Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
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.
|
Then it sounds like we agree.
If you are unwilling to engage in a hypothetical, that we are there for oil, and explicate why prices would drop (the contention of the original poster), I can't force you to. But you could have done what I did, which is explain why that wouldn't be the case.
I argue that we are there for oil, but pointed out the lack of connection between crude oil production and consumer gasoline prices.
I think I've made this position clear in each one of my posts in this thread.
I was hoping that, as an economist, you would have stepped up the plate sooner and fleshed out what I was saying from your discipline's perspective instead of offering a one-liner about class-warfare.