Replies

Let’s face it, most average people do not have the intellectual capacity to really comptemplate the micro and macro-economic forces involved in the issue of the oil industry. Moreover, the intellectual conservative concepts also tend to be tossed around more readily by those with advanced degrees rather than just high-school diplomas. Conservative ideology is not about what is in it for me today, but rather what is best for my country and my family in the long-term. Since most people are naturally me-oriented, the very fact that the poorest American states tend to vote for the more conservative party is due to a innate and gut-understanding that the short-term meism that the left can provide comes at a very high long-term price. That is what “is wrong with Kansas” to quote a book about the subject. It is also perhaps what makes America fundamentally different from other rich industrial countries. When confronted, however, with the profits of oil companies and high-prices at the pump, this process breaks down a bit. Why do the rich guys get richer while my life gets harder is the question that needs to be answered. Frankly, I believe Americans would accept higher gas prices if it were couched as part of their contribution in the WOT. But contributing the the profits of Big Oil is something you will not explain away to an average American because macro-economic theory is not one of those things easily explained to someone’s gut.

What is so difficult to understand that oil companies DO NOT set the price of a gallon of gas.... Now more pointedly who in the global economy benefits first with the sale of source point of oil.

Further how much does government from local to the federal profit off a gallon of gas? What exactly do governments do to earn this profit and do they fulfill their promise for what they claim that tax is suppose to do?

How about equating the 'oil' bubble, to the housing bubble wherein it was 'speculators' on all levels that ballooned housing cost to the point of popping. Look who controls the point sources of oil.... around this globe.... everybody is drilling except for our liberal Congress who have made 'oil' in the US their holy sights.

Since both of you are so intent on the extremely temporary solution of drilling for more oil, would you both be so kind as to explain to me the following:

What effect would an additional 1-2 million BPD of US production have on an oil market that currently is sees demand at 86 million BPD and rising?

If the US currently has 4% of global proven reserves - approximately 21 billion barrels, how long can it continue to produce approximately 7.5 million BPD assuming consumption neither increases nor decreases? What is the time period if it pumps 2 million more bpd?

If you figure these things out, you might rethink your position. I will make a bet though - you won't bother. Keeping with the saying, "you can't reason a (wo)man out of something he wasn't reasoned into", you can keep believing your myths, but they are myths nevertheless.