MSD

I'll admit it, I was one of the people who thought that the main motivations for the Iraq war were oil and revenge. We got there, a poster in another thread accused us of "stealing Iraq's natural oil reserves." The WMD issue is a moot point, and in the past 23 weeks, gas prices hit 7 record highs in 8 days (source: CNN)

So, it seems that we're either dealing with a non oil-related situation, or the coalition governments and oil companies are conspiring to hold oil prices high. Is it more logical to assume that they're trying to make money, or could the war have really been an honest (but misguided?) attempt at bringing Democracy to a dictatorship?

I have done my best to make this a discussable question because in the original wording it seemed more like a troll, but it's really an honest question based on the quote from another thread that I didn't want to threajack. I won't hesitate to lock it at the first sign of idiotic bickering, and my fellow moderators will do the same; the only warning or notice you'll see in this thread will be to guide it back on track if it deviates too far from the intended course of discussion. If it ceases to be civil, it will be locked, and anyone engaged in the idiotic bickering that has infected the politics board will recieve official warnings.

Demiurge

Personally I belive the Bush Administration is trying to control the oil prices. So they could be richer... Bush does sign alot of nonsense bills so his administration can recieve more campaign contributions. I remember watching 60 minutes, Bush signed some bill so drug prices in the States will remain dictated by the pharmaceuticals.

seretogis

Oil prices are actually not at "record highs" -- twenty years ago gas was more pricey per gallon than it is now. The dollar is weak, and gas taxes are higher than ever.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

filtherton

Is that taking into account inflation?

I can't wait to see what the prices are like this summer, when they are typically highest. I think gas prices are all a scam anyway. Every once in a while some government agency looks into the oil industry for price gouging and they always magically find that there is nothing fishy going on. They never seem to explain why there is nothing fishy going on, just that "trust us, nothing underhanded is going on".

matthew330

I think that's the route most liberals were going initially. "It's about oil!, It's about oil!!." I don't remember hearing prior to the war "There are no WMD's!!"

If we were so concerned about controlling oil, the first gulf war would have been the prime opportunity. We liberated Kuwait, and left them to their oil. I think it's testement to the fact that there is no hypothetical situation where the left would have agreed to go to war.

It seems as though what everyone is agreeing on is our intelligence about WMD's, was incorrect. If Saddam had been co-operating with the inspection process (which was left for 4 years), we wouldn't have had to rely on intelligence to "guess" whether or not they did. This is why I always believed we went to war. Saddam was not only toying with the inspectors (after having booted them out once), but for 13 years ignored the UN resolutions. He'd been firing on our planes patrolling the "no-fly zone", he'd proven himself to be willing to use chemical weapons, and in light of 9/11 we couldn't afford to continue to let him continually make a mockery the UN. Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in after 9/11 with an attitude of "you screw with us this time, and your done." He probably didn't take us seriously because of our reactions to previous terrorist attacks (Cole, etc, etc). I firmly believe that if Gore were president Saddam would currently have had 5 years total of unfettered attempts to create whatever his evil heart desired.

A side note, I think before people start yelling about the evil pharmaceutical companies they should educate themselves on the costly approval process for drugs. For every 1 drug approved by the FDA, there are literally thousands of drugs that have gone through up to 3-4 phases of trials at hundreds of sites at the cost of billions of dollars. All at the threat of being sued by the population that insists on getting these drugs for free once the "needle in the haystack" is found. All the while people like Martha Stewart being hailed as an entrepeneur for making bedsheets that cost upwards of 500 bucks.

iccky

Yeah, I was opposed to the war, but I always thought the "we're actually in this for oil" argument was pretty bunk and did disservice to the cause. There were enough logical arguments to be made against the war, screaming about oil just lumps the anti-war crowd in with the tin foil hats brigade.

If the bushies were really in bed with the oil companies, there are a lot of things they could have done a long time ago to enrich themselves. Ending sanctions against Iran where today french oil companies can invest but we can't. Simmilarlly, Regan and the first Bush took a very harsh stance towards Lybia, another country where US companies missed oil opprotunities. This Bush did the same until recently, but I think that policy change was fairly obviously motivated by Lybia's new stance on nukes rather then oil. And simply making peace with Saddam would have been a much easier way to get oil concessions then invading.

Oil is important in the sense that we wouldn't be in the middle east if there was no oil there. For one thing, without oil it would be a backwater that posed no threat to anyone. For another, if access to middle eastern oil was cut (by say, a nuclear attack on kuwait, or a madman dictator taking control of most of the world's oil supply) it would lead to massive economic distress throughout the world. Which equals high unemployment, lots of poverty, i.e. not something either liberals of conservatives want. We stay engaged in the persian gulf to prevent this potential catastrophe, not to engineer financial gain for any particular company or family.

/end rant, feel free to delete this if it crosses any line

Seriously though, there are many factors outside of our control that determine the price of oil. OPEC. Venezuela. Russia. Demand. The Iraq ar had no impact on any of these except to maybe piss off OPEC and make them want to take a stand against us. Iraq's contribution to the global oil supply is so small that it would be impossible for the coalition to control oil prices even if they wanted to.

Lebell

I haven't been in the industry in a few years, but I do know that while demand has gone up, our ability to refine it has remained fairly level.

So there is a big bottleneck and price driver right there.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

I'm not going to rehash all the things that many of us have stated before.

I will, however, clear up some points that seem to be unclear:

1) It's not a question of if Bush and his administration are tied to oil interests--they are. I can't dream of anyone, right or left on the political spectrum, who would deny that after following the money.

2) Whether Bush is tied to oil interests or not is immaterial to oil prices dropping. Let's leave the ties, alleged or otherwise, the Bush family has to the house of Saud off the table for a second. The fact remains that we don't own oil companies, so it's not as though government procurement of oil resources is going to result in lower prices. Unless, of course, we operated under a socialist economy. We don't, however, so whatever riches that might be gained, assuming "war for oil" was speaking to profit motive, would be made by the corporations--not drivers.

3) Energy resources have been driving our foreign policy since the industrial revolution. Oil has specifically motivated us in more recent decades. This is not limited to the United States, however; rather, the entire Western hemisphere has been carving developing nations for its needs for centuries.

4) "war for oil" has a two-part component to it:
a) some people believe that corporations have vested interests in pushing for monopolization of energy resources. Given that, they argue that wars abroad to secure such resources are really extensions of corporate welfare--and a type of neo-colonialism. Usually this is achieved via economic methods (hence the "neo" as opposed to classical colonialsm), but more recently, as our economic clout ebbs, we are resorting to classical forms of colonialism--good ol' warfare.

b) others may or may not agree with the above assessment. Regardless of where they stand on corporate ties to warfare, however, this second group understands the realpolitik necessity of securing new sources of oil reserves. That is, they understand the power OPEC has on our current oil supplies as well as the upcoming demand from developing nation-states, such as, the billion+ people in China.

Despite their recognition for the necessity of securing oil sources, they dispute that our current action is the best recourse to secure new resources. They view this long-term plan as ultimately self-defeating in that it will perpetuate the same type of political blowback that colonialsm has already spawned--namely, and most poignant to US citizens now, domestic terrorism. The rest of the world has already come to understand this because they have had to deal with domestic terrorism for much longer than we have, hence the nearly world-wide opposition to our (and their own governemnts') involvement.

Their point is that warfare to secure necessary resources is colonialsm--not that Bush just wants to get rich and enjoys killing people to do it. There is no tinfoil hat position here, this is all well researched and you can ask me for a list of sources if you are seriously interested in learning more.

In no instance, other than the US transforming to a socialist economy with guaranteed energy for its citizens, would either of these scenarios result in lower prices for common drivers.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

smooth

Now that I've explained the theoretical underpinnings for the argument, I'll explain how people like me and Strange Famous get from that to an assertion of stealing one's resources:

You all know the basic premise of capitalism: money purchases capital (the means of production; the things, such as, oil, oil rigs, oil refineries, oil transport ships, etc., that make more money).

I assume readers are aware that our government made Iraq available to private investment. This compies with our stated goal of capitalism and democracy (these aren't necessarily linked, BTW, to say so is to engage in a process sociologists identify as reification--I might address that in a third post if people are interested).

When Iraq resources opened to the market, however, it went up on the global auction block. The people with the most money bought what they wanted. You can deduce yourself how much the average Iraqi citizen, pulling in just over a mean annual of $20 bucks, was able to purchase when he or she was bidding against the like of Chase Manhattan or CitiCorp (hint: billions of liquid capital). Most of these are US corporations, but it's not limited to our corps. In fact, such corporations are actually multi-national, and hardly conform to what we used to envision as being accountable to any one nation-state or its regulations.

This investment can be likened to a tidal wave. Worse to the local economy, however, is prospect money. Billions of dollars of investment capital that is pushed in and out in daily waves on Wall Street. You can imagine what kinds of things occur when the local economy is struggling on pennies per day and someone steps in with millions of dollars. Now, good things can happen. Jobs can be created, companies can spawn, and the pie can get larger--everyone gets something, even if it turns out to be crumbs.

However, the market isn't run by people. It's run by corporations and dollar signs on a ticker. This is a very important dynamic. I'm not accusing people of being sinister, but we ought to recognize that many investment opportunities do not care about the social or personal ramifications of their actions--and they shouldn't. They shouldn't in terms of being responsible to their shareholders or in how capitalism works.

This is the argument that we make in opposition to capitalism structures, BTW. Unless corporations make it part of their mission and agree be socially conscious, or they are forced to by an outside entity, the won't be socially conscious and, in fact, would be suicidal to ensure their policies were socially responsible when their competition doesn't agree to the same terms.

The bottom line for some of us:
This is not a war against Iraq waged by Americans--although that's what it's being billed as along with the ideology being constructed to justify it.

The people in control are simply changing the guard. Elites in Washington have ousted elites in Iraq, whom they helped secure in power because he did share their interests, moreso than either of them share with the working people in both of their respective nations.

This is the critical point that me or Strange Famous, among others, would make:

Bush, among other elites--I count Kerry and Heinz among them, is more interested in profit than he is about the welfare of his constituents--just like Saddam was. If you look at the leading heads of states, with few exceptions, you will find that they are comprised of people who come from the wealthiest class of society. They share more in common with each other than they do with any of us.

These people will continue to use people like you and me to fight their wars, to secure their means of production, to give them labor, and to give them whatever we make for that labor to purchase commodities--some of which we need and some of it to make us feel happy. We will continue to die for, and/or while making, other people's riches while the occasional few of us will rise to the top through some mechanism not usually due to our own actions.

Marx argued that buying commodities to make us feel happy was due to the effects of capitalism. In short, we don't need commodities, but our warped human nature (from the economic structure) leads us to believe we do. And it leads us to believe that there is no other way to interact with one another by pointing to our human nature and claiming that this is the normal way in which people behave--that capitalism keeps people in check.

The stealing part is that the Iraqi people should have been given their own resources to do what they want with them. Or, if we are so ideologically opposed to socialism or human capacity to help one another when given the opportunity (I'm speaking about the valid fear of corrupt people in Iraq fucking over their fellow citizens, not US oil tycoons), we should have at least held all resources in a trust fund until the Iraqi people and government had a handle on the turmoil in their country. To us, it isn't realistic to believe that the Iraqi citizen could compete with multi-billion dollar investment corporations when their nation's resources went up on the auction block. Now the Iraqi people might get jobs, but they will never own their own resources. And everyone here knows that the bus owner makes more each hour than the bus driver.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

filtherton

Damn smooth. You gots my propers.

Superbelt

My entire focus pre-war was trotting out the various experts and evidence on other boards (I wasn't here at that time) about how there were no WMD.
I can honestly say I didn't believe the WMD claims at all. And the WMD claims were why I was so pissed at the admin.
The entire lefty blogosphere was also crowing about there not being weapons.
You weren't looking in the right places. If you only looked at cable news, you didn't get the whole story. All the stations, FOX, CNN, MSNBC.. all of them were towing the admin line.

fuzyfuzer

i think that this has been the most civilized sharing of ideas since i came here a month ago

so clap clap clap ........

i also have to agree that what is happening in iraq is either not about oil or the people who are putting a spin on this are, believe it or not, really smart in fact smart enough to make us think it is not about oil but i think that would be a little too hard lagistacaly for our government system to conjur up so i must assume the former

perhaps it was misgueded but i nice little happy way to look at this i kind a think is to say that small wars like this and the persian gulf war are stopping WW3 from occuring (there is no way to test this theory so it has to be left up to opinion

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

smooth

Man, you're really lagging

Numerous people (including former CIA Director R. James Woolsey) believe we are currently in WWIV. The cold war was WWIII, according to this view.

No one is really making an effort to mask whether our recent conflicts are about oil (more acurrately, though, this is a quest for resources--oil is only one of them; we have military bases around the world and corporations sponsering wars throughout various developing nations).

Neocons are fairly up front about their intentions. The media might cast aspersions on "lefties" and their claims, but scholars and policy wonks aren't disputing with one another about the goals--just the means.

The people drafting these plans are by no means unintelligent--to assume that would be a fatal error to the progressive movement. Of course, whatever is going on, it seems to be working. People are sitting around arguing over this, that, and everything else. What they aren't doing is demanding transparency from their elected officials. Usually the accused does the answering, but here we have average person after average person defending the administration's actions without any semblence of knowledge as to what drives it. That's not to say the left has a monopoly on the truth, but it is to say that when a tough question is leveled at the accused they should be the ones to answer the charge, not my next door neighbor who knows, at most, as much as me.

I've written quite a bit, so I'd like to leave this question for the thread starter:

Whether you agree with my assessment or not, why would you expect to pay less money for gasoline granting the point that this war is about oil?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

onetime2

The oil argument is interesting since those who propose it can not lose. If oil prices dropped, it was about sating the nation's thirst for oil. If oil prices rise, it's about the evil corporations (and hence Bush's) thirst for money.

As evidenced by the first Gulf War where we gained no pricing leverage or additional access to oil, oil is not the big driver of US policy.

Of course, the accusations will remain with attempts to paint it as class warfare and how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Such is politics.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Superbelt

There are many documents in Cheney's Energy Task force (Which, by the way, is in the SCOTUS right now to get all of the documents released) Where Cheney and the contributing parties divide up Iraq's oil regions for bidding to Oil companies.

This sort of lands substantial credibility to the asertion that Iraq was undertaken to reward Oil Companies for their loyalty.

Superbelt

Please refer to:
This Google Search on the subject.

Specifically This which is a link to the various maps and tables that were released under FOIA demands. They are not fake.
Maps and Tables
Some of the documents include specific regions granted to specific companies.

Remember that this energy task force was formed long before we started
moving towards war with Iraq. And they were completed long before 9/11.
They are dated March 2001.

[edit]
We had a plan for dividing up the oil, but no substantial exit strategy nor strategy for providing the Iraqi's with a stable government.
Curious.

crewsor

I don't really get from those maps that the war was about stealing oil, but I guess thats open to interpretation.

There are also maps of Saudi and U.A.E. oil fields. Does that mean we are going to steal their oil next?

Does anyone have any links to REPUTABLE scources that the Iraqis oil is being misappropriated? If it is common knowledge that this is happening, I'm surprised I haven't seen any factual reports of it in the mainsteam media.

I have only seen theorys and accusations which may or may not have validity.

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

Superbelt

Was that a dig that my link to Judicial Watch wasn't reputable?
Those are actual documents released through FOIA.
The only thing to discuss about them is how you interpret them.

I interpret: that when you carve up a country like a puzzle and put oil company names on them 3 months after you take office, you are planning to specifically take the nations oil resources away from them.

I don't know what to make of ALL the documents, though we are on much more friendly terms with Saud and UAE. We really don't need to conquer them to get their oil. They pass it on pretty freely to western companies.

I think we need all of Cheney's energy documents to get the whole story.
"Nuts" like me see those claims gain credibility as the VP goes through all possible channels to make sure that doesn't happen. (Such as situations like the duck hunting trip)

Iraqi oil hasn't had a chance to establish flow yet. Every time we try the lines get blown up at some point. Miles and miles of oil line is a very vulnerable thing.

Superbelt

You could start here

crewsor

No, that was no dig at all. It's just that to me, those documents don't begin to prove we are stealing Iraqi oil. I'm just looking for more conclusive evidence. Thats all.

Like I said, if it's that obvious, that people on this board are convinced beyond any doubt, wouldn't some mainstream media have picked up on it and reported it?

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

Superbelt

Right and I agree that they don't show a full picture. They don't conclusively prove anything. That's why we need all of the energy task force documentation to find out what their intentions were.

But I will interpret them as I see it.

crewsor

I found no evidence there. Maybe you could cut and paste it with the link.

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

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?

smooth

First of all, media is corporate media--not left or right. It reports what sells.

Secondly, I already explained that what occurred is a natural capitalist venture. In short, there is nothing nefarious to report. In case you are curious, though, mainstream media did report that our government has and is busy privatizing Iraqi industries. I allowed you to make your own conclusions as to who can purchase the means of production when impoverished people are bidding against multi-billion dollar corporations.

Now, if you don't see anything wrong with that, I can understand. You might think that capitalism is a-ok and selling off a nation's resources to the highest bidder is fine. I don't. There is no claim that Bush and Cheney are "misappropriating" Iraqi resources other than what I've posted. That relies on your interpretation, but to me, you only appear obstinant when you claim that there is no evidence to support our contention because I laid it out pretty clearly in two very long posts--two posts filled with points neither you nor onetime addressed.

Have you made up your mind on this issue and merely baiting people for fun again?

Superbelt

I'm not saying they have it. I'm just providing a source that is trying to keep track. Just keep tabs on the group.

Phaenx

Saudi Arabia just decreased their production this year or something, so the price should be going up. Though maybe not, I believe Bush face-kicked some environmental law in California that was meant to reduce smog or some crap, so they might not end up getting as much as the Saudi's wanted.

The moral? Burn Saudi Arabia to the ground and take their oil, they've got it coming so bad.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

SLM3

Perhaps controlling the oil reserves of Iraq isn't so much about lowering the price, but simply to have a stranglehold on the resource much of the world will come to depend even moreso on.

For what it's worth:





SLM3

Superbelt

If Scalia personally rules against Cheney I promise to give my 2000 VW Jetta with 55k miles, as the most substantial piece of property I own, to a lucky random conservative on this board.

I think my pinkslip is safe.

Mojo_PeiPei

I don't have any wheels, would I be up for the ride?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Superbelt

Of course you would.

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.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

smooth

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.

crewsor

Thanks, SLM3. Thats more what I was looking for, and I agree, if thats true its pretty messed up.

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

onetime2

As stated, there is little point in giving an economics lesson on the pricing of oil and its relation to gas prices since the mindset of the general public is one of disinterest. The two are permanently linked in their minds. I've had far too many discussions about the subject to get into another one. Strikes in South America, costs of refining the oil to make gas, increased demand due to colder than normal weather in the Northeastern US, lowered daily production from OPEC members, the tendency for OPEC members to cheat each other and not follow OPEC guidelines, arguments around oil being used to fill US strategic reserves, American's tendency to drive larger vehicles which consume more gas, gasoline taxes, mergers in the petroleum industries, etc, etc, etc. all have impacts.

The war was not only about oil. Does oil play some role in it? Of course. One of the main reasons we went into Kuwait was the fact that Iraq would have controlled an even more substantial amount of the world's oil supply. One of the main reasons we went into Iraq this time was Saddam's continued snubbing of the agreements that ended the Kuwait war.

Class warfare is exactly what you pointed to in your statements about the "elites" making themselves richer. I commented on it, that's what message boards are for.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

onetime2

If the goal was to "have a stranglehold" on the oil resources of the world, why did we not maintain control over Kuwait's oil? We didn't receive any special pricing, any control, or any leverage over it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Silvy

Because I truly believe that presidents (of many countries, not just the US) have absolutely no fore-sight or are more interested in short-term goals. Bush sr. did indeed have only the short-term interest that keeping the oil reserves into several different governments is the best option.*

The oil companies however do have interests in the long-term energy market. They know oil reserves are running out, and having control over as many reserves as possible promises them unbelievable riches when the commodity becomes scarce. Plus (in the short-term) controlling your own reserves (mind you: Iraq is government-wise just another US state at this point) is bound to be cheaper than to buy per barrel from Saudi Arabia.

I'd like to see a chart that shows Bush's campaign contributions for his 2000 election. I'll bet ya there are substantial contributions from the Defense (or is that Offense) and Oil industries. I've said all along that going to war with Afghanistan (somewhat) and Iraq (mainly) was just keeping is campaign promises to his contributors.

I believe that Bush jr. is a lot more under influence of Corporate America than Bush Sr. (But my interests and opinions in politics have changed a lot in that time, so it might be my changed perception).


* The phrase that came to mind here was: "divide and conquer" It may seem rash during a war, but the phrase is applicable if you interpret it to say: It is easier to negotiate oil prices when you have several possible parties to negotiate with. If one party has more than a fair share of the demanded resources than it becomes a dangerous entity as it could make and break you.

Edit: to respond to the original question:
You guys in the US have it good. In the Netherlands (which does have reasonably absurd gas prices) we pay 1.227 euros per liter.
That would equal ( 1 gallon = 3.78 liters) to 4.64 euro/gallon.
a reasonable exchange rate is 1 euro = 1 USdollar.
So there...
(btw, current exchange rates would make that $5.69 /gallon)

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

Superbelt

The US has no basis to really complain about oil prices.

And the argument that increasing the gas tax would hurt our economy is bunk as well. As an additional 3-4 dollars a gallon tax as a "handicap" and Europe was still able to strengthen their economy against ours.

All an increase in Gas tax like that would do is direct everyone towards mass transit where available and increasingly more fuel efficient cars and trucks.
Hell, I think sports cars in Europe are more fuel efficient than our average car here.

Silvy

Well, I just had to look that up.
A totally random, scientifically-total-nonsense, but somewhat applicable comparison:
A new Porsche 911 GT3 does 23 Miles/Gallon (highway)
A new Ford F-150 truck does 20 Miles/Gallon (highway)
(sources: Porsche and Ford )
Of course, I have no idea what 'the average US car' is, so I couldn't look that up.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

onetime2

Europe has not strengthened their economy against ours. European economic growth is anemic at best. Off the top of my head it averages about 1.7% growth for the members of the EU. More favorable exchange rates do not equate to a stronger economy.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

kutulu

US oil companies and refineries are heavily screwing us over. They are keeping their supplies as low as possible so that the oil prices are higher and in turn they can charge more. They are trying to shut down refineries in CA to drop production levels even more. Bush does nothing.