Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
I'm not going to address the non-sequiter.
However, I'm still curious about why you expect to pay lower consumer prices for gasoline after allowing that this war is "about oil?"
Maybe I'm not making this question clear. The argument seems to be that since we haven't received cheaper oil, we must not be in the gulf for oil.
Why do you believe a war for oil would result in cheaper gasoline consumer prices?
Even if we are both wrong, that is, we are there for oil, and this does entitle us to lower prices, what leads you to believe we would we get lower prices now?
|
I don't "allow that the war was about oil". I made no statement in support of either argument. Further, I don't maintain that we would (or would not) see lower prices.
I simply pointed to the fact that those arguing "we're there for oil" conveniently have no proposition for loss with regard to oil and gas prices. If gas prices were to go up after the war, the spin will be about fighting the war to maintain artificially high prices. If prices go down the argument will be that we went into Iraq so we could have cheap gas/oil.
The media, along with oil and gas companies, continually reinforce that gas prices rise and fall with the price per barrel of oil. Of course we know the pricing model is far more complicated but it's the perception, in this case, that matters since no one is going to listen to an empirical discussion of gas pricing. The link between crude oil and gas prices is inextricably entrenched in the public's mind.