we have turned into a nation of consumers. Am I overstating things in my recollection of the President telling us, as a country, to combat 9/11 by going ahead as normal, shopping, etc.

It is clear that our economy is based upon consumer consumption, and is very dependent upon credit based purchases. Notwithstanding my earlier thoughts to the contrary, the elimination of the income tax deduction for consumer credit interest hasn't cut the appetite therefor at all. Then, of course, the offers of mortgage refinancing, second mortgages, etc., to provide additional funds to spend (don't kid yourself, many folks didn't pay off the credit cards, or if they did, have run them up again) to support the consumer economy. Now that there is a reduction in housing values, there are many, many folks who took advantage of the offers who are now facing negative equity in their residence.

With this easy source of funds to spend now "cut off" for many people, the stagnation in "real" wages and incomes, the prior level of consumer activity is unsustainable. Couple this with rising fuel costs, the increase in prices of groceries, part of which is due to increased fuel costs which led to increased transportation costs, and the recently reported increase in the cost of medical care, including insurance, exceeding the inflation rate, among other things, and the potential for recession looms large.

Goldman, Sachs, has already gone out on a limb and forecast a recession, the only major financial firm which has done so to my knowledge. There is some suggestion from the data that a recession has already begun. Retail sales in December were the lowest, as reported, in some six years. All in all, not a pretty picture.
 
posted 665 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
I have been reading about the anticipated Federal Reserve action in reducing the Federal Funds Rate by 50 basis points. This is a risky action, IMHO.

It seems the Federal Reserve has two main goals; one, to fight inflation; two, encourage reasonable economic growth. With the slow down in the economy (disregarding the recession issue), the Fed has apparently determined it will risk fighting the inflation monster to stimulate economic growth. Taking a look at this from my traditional bias, this is the wrong way to go; it is better to accept the recession which I believe is inevitable regardless, now, which I think if it occurs now, will be shorter in duration; rather than setting off another inflationary period which may well take years to control. My real fear is another period of stagflation, as we saw during the Carter administration (which had its roots going back into the end of the Nixon/Ford administration, I believe). And, for Linda's benefit, the "have mores" did quite well then, too; just not as well as they will do if it happens again.
 
posted 665 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Isn't this why bush was hand picked and whatever it took was done to ensure he was president? Cynical, yes, I am. But I suspect also correct.
 
posted 665 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Link copied from a Steven Davis post on WEBlog, provided to those who don't go there anymore. While SD posted the same with reference to the graphics in the opening entry, there is a post "down the blog" which discusses the pending Fed rate cut, which I found of interest as well.
 
posted 665 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Well, I made it here. Maybe, I think I did. Is anyone else here? I'm ready to learn, where are my teachers?
 
posted 665 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Just had an email from Tracy saying HE can't here. Can't remember his password, didn't sound like he even remembered having one. tehe I offered to send him an invite to his own site -- top of the screen says I have FIVE, plus I earned some "spot points" by rambling here without saying anything. Amazing!

So if this place is so private that our leader can't get here, does that mean we really don't have any drop-in visitors, lurkers...? The only people reading here are those who also post? Does that mean I need to send hubby an invite even tho he doesn't ever do more than read?
 
posted 664 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Well, I've voted on everything -- all thumbs up stuff! I've waited to see if anyone else is around. I even clicked on New Blog Entry but chickened out of actually adding anything as I wasn't at all sure where it would go!

I have company now so I must go play. See ya. If you ever get here.
 
posted 664 days ago
View Replies (1) || Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
.: HIDE REPLIES :.
 
I put my last comment in two paragraphs and the system changed it. Sometimes our posts are long so that's gonna need to be fixed!
 
posted 664 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Dave and Aaron,

You know I'm capable of talking to myself. however I begin to make NO sense and then less sense than that very quickly. Vaughn emailed that he also can't get here. sigh Maybe by next week...
 
posted 664 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
I really want to be positive about this change, and maybe being alone here colors my opinion, BUT I DON'T LIKE IT! I really don't like not being able to structure my posts and no mater what it gets lumped into one runon paragraph. I really don't like it when I reply to a certain post and while typing can't see the post I'm replying to. I find it much more difficult, more cumbersome, less user-friendly. I DON'T LIKE IT! I'm off. I'll return sometime Monday to see if any of you showed up. Otherwise, I'll find something else to do and not bother.
 
posted 663 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Wendy said:
 
Linda,

I have figured out how to post here (I THINK!) However, there seems to be a pretty significant delay, at least from my end. I was not able to view comments I posted on another topic until long AFTER I actually posted them...

Also - I have to add, I prefer the format that showed the date and time of posting rather than how many hours it has been since the posting... just my two cents there...
 
posted 662 days ago
View Replies (1) || Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
.: HIDE REPLIES :.
Julie said:
 
I agree, not sure how I feel about this new format
 
posted 662 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
tureli_do said:
 
Well, because I didn't use my name on my instant spot account, I can't change it to my name, so now everybody gets my alias... Such is life I guess.
 
posted 662 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Tracy, with the introduction of your new blog, I presume we should all "travel there", right? BTW, thanks for the email telling me about the new place. I will see about doing one of these for me, too, but don't anyone get in any hurry about this. OK?
 
posted 661 days ago
View Replies (2) || Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
.: HIDE REPLIES :.
tureli_do said:
 
Vaughn,
What is Tracy's new blog? If you still have my email address and it is ok with Tracy, you may send it to me that way, or if Tracy likes post it here, I'll check email more regularly(job demands that at least), but I'll check here a little as well.
 
posted 661 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Wendy said:
 
Vaughn,

I also would like a link to the new site... if someone wanted to forward that to me, it would be great!
 
posted 661 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
 
Wendy, please email me at avtolle@hotmail.com and I will get you the link if someone else hasn't already done so.

Gotta run, my 4:00 appointment just showed.
 
posted 661 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search