gas prices

[happy and angry]

OPEC has the money to buy the food.

And they control the oil so let's jack up the price of food and **** the rest of the world even harder! Yea!

I'm guessing you don't understand economics either.

I thought liberals wanted the rich to pay more so why not make the richest of all pay a CORN tax. They will not starve, just pay more.

You don't understand liberals. But hey LIBERALS. I mean gas prices and LIBERALS and LIBERALS. Good point.

Your right, I'm not smart enough to believe that socialism can work.

Degrees of government control do work, and degrees of socialism do work. Witness almost every single other first world country other than the US.

When you take a perspective like say "LIBERALS BAD" and distill it to an incredibly over-simplified stance with very little understanding of things like nuance, you are doing the same dumb s*** the far left does when looking at some conservative/far right perspectives. Keep it up.

 

[Donas64]

OPEC has the money to buy the food.

I thought liberals wanted the rich to pay more so why not make the richest of all pay a CORN tax. They will not starve, just pay more.

Your right, I'm not smart enough to believe that socialism can work.

(rlaugh)

 

[Donas64]

And they control the oil so let's jack up the price of food and **** the rest of the world even harder! Yea!

I'm guessing you don't understand economics either.

You don't understand liberals. But hey LIBERALS. I mean gas prices and LIBERALS and LIBERALS. Good point.

Degrees of government control do work, and degrees of socialism do work. Witness almost every single other first world country other than the US.

When you take a perspective like say "LIBERALS BAD" and distill it to an incredibly over-simplified stance with very little understanding of things like nuance, you are doing the same dumb s*** the far left does when looking at some conservative/far right perspectives. Keep it up.

You see, the problem with you stance is that you have a misplaced sense of superiority which comes from an elitist world view that no one is as smart as you and you have all the right answers and anyone who does not see thing your way is "dumb" or an idiot.

As long as you continue to debate from that stand point, you don't have a leg to stand on. You're generalizing worse than anyone else in this thread. Tone down the ad hominem and scale back your ego a bit.

 

[MS3077]

(eekdance)

 

[Dragon Queen]

You see, the problem with you stance is that you have a misplaced sense of superiority which comes from an elitist world view that no one is as smart as you and you have all the right answers and anyone who does not see thing your way is "dumb" or an idiot.

As long as you continue to debate from that stand point, you don't have a leg to stand on. You're generalizing worse than anyone else in this thread. Tone down the ad hominem and scale back your ego a bit.

OWND and quoted...that was awesome Donas your wit is very attractive (boobs2)

 

[happy and angry]

You see, the problem with you stance is that you have a misplaced sense of superiority which comes from an elitist world view that no one is as smart as you and you have all the right answers and anyone who does not see thing your way is "dumb" or an idiot.

As long as you continue to debate from that stand point, you don't have a leg to stand on. You're generalizing worse than anyone else in this thread. Tone down the ad hominem and scale back your ego a bit.

I'm arguing with two people who have repeatedly suggested that socialism is the root of all evil, despite several examples of well implemented economic systems based around (to some degree) socialist ideas (IE: most of the first world), and you're telling me I don't have a leg to stand on?

We've got a guy saying "let's leverage food to get cheaper gas" when there are millions starving globally, and you're telling me I don't have a leg to stand on?

The cause of rising fuel prices isn't socialism and waste from developing countries, although that (like almost everything else) is contributing. IT'S A COMPLEX PROBLEM.

You can't bring up the specter of communism to win every argument, especially not OIL PRICES.

Speaking to authority (you know what an ad hominem logical fallacy is, but do you know what this one is?) because you lived in Cuba does not immediately validate your perspective.

The solution to oil prices is not STARVING PEOPLE.

Distilling the position of a Democratic primary candidate into a disingenuous sound byte is a worthless way to argue anything.

Some people in this thread (you, for example) are being ridiculous.

 

[mrjoshyman]

Capitalism is alot like sex. When it's good, it's really good and when it's not, it's still better than anything else.

well said(2thumbs)

 

[Donas64]

I'm arguing with two people who have repeatedly suggested that socialism is the root of all evil, despite several examples of well implemented economic systems based around (to some degree) socialist ideas (IE: most of the first world), and you're telling me I don't have a leg to stand on?

We've got a guy saying "let's leverage food to get cheaper gas" when there are millions starving globally, and you're telling me I don't have a leg to stand on?

The cause of rising fuel prices isn't socialism and waste from developing countries, although that (like almost everything else) is contributing. IT'S A COMPLEX PROBLEM.

You can't bring up the specter of communism to win every argument, especially not OIL PRICES.

Speaking to authority (you know what an ad hominem logical fallacy is, but do you know what this one is?) because you lived in Cuba does not immediately validate your perspective.

The solution to oil prices is not STARVING PEOPLE.

Distilling the position of a Democratic primary candidate into a disingenuous sound byte is a worthless way to argue anything.

Some people in this thread (you, for example) are being ridiculous.

Show me the post where I said that living in Cuba means my argument is right and I'll concede immediately.

I merely stated that I've experienced Communism (Russia), Socialism (Cuba) and Capitalism first hand and I know which one I prefer. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

 

[happy and angry]

Show me the post where I said that living in Cuba means my argument is right and I'll concede immediately.

Show me an ad hominem attack that invalidated my point, and I'll concede immediately.

I merely stated that I've experienced Communism (Russia), Socialism (Cuba) and Capitalism first hand and I know which one I prefer. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!

Fair, and I know which one I prefer too, I just don't see how bringing any of that up in a conversation about gas prices has any relevance whatsoever. There was a reason why I compared bringing it up to "Goodwin's Law." Communism and socialism are heavily weighted words in the US, and they are brought up in all sorts of conversations where they simply do not fit.

I'm also aware that there are few if any "perfectly" socialist states in the world, and few if any perfectly capitalist states in the world. And it's a good thing, too. Ideas from both ideologies work quite well, in the US and elsewhere, but take any ideology too far and it will fail.

 

[Donas64]

Show me an ad hominem attack that invalidated my point, and I'll concede immediately.

Fair, and I know which one I prefer too, I just don't see how bringing any of that up in a conversation about gas prices has any relevance whatsoever. There was a reason why I compared bringing it up to "Goodwin's Law." Communism and socialism are heavily weighted words in the US, and they are brought up in all sorts of conversations where they simply do not fit.

I'm also aware that there are few if any "perfectly" socialist states in the world, and few if any perfectly capitalist states in the world. And it's a good thing, too. Ideas from both ideologies work quite well, in the US and elsewhere, but take any ideology too far and it will fail.

They don't invalidate your point, they just make it seem like you can't make your point without insulting and asserting their stupidity and your brilliance. It makes having a discussion with you a rather unpleasant experience.

Socialism/Communism are relevant to this argument because there were suggestions to heavily tax those who drive SUVs, talk about how mass transit it %400 better than driving oneself and about the govt. should heavily penalize car manufacturers for making inefficient vehicles.

Socialism/Communism came up as part of what the role of the govt. should be and what measures should they be taking in solving the gas problem.

Should they take the oil company profits and invest them in alternate fuels?
Should they mandate a industry wide MPG requirement?
Should they let the markets work and take a hands off approach?
Should they take OPEC to task and leverage the price of food?
Should they take over control of the oil companies entirely?

All of these solutions have roots in different forms of govt.

 

[Super Unique]

The current run up in oil prices has a lot more to do with speculative investment monies and less to do with supply/demand economics.

If you look past the rhetoric about political instability in oil rich regions, and really analyze the current futures market you will find the responsible influences.


Anyone who is naive enough to think we are running out of oil anytime soon better further research the subject. There is LOTS of oil left. In fact if I had to make a guess, in the 100 plus years we have been harvesting the stuff, we have yet to use 25% of it up at this time.

The first step would be to seriously investigate where the speculative money is coming from, and where the profits from the spec trades ends up going. A good first start would be the record profits the oil companies hold, and the private hedge funds they are in right now. Yes, oil companies have run up their own products pricing through the futures markets, and everyone else is along for the ride.

 

[Betelgeuse]

They don't invalidate your point, they just make it seem like you can't make your point without insulting and asserting their stupidity and your brilliance. It makes having a discussion with you a rather unpleasant experience.

Socialism/Communism are relevant to this argument because there were suggestions to heavily tax those who drive SUVs, talk about how mass transit it %400 better than driving oneself and about the govt. should heavily penalize car manufacturers for making inefficient vehicles.

Socialism/Communism came up as part of what the role of the govt. should be and what measures should they be taking in solving the gas problem.

Should they take the oil company profits and invest them in alternate fuels?
Should they mandate a industry wide MPG requirement?
Should they let the markets work and take a hands off approach?
Should they take OPEC to task and leverage the price of food?
Should they take over control of the oil companies entirely?

All of these solutions have roots in different forms of govt.

You know that the government DOES perform some form of regulation whether it be the food, automotive or manufacturing industry right? I guess antitrust laws, the DMV and the FDA for example should be abolished too right? Why should we not let the food industry do as they like, put whatever chemicals they like in our foods and let the market work itself out? Should the automotive industry be left to it's own devices with regard to vehicle safety? Should the government not intervene in cases of blatent price fixing and gouging? You see where this is going? There will always be a need for some regulation. Too much or too little are both bad.

 

[kneedragger241]

I'm spending less to fill this car with premium than I was my Jeep Liberty which took regular.

I fill my MS3 at Costco about every 8-9 days with about $45 of premium.
I filled my Jeep every 5-6 days with about $45 of regular.

More miles, more fun.
It's a no brainer.

 

[Absent-Minded]

Since purchasing the MS3, here's my averages on 2,641 miles:
gallons filled = 12.333
miles per fill-up = 264.10
miles per gallon = 21.408
price per gallon = $3.654
cost to fill-up = $45.065

I'd say that beats my diesel averages for 17 months on 36,200 miles:
gallons filled = 21.431
miles per fill-up = 302.573
miles per gallon = 14.245
price per gallon = $2.969
cost per fill-up = $63.628

Average cost to fill-up that diesel this month = $100.704

Though, I think that $4.09 is still a bit pricey for premium.

 

[Donas64]

You know that the government DOES perform some form of regulation whether it be the food, automotive or manufacturing industry right? I guess antitrust laws, the DMV and the FDA for example should be abolished too right? Why should we not let the food industry do as they like, put whatever chemicals they like in our foods and let the market work itself out? Should the automotive industry be left to it's own devices with regard to vehicle safety? Should the government not intervene in cases of blatent price fixing and gouging? You see where this is going? There will always be a need for some regulation. Too much or too little are both bad.

I have no problem with some regulation. I just don't want regulation run amok.

 

[happy and angry]

They don't invalidate your point, they just make it seem like you can't make your point without insulting and asserting their stupidity and your brilliance. It makes having a discussion with you a rather unpleasant experience.

Please. "Let's starve people for oil" deserves contempt, and that's what it got. "COMMUNISM! SOCIALISM!" and the fear mongering associated with that approach deserves contempt, and that's what it got.

Socialism/Communism are relevant to this argument because there were suggestions to heavily tax those who drive SUVs, talk about how mass transit it %400 better than driving oneself and about the govt. should heavily penalize car manufacturers for making inefficient vehicles.

These are not concepts that tie in to socialism unless you have a grade-school level of understanding of systems of government. Taxes aren't socialism run rampant, and neither is the idea of corporate accountability and regulation.

Hey, public transit use has gone up in the US this year by about 1%, I think the commies are winning, man. Yeash.

Socialism/Communism came up as part of what the role of the govt. should be and what measures should they be taking in solving the gas problem.

Discussing the role government has in addressing the fuel price issue does not necessitate comparing policy ideas or differences of opinion to communism.

Should they take the oil company profits and invest them in alternate fuels?
Should they mandate a industry wide MPG requirement?
Should they let the markets work and take a hands off approach?
Should they take OPEC to task and leverage the price of food?
Should they take over control of the oil companies entirely?

All of these solutions have roots in different forms of govt.

No, they don't. They have roots in POLICY, and have nothing to do with governmental systems. What the hell, man? The first three questions are questions about the government spending on research, fiscal policy, and energy legislation. Is California COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST PARADISE because there are fuel economy and emissions restrictions on vehicles? What does it tell you when you consider that most current socialist countries don't have energy policies in place, but the first world nations (US included) do? When the government subsidizes research into alternative fuels, is communism winning?

What the hell is wrong with you, man? Don't try and justify the injection of an entirely different debate into a discussion about gas prices with your bizzaro logic.