Rising gasoline prices - USA only or Worldwide Issue

[GaryKelly]

Back in 2000, the UK mainland was virtually paralyzed in a matter of days by farmers and hauliers protesting about price increases in fuel (actually increases in fuel tax).

HMG called it a "blockade", and made ready to 'send the army in'. In actual fact there was no blockade at all, just small groups of quiet protesters standing around with placards, well away from refinery gates.

But of course HMG had to use as much inflammatory spin as possible to make the protesters look like, well, like 'terrorists' holding the country to ransom. In spite of the fact that in all the TV coverage, any viewer could clearly see that there was no 'blockade', no threat of violence, no barricades, no roadblocks...

The protests spread quickly across Europe, even though the tax on 'gas' on the continent is considerably less than in Britain.

The 'blockade' came to an end when, after about a week, the press picked up on the Government's new spin (they clearly weren't winning public hearts and minds with their 'blockade' BS)... "please stop the protests, people might die if ambulances run out of petrol."

So the protesters went home, ending what was for them a week standing around drinking tea, and what was for Tony Blair a week of discovering that no indeed, farts aren't supposed to have lumps and the colour of real fear is brown.

Other lessons were learned too, principally that the UK can be brought to its knees in less than a week just by loafing around outside Britain's 9 oil refineries.

[jbarter]

the UK can be brought to its knees in less than a week just by loafing around.

Hey, that makes me the most dangerous man in the country.

[Montana]

How about celebrities that fly here & yon in private jets? Should we shoot them, too?

Yes!
And everyone knows not to take the comment to shoot them literally. On the Moor was just making the point that the more extravagant the vehicle, the more obvious the lack of concern for the problems we are discussing. Like the people driving the Hummers - they're some of the worst. How ostentatious can you get? They should be shot.

And I'm in agreement with Jayhawk; just because you have the money doesn't mean you should buy or do negative or destructive things (even if that's what our "leaders" do). John Gorka has a good line in one of his songs:
"I wouldn't care how much they have as long as they'd do what's right."

[BillChin]

One friend's father gave this advice to his son, "never be ashamed of how you spend your money."

My opinion is, if a person can afford it and wants to spend the money, I say enjoy.
+ Bill

Argh! Those two quotes give me the chills. Why shouldn't one be ashamed of how they spend their money? Shame is one of the key things holding society together. Lack of shame leads to neglect of the less fortunate and needy. Any CEO making $5 million per year plus stock options ought to be ashamed if they're paying their lowest paid employees minimum wage (a family trying to live on minimum wage will be below the poverty level). I don't care what that CEO buys - he should be deeply ashamed that he can afford a Hummer when it costs more than the salary of one of his employees.

While it's great to have the money to be able to enjoy what you want in theory, you really have to turn a blind eye to all the suffering in the world to do so.

Eric

I have gone back and forth on the issue. It is not an easy one. Where does a person draw the line? Is it at 15 mpg for a vehicle? 75 watts for a lightbulb? 2500 square feet for a house? Ten minutes of water for a shower? 300 watts for a computer power supply? 19 inches on a computer monitor? 27 inches on a TV? Personally, I can't categorize these as moral issues.

I do think people need to be mindful of all their decisions, not just their choice of vehicle, though that is the easiest to attack. A large house can be more energy hogging than a large vehicle. However, if a person makes a choice and enjoys it, who am I to say there is a moral issue with their enjoyment? Do you see an ethical issue, a moral issue? If so, who is the arbiter? Who draws the line? You? Ralph Nader? President Bush? Some one like the Unibomber living in a shack without electricity or running water? In my mind, there are more questions than answers.

To someone in a poor country, even the most fuel efficient American vehicle will be categorized as extravagantly wasteful as a Hummer H2 does to an American. So again, who is the arbiter?

I go back to the story of young Buddha who fasted and denied himself food. After several months, Buddha concluded that his fasting did not make him more spiritual--thus the abundance of Buddha's with large bellies. This at a time when starvation was a real threat to life.

Another story--John D. Rockefeller was one of the richest men in world history. He was known for being frugal in his private life and in his business affairs. However, he was also one of the world's greatest philanthropists even though his greed was legendary. The quote is "Mr. Rockefeller, how much money is enough? Rockefeller: just a little bit more." Where does put him on a moral scale, keeping in mind that he gave away more money to arts and charities than almost anyone in history?

So if someone buys a new Ferrari but also gives a lot of time and money to charity, where does that person fall on the scale? And who is doing the judging? Sure there is the old stereotype of "yuppie-scum" but there are very few people that fit that category of total self indulgence and zero giving.

Again, it is not an easy issue, and I have more questions than answers.
+ Bill

[missy]

It's not (at least in this discussion) being able to afford some things, it's the "economic responsibility" of using such things.....

It's like I said - if you come to the meeting driving a SUV, please don't talk to me about the price of gas, consumption, and the government should be "doing" something about it. As long as there is a market for SUV's, the auto makers will make them. If no one was purchasing SUV's, but only purchasing cars that get over 30 mpg, ALL cars would get over 30 mpg. Supply and demand.

In this area, homes are heated (for the most part) by either natural gas, oil or electricity. Electricity here is ONLY generated by coal burning. I don't care HOW energy efficient your home is, it's going to use up a lot more natural resources to heat your 4000 sqft home than my 1200 sqft home.

I could afford a new, larger TV - but we rarely watch it. Ours works fine. And what would we do with the old one? More stuff to go in the landfill?

Missy

[BillChin]

It's not (at least in this discussion) being able to afford some things, it's the "economic responsibility" of using such things.....

It's like I said - if you come to the meeting driving a SUV, please don't talk to me about the price of gas, consumption, and the government should be "doing" something about it. As long as there is a market for SUV's, the auto makers will make them. If no one was purchasing SUV's, but only purchasing cars that get over 30 mpg, ALL cars would get over 30 mpg. Supply and demand.

In this area, homes are heated (for the most part) by either natural gas, oil or electricity. Electricity here is ONLY generated by coal burning. I don't care HOW energy efficient your home is, it's going to use up a lot more natural resources to heat your 4000 sqft home than my 1200 sqft home.

I could afford a new, larger TV - but we rarely watch it. Ours works fine. And what would we do with the old one? More stuff to go in the landfill?

Missy

I will agree with most of this. I will say that I would prefer people to be more environmentally conscious in all their decisions, from small things such as choice of lightbulbs (compact fluorescents), size of TV and computer monitor, to bigger things such as choice of vehicle, length of commute, size of home or apartment.

However, that said, I do not see energy consumption, or consumption in general as a moral or ethical issue. Those that do, have the huge question of who is the arbiter and how to go about changing behavior. I would like people to consume less, but it is not something I want to outlaw or use civil disobediance to change. There is a lot of focus on automobiles because they are so visible, but as I pointed out, gasoline is only a small part of the consumption picture.
+ Bill

[missy]

Bill - I think we are agreeing.......

When people say "gas is high, why doesn't the government DO something about it" - I don't want the government to DO something about it, each and every one of us should do something about it.

What if the government decides the way to handle gas prices is to prohibit any private vehicle that can't get better than 30 mpg from being on the road? That's totally wrong.
But consumers could do the same thing by only buying vehicles that get better than 30 mpg.

We live in a disposable society. Not only can't most people "fix" things that break - it doesn't PAY to do so. In most cases, it really does cost more in parts and time to fix something than to chuck it and go buy a new one. Heck - it's almost cheaper to buy a new computer printer than to buy the ink cartridges to go in the old one!!!!!

I just don't want government regulating what should be individual decisions and practices.

Missy

[Jayhawk]

Bill - I had a nice long reply that my computer ate, so this one will be shorter! BTW - this is way off my original topic, but it's interesting.

I agree it's not easy to determine what's too much, etc., but I do think we can agree (as most world religions do) that murder, rape, racism, sexism, theft and abuse (I'm sure I left some biggies off this list) are wrong. However, I'd love to hear how the following "gray" issues could be considered "right action" in the Buddhist viewpoint or in any other moral code:

1) CEO Pay:

According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.

CEO pay has continued to rise about 5% since 2000, while US businesses lay of thousands of workers each day (locally, the Sprint CEO's pay continues to rise with several thousand employees laid off each year and Sprint paying $50 million for naming rights of KC's new arena).
2) Corporate Taxes - According to Mother Jones News, 50 or 80 (I don't have the magazine here) Fortune 500 companies based in the US paid no federal taxes, none. How quickly could we balance the budget if those tax loopholes were closed?
3) Eminent Domain - Originally intended to allow cities to take property for public good projects such as hospitals, schools and highways, cities have shifted their interpretation to allow cities to take property through eminent domain to give to corporations because, well, that's good business which is good for the city. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reign in this growing injustice. Otherwise, if Wal-Mart wants to sponsor a sporting arena in your neighborhood, say goodbye to your house - your ownership rights mean nothing.

Big cars, big houses - they're just symptoms of the corporate feudalism we're moving towards. The rich will be able to afford gas no matter how high the price, but that doesn't mean the average person, and the poor, will be able to.

OK, I'll step off my soapbox now.

Eric

[jGilder]

Big cars, big houses - they're just symptoms of the corporate feudalism we're moving towards. The rich will be able to afford gas no matter how high the price, but that doesn't mean the average person, and the poor, will be able to.

Now you've done it -- they'll be foaming at the mouth and calling you a "Marxist" (among other things) for this any time now. And IRtradRU? will tear down your soapbox and make memorial statue out of it dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades.

[IRTradRU?]

Big cars, big houses - they're just symptoms of the corporate feudalism we're moving towards. The rich will be able to afford gas no matter how high the price, but that doesn't mean the average person, and the poor, will be able to.

Now you've done it -- they'll be foaming at the mouth and calling you a "Marxist" (among other things) for this any time now. And IRtradRU? will tear down your soapbox and make memorial statue out of it dedicated to the American soldiers and their fallen comrades.

And the hits just keep on comin'.

:roll:

[Redwolf]

I'm not understanding this 'you live far away, so it's your fault you use so much gas' thing.
Don't you understand that houses cost more in the city than further out? (Or maybe they
don't where you are, I don't know.) I live as far away from the city as I do because that
was the nearest town that had buyable houses.

Amen to that. Here in Santa Cruz County, we have people who have to commute long distances because, pricey as they are, the houses and apartments here are cheaper than they are over the hill in San Jose, where most of the jobs are. No matter what people like to think, salaries are not commensurate with the higher housing prices in such places. And it doesn't help to say "move to where you can live near your job," because I can't think of many places where that's likely to be possible for someone in the tech field.

When we lived in North Carolina, we bought the house we did because it was near where my husband worked. But then he was "downsized" and had to start contracting...with the result that we never knew where he was going to be working. On any given day, he might have to drive 50 miles to Winston-Salem, 20 miles to Raleigh. He did eventually find another full-time job...that's right; in Raleigh. Were we supposed to sell our home and leave our friends and neighbors so he wouldn't have to drive to work? That kind of attitude is neither humane nor practical.

Redwolf

[IRTradRU?]

How about celebrities that fly here & yon in private jets? Should we shoot them, too?

Yes!
And everyone knows not to take the comment to shoot them literally. On the Moor was just making the point that the more extravagant the vehicle, the more obvious the lack of concern for the problems we are discussing. Like the people driving the Hummers - they're some of the worst. How ostentatious can you get? They should be shot.

And I'm in agreement with Jayhawk; just because you have the money doesn't mean you should buy or do negative or destructive things (even if that's what our "leaders" do). John Gorka has a good line in one of his songs:
"I wouldn't care how much they have as long as they'd do what's right."

Can't disagree with that sentiment - especially the line from the song... but I think it's bad policy for any government to start legislating what/how/when of personal choices. The US government has for a long, long time made attempts at forcing car makers to reach certain limits... sure, those attempts can be seen as having good intent, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and quite often, legislation which forces things upon a free market system means only one thing in the end: 'stuff costs more'.

[BillChin]

Bill - I had a nice long reply that my computer ate, so this one will be shorter! BTW - this is way off my original topic, but it's interesting.

I agree it's not easy to determine what's too much, etc., but I do think we can agree (as most world religions do) that murder, rape, racism, sexism, theft and abuse (I'm sure I left some biggies off this list) are wrong. However, I'd love to hear how the following "gray" issues could be considered "right action" in the Buddhist viewpoint or in any other moral code:

1) CEO Pay:

According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.

CEO pay has continued to rise about 5% since 2000, while US businesses lay of thousands of workers each day (locally, the Sprint CEO's pay continues to rise with several thousand employees laid off each year and Sprint paying $50 million for naming rights of KC's new arena).
2) Corporate Taxes - According to Mother Jones News, 50 or 80 (I don't have the magazine here) Fortune 500 companies based in the US paid no federal taxes, none. How quickly could we balance the budget if those tax loopholes were closed?
3) Eminent Domain - Originally intended to allow cities to take property for public good projects such as hospitals, schools and highways, cities have shifted their interpretation to allow cities to take property through eminent domain to give to corporations because, well, that's good business which is good for the city. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reign in this growing injustice. Otherwise, if Wal-Mart wants to sponsor a sporting arena in your neighborhood, say goodbye to your house - your ownership rights mean nothing.

Big cars, big houses - they're just symptoms of the corporate feudalism we're moving towards. The rich will be able to afford gas no matter how high the price, but that doesn't mean the average person, and the poor, will be able to.

OK, I'll step off my soapbox now.

Eric

I may be wrong, but I don't recall any commandment, or Islamic precept against being wealthy. So while it may be something I do not like, I would not categorize it as an ethics or morals question. Catholic clergy do take a vow of poverty, but many other religions encourage their clergy to accumulate wealth. Calvinists see wealth as God's favor.

I am troubled by the gap between the high pay of CEOs and the average worker. I will point out that it is not a new historical phenemon, that in many other eras the lower classes lived on nothing while the upper crust lived very well. What is it, 20% of the world that lives on a dollar day or less? By that standard the average American at say $20,000 a year, is 60 times that amount. Should the average American feel terrible about this and give back some of their money? It is astounding that the average CEO is 30,000 times that dollar a day level, but that is more a matter of degree than philosophy. My conclusion may be that the relatively short epoch of decent wages for average workers may have been a historical aberration and what is happening now is more the historical norm.

I will add that I do not see any realistic, effective solutions. If you have any, I would be happy to listen. While people pay lip service to the issue of high pay, they do not boycott companies with highly paid executives, or TV shows or movies with highly paid movie stars, or sports teams with highly paid athletes. In fact, these are often the most popular companies, shows and movies, and sports teams, so the cycle feeds upon itself, and the rich get richer. In some historical cases, the answer is a violent one--revolution. I think the U. S. is a LONG way from that day, so any other proposed solutions that you have would be welcome.

Think of it this way, how many people would say no to the money? If a company offers a person $10 million a year, what person is going to say "no, that is too much, I will only take $1 million." Even a saintly person would think about all the good he/she could do by donating some of the extra money.

Think again of Buddha, eating so much and being so rotund in a time of much starvation. Was he immoral? If the answer is yes, who are you to judge him? Buddha gave away much of his riches, but still ate more than his share. The question might be: how much charity (or taxes to put it more bluntly) is enough? If a rich person earns $10 million and gives away $5 million is that enough to mollify you? Would $9 million be enough?

Again, I will ask do you think John D. Rockefeller was immoral? He was the richest man of his day, with legendary greed. He also gave away more money than almost anyone in history.

Even in one of the few remaining "worker's paradises," Communist China, the new slogan is "to be rich is glorious," not the old, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Bottom line, I think you are swimming against the tide. Both the tide of long-term history, and the current events. There is nothing wrong with that, but best be prepared to be frustrated and see and hear a lot of things that you disagree with.

I also want to clarify the quote "never be ashamed of how you spend your money." Most are interpreting this as a free ticket to do anything, when the intent of the advice is for the son to think carefully about how he spends his money.
+ Bill

[IRTradRU?]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)


Note that the popular saying is that 'money is the root of all evil'. This is a false interpretation of the writings of Timothy.

The excellent example of JD Rockefeller as provided by Bill bears this out. And yet to this day Rockefeller is viewed by many with contempt, in spite of the man's generosity.

[Bloomfield]

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)


Note that the popular saying is that 'money is the root of all evil'. This is a false interpretation of the writings of Timothy.

The excellent of JD Rockefeller as provided by Bill bears this out. And yet to this day Rockefeller is viewed by many with contempt, in spite of the man's generosity.

Wasn't it Rockefeller who said "Wealth is the Lord's way of saying This is my son with whom I am well pleased"? If he really did say that, he deserved to be viewed with contempt by many, and chastised for such profanity, too.