Gas is over two dollars a gallon and milk is around $3.50 a gallon. Songs are not in short supply.

Traditionally, supply and demand drives prices. You want to keep prices up? Decrease
supply, increase demand, or do both.

An economist this morning said gas is scarce, and there are fewer milk cows, so milk is costly.

But, are these resources being intentionally kept low?

It has been said that DeBeers keeps diamond prices high by creating an artificial scarcity on the world market.

But, what about gas?

Here is an interesting reflection on the gas situation...
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/
"Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Gasoline jumps above $2 a gallon
"Gasoline jumps above $2 a gallon

Self-serve regular hits $2.017 nationwide, up nearly 8 cents, and is heading higher.
May 18, 2004: 9:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It's official: $2 a gallon gas is here.

The average price for regular unleaded gasoline jumped to a record high $2.017 a gallon nationwide, up 7.6 cents from the prior week and 52 cents from a year earlier, the government reported Monday, citing its weekly survey of service stations.

Fuel prices are rising because of strong demand ahead of the summer driving season and rising crude oil prices, which account for nearly half the cost of gasoline.

Crude oil hit another record high Monday at the New York Mercantile Exchange. The June contract reached $41.85 a barrel before ending the day at $41.55 a barrel.

The Energy Department has forecast that gasoline will peak at $2.03 a gallon in June, but it now appears the price may go higher.

The Bush administration has been criticized for not taking action to find consumers some relief at the pump.

While $2.017 is a record, adjusted for inflation, the highest price was $2.99 a gallon in March 1981, according to the Energy Information Administration, the department's statistical arm.

Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry's campaign said on Monday the administration's national energy plan, which was announced three years ago this week, has not reduced U.S. reliance on foreign oil or lowered gasoline prices.

"When it comes to crafting consumer-friendly energy policies, George Bush has been an abject failure," a Kerry spokesman said. "While gas prices skyrocket and consumers get pinched, oil companies are raking in record profits."

The Energy Department had no immediate comment on gasoline prices. "
-------------------------------------
Folks..look....there is a LOT of oil in Iraq.
We supposedly are in control of Iraq.
What did we get from fighting a war for Iraq ?
Nada, nothing, nein, nyet....
It is NOT unreasonable to expect that if we expend BILLIONS of dollars, and the lives of our soldiers, that we should be able to deliver some of an asset that modern day Babylon has in vast quantities...OIL, from which, we get GAS!

Consider this:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
"Saturday, August 30, 2003

Road Trip
My brother, E., was out at 8 am this morning getting gasoline for the car. He came home at 12 pm in a particularly foul mood. He had waited in line of angry, hostile Iraqis for 3 hours. Gasoline lines drive people crazy because, prior to the war, the price of gasoline in Iraq was ridiculously low. A liter of gasoline (unleaded) cost around 20 Iraqi Dinars when one US dollar equaled 2,000 Iraqi dinars. In other words, 1 liter of gasoline cost one cent! A liter of bottled water cost more than gasoline. Not only does it cost more now, but it isn’t easy to get. I think they’re importing gasoline from Saudi Arabia and Turkey."

Thus, less than ONE YEAR AGO...the cost of a liter of gas to the Iraqi citizen... was less than ONE CENT.
CONVERSION
One liter=.26 gallons.
One gallon - 3.79 liters
for simple math...let's just assume that one gallon equals around FOUR LITERS, and, let's say, for simplicity sake, that one liter of gas costs one cent.
That means, last year, for four sents, in Iraq, you could buy a gallon of gas...thus, for a 15 gallon gas tank, you could fill up a car for around 60 cents...

So..SIXTY CENTS TO FILL UP A CAR LAST YEAR IN IRAQ...
NOW...LESS THAN ONE YEAR LATER....IT COSTS AROUND 30 DOLLARS TO FILL UP A CAR WITH A 15 GALLON GAS TANK HERE.

Yeah, the war has really helped us, hasn't it.

What about gas prices HERE in August 2003?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/23/eveningnews/main569791.shtml
U.S. Gas Prices Soar

Aug. 22, 2003
"All in all, today's national average is $1.65 per gallon, as compared to a $1.40 this time last year."

So, a year later, after "liberating" Iraq, we have unprecedented absolute gas prices.

Does anyone think this is bizarre ?
# posted by CodeWarrior : Tuesday, May 18, 2004"

And, how about milk?

Check this out...
"Low milk prices and strong cull cow prices also encouraged dairies to reduce the number of milk cows by 2 percent in 2003. At 9 million head, milk cow numbers are at the lowest since 1868 (yes, three years after the Civil War). Continued reductions in the size of the milk herd is anticipated this year as the number of heifers being retained to go back into the herd is down 2 percent.

How will BSE impact trade in 2004? No one knows the answer with a high degree of confidence,so a set of assumptions need to be made. For this analysis, it is assumed that domestic demand is not affected by BSE and that U.S. exports are lost for the first-half of 2004, but restored in the last-half. In addition, it is assumed that imports are reduced by 15 percent in the first-half and restored in the last-half of 2004. The net effect of these trade impacts is that an additional 8.5 percent of our domestic production will need to be consumed in the U.S. in the first-half of the year. With the loss of 8.5 percent of net trade in the first-half of the year, domestic beef supplies are expected to be up by 5 percent in the first-quarter and by 3 percent"
(The above from http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/weekly/pdf/020204.pdf )
[Ed. note- BSE is bovine spongiform encephalopathy or "mad cow disease").

This was from February 2004.

It was recently reported in Texas that some odd things were done with regard to a cow found in Texas that was seen as possibly having Mad Cow Disease.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040511-015527-4917r
"USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM


WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued an order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal mad cow disease testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about the cattle disorder with outside parties, United Press International has learned.

The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office, was issued in the wake of the April 27 case at Lone Star Beef in San Angelo, in which a cow displaying signs of a brain disorder was not tested for mad cow disease despite a federal policy to screen all such animals.

The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an offsite supervisor overruled the opinion of the inspectors onsite and made the final decision not to test the animal -- have opened up investigations to determine why agency policy was violated.

The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit supervisor for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Dallas district, which covers the entire state. It reads: "All BSE inquiries MUST be directed to Congressional Public Affairs Phone 202-720-9113 attention Rob Larew OR Steve Khon. This is an urgent message. Any question contact me. Ijaz Qazi."

Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors familiar with USDA parlance have taken to referring to the notice as a "gag order."

The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national inspectors union -- considers the order a violation of inspectors' free speech rights and is considering legal action against the USDA for breaching the labor agreement they have with the agency.

Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about its personnel leaking damaging information about either the Texas case or the USDA's overall mad cow disease surveillance program, which has come under fire since the discovery of an infected cow in Washington state last December.

"Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech, that's unconstitutional," Gary Dahl, president of Local 925, the Colorado inspectors union, told UPI.

Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA has sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to reporters.

"It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the right to talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they are not speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on government time, he said.

USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice from the Dallas office. He said he would look into it, but did not respond by UPI's publication time. In general, Cohen said, "There's an expectation any statement on behalf of the agency would come from the office of communications (in Washington.)"

Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that their views did not reflect those of the agency, Cohen said, "We'd rather that agency policy be communicated by those in a position to speak for the agency."

Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas case and it was routine agency practice that outside inquiries be referred to the Washington office. He said inspectors are free to talk to outside parties, including reporters, and he did not consider the e-mail a violation of the labor agreement with the inspectors.

Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about mad cow would be better spent "with issues like protecting the consuming public instead of trying to hide things." He added he would "just about bet his last nickel" agency management was attempting to suppress information about the Texas case.

"To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of appropriations -- those types of things -- that's not a good thing either," Dahl said. "If there is something wrong, let's get it out in the open -- let's get it fixed. We're working for the public, the American consumers. I think they have the right to know this," he said.

"And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad cow testing program is broken," Dahl added.

At least one member of Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agrees.

Harkin, a long-time critic of the USDA, sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman on Monday, saying the Texas incident "calls into question the effectiveness and reliability of USDA's current and proposed surveillance system."

The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its current rate -- in an expanded program scheduled to begin June 1. Harkin wrote in the five-page letter, however, that given the realities of the cattle industry, it is "quite doubtful" the USDA will be able to test that many cows, particularly because it had difficulty finding 20,000 last year.

"We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid answers to critical questions for U.S. consumers and foreign customers," Harkin said in the letter, which sharply criticizes the agency's failure to address explicitly how its new surveillance program will be implemented.

"We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the opportunity to review it and respond to him," USDA spokesman Ed Loyd told UPI. "USDA has acknowledged there was a failure in not testing that cow in Texas for BSE, so we are all working to ensure that does not occur again."

Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the agency's mad cow surveillance program, told UPI the agency has tested about 15,500 animals since fiscal year 2004 began, on Oct. 1, 2003. However, the agency has refused to identify the states and facilities from which the cows originated. Rogers said UPI would have to seek that information through the Freedom of Information Act.

The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded surveillance program. Downer cows -- those unable to stand or walk -- made up the bulk of the animals the agency tested for mad cow in previous years, but these were banned from being slaughtered for human consumption in December. This means the agency inspectors no longer can obtain brain samples from these cows at slaughterhouses as they could in the past.

Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out agreements with rendering facilities or ranchers, where downers and dead cows are now most likely to be found, to obtain the extra animals for testing.

Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm that would never show up in a processing facility," and he was "not aware of any issues" that would delay the launch of the new program.

However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the rendering facilities where the agency will be obtaining cow brains for BSE testing. He said he would look into it but did not return two follow-up phone calls from UPI before publication. "

The point here is that our consumer goods are being manipulated, and artificial scarcity if being created.

As we saw from the above, low milk prices generated the creation of artificially low numbers of dairy cows. Artifical scarcity of gasoline is apparently being created as well.

Gas price increases are hitting the middle and lower incomes the hardest.

Gas prices hit us all.

I am angry about the way the American consumer is being victimized.

What can we do?

Invade Saudi Arabia

sounds good...but, we would probably see our gas prices hit five bucks a gallon then!

"
When You Can't Afford Gas to Get to a Gig
Posted by CodeWarrior in Industry News on May 18, 2004 at 11:18 AM
Printable Version

Gas is over two dollars a gallon and milk is around $3.50 a gallon. Songs are not in short supply.

Traditionally, supply and demand drives prices. You want to keep prices up? Decrease
supply, increase demand, or do both.

An economist this morning said gas is scarce, and there are fewer milk cows, so milk is costly.

But, are these resources being intentionally kept low?

It has been said that DeBeers keeps diamond prices high by creating an artificial scarcity on the world market.

But, what about gas?

Here is an interesting reflection on the gas situation...
http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com/
"Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Gasoline jumps above $2 a gallon
"Gasoline jumps above $2 a gallon

Self-serve regular hits $2.017 nationwide, up nearly 8 cents, and is heading higher.
May 18, 2004: 9:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It's official: $2 a gallon gas is here.

The average price for regular unleaded gasoline jumped to a record high $2.017 a gallon nationwide, up 7.6 cents from the prior week and 52 cents from a year earlier, the government reported Monday, citing its weekly survey of service stations.

Fuel prices are rising because of strong demand ahead of the summer driving season and rising crude oil prices, which account for nearly half the cost of gasoline.

Crude oil hit another record high Monday at the New York Mercantile Exchange. The June contract reached $41.85 a barrel before ending the day at $41.55 a barrel.

The Energy Department has forecast that gasoline will peak at $2.03 a gallon in June, but it now appears the price may go higher.

The Bush administration has been criticized for not taking action to find consumers some relief at the pump.

While $2.017 is a record, adjusted for inflation, the highest price was $2.99 a gallon in March 1981, according to the Energy Information Administration, the department's statistical arm.

Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry's campaign said on Monday the administration's national energy plan, which was announced three years ago this week, has not reduced U.S. reliance on foreign oil or lowered gasoline prices.

"When it comes to crafting consumer-friendly energy policies, George Bush has been an abject failure," a Kerry spokesman said. "While gas prices skyrocket and consumers get pinched, oil companies are raking in record profits."

The Energy Department had no immediate comment on gasoline prices. "
-------------------------------------
Folks..look....there is a LOT of oil in Iraq.
We supposedly are in control of Iraq.
What did we get from fighting a war for Iraq ?
Nada, nothing, nein, nyet....
It is NOT unreasonable to expect that if we expend BILLIONS of dollars, and the lives of our soldiers, that we should be able to deliver some of an asset that modern day Babylon has in vast quantities...OIL, from which, we get GAS!

Consider this:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
"Saturday, August 30, 2003

Road Trip
My brother, E., was out at 8 am this morning getting gasoline for the car. He came home at 12 pm in a particularly foul mood. He had waited in line of angry, hostile Iraqis for 3 hours. Gasoline lines drive people crazy because, prior to the war, the price of gasoline in Iraq was ridiculously low. A liter of gasoline (unleaded) cost around 20 Iraqi Dinars when one US dollar equaled 2,000 Iraqi dinars. In other words, 1 liter of gasoline cost one cent! A liter of bottled water cost more than gasoline. Not only does it cost more now, but it isn’t easy to get. I think they’re importing gasoline from Saudi Arabia and Turkey."

Thus, less than ONE YEAR AGO...the cost of a liter of gas to the Iraqi citizen... was less than ONE CENT.
CONVERSION
One liter=.26 gallons.
One gallon - 3.79 liters
for simple math...let's just assume that one gallon equals around FOUR LITERS, and, let's say, for simplicity sake, that one liter of gas costs one cent.
That means, last year, for four sents, in Iraq, you could buy a gallon of gas...thus, for a 15 gallon gas tank, you could fill up a car for around 60 cents...

So..SIXTY CENTS TO FILL UP A CAR LAST YEAR IN IRAQ...
NOW...LESS THAN ONE YEAR LATER....IT COSTS AROUND 30 DOLLARS TO FILL UP A CAR WITH A 15 GALLON GAS TANK HERE.

Yeah, the war has really helped us, hasn't it.

What about gas prices HERE in August 2003?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/23/eveningnews/main569791.shtml
U.S. Gas Prices Soar

Aug. 22, 2003
"All in all, today's national average is $1.65 per gallon, as compared to a $1.40 this time last year."

So, a year later, after "liberating" Iraq, we have unprecedented absolute gas prices.

Does anyone think this is bizarre ?
# posted by CodeWarrior : Tuesday, May 18, 2004"

And, how about milk?

Check this out...
"Low milk prices and strong cull cow prices also encouraged dairies to reduce the number of milk cows by 2 percent in 2003. At 9 million head, milk cow numbers are at the lowest since 1868 (yes, three years after the Civil War). Continued reductions in the size of the milk herd is anticipated this year as the number of heifers being retained to go back into the herd is down 2 percent.

How will BSE impact trade in 2004? No one knows the answer with a high degree of confidence,so a set of assumptions need to be made. For this analysis, it is assumed that domestic demand is not affected by BSE and that U.S. exports are lost for the first-half of 2004, but restored in the last-half. In addition, it is assumed that imports are reduced by 15 percent in the first-half and restored in the last-half of 2004. The net effect of these trade impacts is that an additional 8.5 percent of our domestic production will need to be consumed in the U.S. in the first-half of the year. With the loss of 8.5 percent of net trade in the first-half of the year, domestic beef supplies are expected to be up by 5 percent in the first-quarter and by 3 percent"
(The above from http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/weekly/pdf/020204.pdf )
[Ed. note- BSE is bovine spongiform encephalopathy or "mad cow disesse").

This was from February 2004.

It was recently reported in Texas that some odd things were done with regard to a cow found in Texas that was seen as possibly having Mad Cow Disease.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040511-015527-4917r
"USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM


WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued an order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal mad cow disease testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about the cattle disorder with outside parties, United Press International has learned.

The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office, was issued in the wake of the April 27 case at Lone Star Beef in San Angelo, in which a cow displaying signs of a brain disorder was not tested for mad cow disease despite a federal policy to screen all such animals.

The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an offsite supervisor overruled the opinion of the inspectors onsite and made the final decision not to test the animal -- have opened up investigations to determine why agency policy was violated.

The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit supervisor for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Dallas district, which covers the entire state. It reads: "All BSE inquiries MUST be directed to Congressional Public Affairs Phone 202-720-9113 attention Rob Larew OR Steve Khon. This is an urgent message. Any question contact me. Ijaz Qazi."

Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors familiar with USDA parlance have taken to referring to the notice as a "gag order."

The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national inspectors union -- considers the order a violation of inspectors' free speech rights and is considering legal action against the USDA for breaching the labor agreement they have with the agency.

Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about its personnel leaking damaging information about either the Texas case or the USDA's overall mad cow disease surveillance program, which has come under fire since the discovery of an infected cow in Washington state last December.

"Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech, that's unconstitutional," Gary Dahl, president of Local 925, the Colorado inspectors union, told UPI.

Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA has sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to reporters.

"It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the right to talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they are not speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on government time, he said.

USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice from the Dallas office. He said he would look into it, but did not respond by UPI's publication time. In general, Cohen said, "There's an expectation any statement on behalf of the agency would come from the office of communications (in Washington.)"

Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that their views did not reflect those of the agency, Cohen said, "We'd rather that agency policy be communicated by those in a position to speak for the agency."

Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas case and it was routine agency practice that outside inquiries be referred to the Washington office. He said inspectors are free to talk to outside parties, including reporters, and he did not consider the e-mail a violation of the labor agreement with the inspectors.

Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about mad cow would be better spent "with issues like protecting the consuming public instead of trying to hide things." He added he would "just about bet his last nickel" agency management was attempting to suppress information about the Texas case.

"To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of appropriations -- those types of things -- that's not a good thing either," Dahl said. "If there is something wrong, let's get it out in the open -- let's get it fixed. We're working for the public, the American consumers. I think they have the right to know this," he said.

"And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad cow testing program is broken," Dahl added.

At least one member of Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agrees.

Harkin, a long-time critic of the USDA, sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman on Monday, saying the Texas incident "calls into question the effectiveness and reliability of USDA's current and proposed surveillance system."

The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its current rate -- in an expanded program scheduled to begin June 1. Harkin wrote in the five-page letter, however, that given the realities of the cattle industry, it is "quite doubtful" the USDA will be able to test that many cows, particularly because it had difficulty finding 20,000 last year.

"We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid answers to critical questions for U.S. consumers and foreign customers," Harkin said in the letter, which sharply criticizes the agency's failure to address explicitly how its new surveillance program will be implemented.

"We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the opportunity to review it and respond to him," USDA spokesman Ed Loyd told UPI. "USDA has acknowledged there was a failure in not testing that cow in Texas for BSE, so we are all working to ensure that does not occur again."

Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the agency's mad cow surveillance program, told UPI the agency has tested about 15,500 animals since fiscal year 2004 began, on Oct. 1, 2003. However, the agency has refused to identify the states and facilities from which the cows originated. Rogers said UPI would have to seek that information through the Freedom of Information Act.

The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded surveillance program. Downer cows -- those unable to stand or walk -- made up the bulk of the animals the agency tested for mad cow in previous years, but these were banned from being slaughtered for human consumption in December. This means the agency inspectors no longer can obtain brain samples from these cows at slaughterhouses as they could in the past.

Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out agreements with rendering facilities or ranchers, where downers and dead cows are now most likely to be found, to obtain the extra animals for testing.

Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm that would never show up in a processing facility," and he was "not aware of any issues" that would delay the launch of the new program.

However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the rendering facilities where the agency will be obtaining cow brains for BSE testing. He said he would look into it but did not return two follow-up phone calls from UPI before publication. "

The point here is that our consumer goods are being manipulated, and artificial scarcity if being created.

As we saw from the above, low milk prices generated the creation of artificially low numbers of dairy cows. Artifical scarcity of gasoline is apparently being created as well.

Gas price increases are hitting the middle and lower incomes the hardest.

Gas prices hit us all.

I am angry about the way the American consumer is being victimized.

What can we do?"
VOTE! Get this Bum out and out very soon!
As to my gig-moblie I am getting one that has a smaller engine. One way or another I get to the gig.
"If you survive you win" John Dentato ,Music Publisher,NYC
Still Pickin'
Bill H.

Gas should be at least 5 dollars a gallon. If you factor in all the money we spend invading middle eastern countries so that we can get cheap oil, the price should be at least 5 dollars a gallon.

If you can't afford gas to get to a gig, buy a hybrid or hitchhike (yes with gear and all).

Cheap gas is destroying our planet.

Corporations do what the hell they want reguardless who is in office. anyone think that getting a new president or senator can influence a corporation to quit making supplies artificially low in a free market society is kidding themselves.

This is pretty long so I recomend you wait till you have some spare time.  A family member of mine had mentioned this boycott to me and I have also seen these before in the past few years.  Being a student of economics and bored at the moment I
figured I would give my opinion on the matter.  I actually have an uncommon opinion on this matter.  So I thought I would share it, sense I am so damn good at giving my opinions   

The issue runs much deeper than a single day of boycott can possibly fix.  While a complete loss of sales would hit the oil companies pretty hard it would be short lived and they would recover most of the lost revenue eventually. 

Would they lower prices?  Maybe, probably not though.  The prices only seem high.  The fact is people are still buying gas at the same rate.  A complete boycott is about as likely as getting a straight answer from a politician.  How many people do
you think will run out of a gas and walk ten miles to work simply out of their own objection to the way the big oil pigopolist are treating consumers?  Actually I can't think of any, including myself.  We could stock up the day before, but that
wouldn’t matter because we had already bought it.  Actually that might even increase their revenue if one takes into account the time value of money.  A dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow.

This country runs on oil.  Our country is analogous to an oil burning machine, complete with exhaust and a leaky oil pan.  As long as people heat their homes, drive to work, use their electricity they buy from oil burning power plants, buy products
made in any facility that runs oil heaters, and all the other petroleum based products and services.  The fact is that we as consumers are consuming massive amounts of oil.  Both threw direct consumption in automobiles and indirect threw supporting
business models that consume oil to operate (like transportation and manufacturing.) 

There is no way to lower gas prices.  That is an unobtainable utopia.  Prices will fluctuate seasonally and climb with inflations.  Political moves will cause fluctuations and all the other factors that affect the gas prices.  The fact is petroleum
is a depletable resource.  When it is gone, it is gone and the only way to produce more would be to burry the entire surface of the planet in miles of earth and let it simmer for a few million years. 

This scarcity also causes prices to rise.  As oil becomes more scarce it is harder to mine.  Smaller deposits yield less profits because of the large fixed overhead costs associated with gathering oil.  This is why Alaska is so inviting to Bush.  It
is a tycoons dream because it has a lot of land that is untouched.  Skeptics say there is not as much oil there as the oil companies would have us believe.  Which means they would still be crying for more money. 

Our only option is to stop the demand.  Get educated.  Know what is and is not supporting the oil industries.  Stop buying it, find alternatives.  Certainly not someone can do all at once or over night.  Eventually we will have no choice.  The
extremist say the oil will be half gone by 2020 and prices will begin to rise at an exponential rate until they get so high the purchasing choice will simply not be an option. 

If two dollars a gallon seems bad try 100 or maybe even more.  Which is why we are finally seeing more fuel efficient products.  Full efficiency means throttled oil consumption, not negated.  So the oil companies are able to adjust the consumption
to a manageable rate so they can extend their own demise and be sure to exit the marketplace on top with all the money they can get.  It is no coincidence that fuel efficiency is becoming popular when we are reaching the half way point of the oil in
the earth.  This was a planned move on the part of the oil companies.  It can easily be seen when one considers the fact that any serious competitors in the fuel efficiency market have vested interest in the oil industry. 

There is ample technology in existence that could be used to completely eliminate oil from our countries diet but it doesn't happen simply because of the amount of money changing hands both among the oil companies and the political parties.  It
would be a damaging move to release a hydrogen car that consumes water and exhausts oxygen.  Not uneconomical or beyond our technology.  Just damaging to the current regimes of oil industries and all those that make the products that consume it.
And unfortunately, thanks to lobbyists, our political parties also stand to loose a lot. 

If pouring water in your tank seems too good to be true, consider these alternatives.  Pure electric cars are already a reality and nuclear power plants are more than able to produce enough electricity.  With the proper care none need blow up
either, especially if the money we normally spend on gas went to ensure the plants are in good functioning condition.  Solar, pressure vents, hydro, and don’t forget the underwater currents of the oceans.  Speaking of the oceans there are gasses
under the seas that could become fuel sources with the proper research and attention.  Many of those produce no emissions. 

Many plants produce ample amounts of oils and are cheap to produce.  Considering our country burns off government subsidized corn crops simply because too much was produced and it is cheaper to burn than to use, we can certainly afford to redirect
some funding to other forms of farming.  Speaking of farming cows produce quite a bit of methane.  Considering the amount of beef Americans consume the number of cattle will probably not be reduced any time soon.  All this methane gas is polluting
our lungs and the waste seeps into our water supplies.  Properly processed these emissions could be eliminated and we would also have a replenish able fuel. 

There is more forms of energy on this planet than most people can imagine.  That’s why our ball of dirt is green and all the others are well dirt or gas.  Which brings me to the other source of fuel.  Space.  The rest of our solar system that waits
to be explored.  Seams pretty far out but it only awaits our technological development.  Which is closely related to our allocation of resources. 

The only time NASA gets funding is when it is politically correct.  And even NASA has enough vested interest to keep it restrained.  Which is one political move that might cost us our existence.  Geologist have confirmed that entire species have
been wiped from the face of the planet and their is no reason to think it will not happen again.

I'm sure some of what I have said seems out there but I have only embellished a little.  Most all of the options I have spoke of are viable.  My main point is that oil prices will never be permanently low.  And hurting the oil companies will only
hurt us as long as we continue to rely on their product.  But moreover boycotting the oil companies for a single day, even if everyone did it, would not hurt the oil companies.  Although it may hurt a lot of small gas stations that can't buffer the
loss of revenue. 

purfus in the early 70's all we heard was how the planet was running out of petrolium. Gas rationing was at it's height. many of us on this site waited hours in gas lines for 10 gallons at a time while the oil companies, economists, and the government was telling us that we were running out of oil. suddenly refineries couldn't keep up with the demand and gas prices more than trippled.

once the prices got where the oil industry wanted it suddenly we had a glut of gasoline and it was avaliable everywhere. sorry if I sound cynical, I understand the economics but when we as a public have been screwed over the exact same way before, I just can't believe it again. I believe the shortage is artificially created and once the price gets where the oil companies want it then we will have all the gas we can use.

But I do agree that the prices will never go back down.

and I also agree we need alternitive fuels that'll break their stranglehold on the world

I was around and buying gas during the rationing of the early 70s (73 somehow sticks in my mind). My son, was born in 74. We would look for gas tanker trucks coming into town and follow them to their desination gas station.

One could only get gas based on the odd or even ending digit of your license plate (odd on odd dates, even on even dates).

They were "rationing" gas because of so-called shortages.

There is lots of oil / petroleum in the world. The current "scarcity" is something that has been created , it is a virtual scarcity....

I notice most people have not commented on the fact that in Iraq, poor people could fill up their tanks for about 60 cents. Ice cream was very high priced and their gas was cheap.

All that oil didn't burn up in a few oil fires during the last "war" (no war has been declared by congress since WWII)
It went somewhere...where did it go? Is it heading to Russia?

Oil is a commodity. It is being traded. Someone along the chain is getting rich. It's not me, not you....we are the ones buying the price gouged gasoline.

"Peak Oil" is another fallacy.

There are many people and sites proclaiming the "Peak Oil"
nonsense.

Here's one of those sites trying to talk about there being Peak Oil and oil shortages worldwide...
http://www.petroleumequities.com/OilSupplyReport.htm

Another worst case scenario
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/dyehard/oil_energy_dyehard_040211.html
"Globally, nature left about 2 trillion barrels beneath the ground, and the peak will occur when we reach the halfway point, Goodstein argues. Since we have used close to a trillion barrels, the peak can't be more than a few years away, he says. But are huge new oil fields waiting out there somewhere to be discovered?"

One site claims there is "missing oil"
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:CzG3VuQGj48J:www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/042498.pdf+oil+supplies+worldwide,+vast&hl=en

I concede that the notion that our oil reserves are dwindling is a popular one, and many sites proclaim the Chicken Little doctrine.

I think Oil exploration globally, could discover large oil deposits.

But, I think it is ecologically bad news to continue using petroleum and petroleum by-products for fuel.

Also, it's not just cars that use petroleum, but there are LOTS of industrial uses for petroleum and petroleum distillates.

We are foolish not to promote alternative fuel and alternative energy solutions.

Lots of rich people who support a globalist agendas, made their money from petroleum (let's not even get into Arbusto oil).

Oil for money, and pollution for free.

Project for a New American Century has lots of people who are tied to the oil industry.
Oil industry

Links for the Oil Industry

Also see country articles on Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.


American Petroleum Institute
American Oil Company (AMOCO)
Arco/Atlantic Richfield
Norm R. Augustine
BP p.l.c. (former BP Amoco)
Tim Cejka
Dick Cheney
Chad/Cameroon Development Project
ChevronTexaco Corporation
Conoco
ConocoPhillips
Coral Energy LP
Kenneth T. Derr
Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger
ENRON Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Getty; also see LUKOIL
Gulf Oil Corporation
Halliburton Company
Hermes Consolidated, Inc.
Ray L. Hunt
Hunt Oil Company
Independent Petroleum Association of America
Kellogg Brown and Root
Henry Kissinger
Kissinger Associates, Inc.
David J. Lesar
Libyan oil industry
LUKOIL
Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky
Henry Kissinger
Koch Family Foundations
Simon G. Kukes
Military-industrial complex
Moncrief Oil International
National Petroleum Council
Natural Gas Supply Association
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries)
Richard Moncrief
Pew Charitable Trusts
Phillips Petroleum Company
Jay A. Precourt
Baron Jacob Rothschild
Shell Oil Company
Scaife Foundations
C.J. Silas
Standard Oil Company
State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR); also see US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce
Sun Oil Company
Ted Stevens
Steven Theede
Thompson Petroleum Corporation
Unocal Corporation
Wyoming Refining Company; see Hermes Consolidated, Inc.
YukosSibneft Oil Company

There is no way to lower gas prices. That is an unobtainable utopia. Prices will fluctuate seasonally and climb with inflations. Political moves will cause fluctuations and all the other factors that affect the gas prices. The fact is petroleum
is a depletable resource. When it is gone, it is gone.

The fact is oil is a renewable resource and has been scence
ww 2. The germans created liquid fuels from coal, today in Arkansaw there is a 66 milliom dollar plant producing high grade oil from the rendering of a conagra turkey processing plant. This type of producton has been attacked by the oil companies just like the Riaa attacks little girls, they do not want it. Well this time may be differnt, the people in charge of this operation and the patents to it say they shall issue no stock and maintain full control, hopefully they will go into direct compatition with the oil companies. If you want the truth about the shortage of oil here in the states ask the families that own oil wells, they will tell you, yes we have oil, but there are no refineries to process it into fuel, think back fifteen to twenty years ago when all the enviromental laws that were passed made repairing and updating refineries to costly instead of repairing them they were torn down. new ones were not built for the same reason, we shot ourself in the foot trying to cleanup our corner of the world. If we could take all the money we are spending in iraq and spend it on producing oil like these people in arkansaw, we could tell the big oil producers to kiss our butt!

Question:

What alternatives can you actually get right now for buying a new car?

a hybrid car is still expensive but is there a way to change your car's emission or something thru the company? I love Subaru Imprezas but I understand that getting gas in the states is a rare commodity that I can ill afford when I return.

Basically, I'm asking what are our options other than using the oil in our cars and buses at this current time?

Doesnt our good friend bush have lots of ties with the oil industry?

And isnt Bush a greedy bastard as well?

This could be because of the US government.

there are engines out there that run on agricultural synthetic fuels, like from corn. the problem is that I read somewhere the government will not allow you to have a car that runs strictly on that. why? because the fuel can be made at home in your back yard and isn't taxed.

When are we EVER going to have a MINIMUM WAGE raise to be able to afford all this? The last raise was in 1997! SEVEN YEARS AGO! For crying out loud, NO ONE can live on $5.15 an hour!

People who own diesel vehicles can get this kit that'll let you go out and buy a restaurant's leftover cooking oil (what's been used already) for about 25 cents a gallon. Not only is this cleaner, but it actually makes your vehicle run better. One guy even said he'd gotten a speed boost after getting his fuel from a Mexican restaurant.

Unfortunately, this kit won't work on a regular internal combustion engine.

Yeah, it's a shame that the government won't let you use corn ethanol to run your car. They could try adding a small excise tax to the sales of the ingredients needed to make corn ethanol much as they've already done for gas. They'd still get their money and we wouldn't need to depend on Arab oil to run our cars anymore.

Not to mention the air would get cleaner.

The last comment says we need a minimum wage raise. While this is true, it shouldn't be anymore than 45 to 50 cents. Any further and prices will go up drastically as they did after the last raise in 1997. If you've ever noticed, within two to three years after a wage raise, people start calling for another one. This is because companies have to raise the prices on their goods just to be able to pay their employees the new wage. That's not what we need at the moment.

There is plenty of oil underground here in Michigan. In fact there are some oil wells in the southern part of Michigan, some are sitting idle. So why don't they utilize what we have here? We have control over Iraq. Why aren't we getting oil from there? Probably because we have oil companies in this country that are like the RIAA...trying to make a quick, fast buck by gouging the consumers.

We need another revolution...

Gas here in Michigan is about $2.14 a gallon.....

The oil companies regularly use Saudia Arabia and OPEC to take the blame for high oil prices. In reality, OPEC knows that high oil prices are not in it's best interests. Here in the US the last refinery was finished in 1976! The oil companies are willing to just let it go because increasing supply of gasoline would lower their profit margin. You would think though, that it must be approaching the point of diminishing returns where much fewer people are buying gasoline than if it was at $1.30 a gallon, thereby causing an overall profit loss.
There is plenty of crude oil in the world, but not enough processed gasoline in the US is what really drives up the prices.

Government regulations have been a major factor (along with a get something for nothing attitude by the oil companies) in preventing another oil refinery from being built. The "not-in-my-backyard" crowd have successfully stopped any proposed building...much the same as the same idiots nearly crippled California for electric supply.

purfus
Date: May 18, 2004 @ 12:57 PM
This is pretty long so I recomend you wait till you have some spare

you hve many good ideas purfus and they would work ,but you forgot about the tree huggers, the tree huggers are the emeny of our way of life, they complain the most and thats what the goverment hears and reacts to.

Yeah, it's a shame that the government won't let you use corn ethanol to run your car.

The problem with using ethanol is the btu yeild is low compaired to oil. There is not enuff farm land in this country to produce crops for ethanol production to replace the energy this country comsumes.

Since I work in the energy sector I'll share my 2 cents on this topic:

(1) We really shouldn't put all the blame on Bush for the high prices. Bush & Cheney have advocated developing more oil in Alaska & rockies, as well as making it easier for our nuclear power industry to thrive; Democrats have been blocking all of this as best they can.

(2) Much of this price increase is being fueled by higher demand in China & India; eventually supply & demand will align much better. And yes, Iraqi oil will probably be part of the solution eventually.

(3) There is still enough oil on this planet for our industrialized societies to function for quite a while. Longer term, there is coal, shale, and nuclear (sorry, but renewable fuels like ethanol from corn, etc. will not play a significant role; just not enough net energy yield).

(4) Far in the future, the answer will probably be solar power satellites based in space (energy yield per surface area is 8 times greater in space than on earth for solar collection). But first we must establish a much cheaper way to lift material in space. A space elevator employing carbon nano-tubes with very high tensile strength will probably be the answer, but this is likely to be at least 40 - 50 years away.

Environmental activism has played a role in this as well. There was a big stink raised here in Michigan when the suggestion from our government came out to possibly drill for oil here. Our 2 senators were against this, even though it would have helped lower oil/gas prices and put people to work here.

An email has been circulating around today urging people to boycott gas stations tomorrow the 19th. Don't know if it is actually something serious or not or just another chain letter.

A few links I found on this boycott. Last link says no way it would work.

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm382031.html

http://www.internet-marketing-research.net/forums/sutra95082.html

http://www.radicalcongruency.com/archives/003449.php

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/nogas.asp

raoulduke1 - you have the correct analysis for this issue.

Twoby2

Raoulduke1 states that "cheap gas is destroying the planet". But if it were not for relatively 'cheap' gas, we would probably be cutting down a lot more trees like we were doing in the late 19th century before oil played a major part of our economy. Sure, there is some environmental disruption from pumping out oil, but not nearly as much as chopping down trees or strip-mining.

The fact of oil scarcity is irrelivant. We consume massive ammounts of oil, think of when oil was first drilled and pumped. It wasn't that long ago. And if we reach Peak Oil now or in 50 years, we are still running into the same inevitable situation. Economists teach that a market relies on supply and demand, but what they neglect is that he who controls supply, controls demand and market value.

People mention the war, and why can't we have cheaper gasoline if we now control the iraqi oil fields. Last time I checked Greed never had compassion. If you controled something the entire world relied on, and the price is already so artificially inflated, what would you do? Most people would continue the steady inflation consumers have become accustomed to. That's how greed works.

"Theories can pursue truth or serve vested interests. In the later capacity they will incorporate only concepts suited to attaining the results desired. An economic theory, for example, may highlight profits, quantities of output, amount of investment, and prices, and leave out class struggle, alienation, hierarchy and bargaining power. Then the theory will serve capitalists, and, since capitalists pay economists' wages and endow their universities, economists and their students who comply, will benefit as well."

Inflation is a product of popular economic theory that puts a price on "how much can we screw the consumer". As a result, we live in an era of transcorporate price fixing and blood sucking monopolies. Perhaps reestablishing economics along some sort of moral guideline should be in order, but highly doubtful.

The iron fist the oil baron's have clutched around the world economy is driving inflation in every conceivable industry. As they pay more, we pay more while wages are not rising high enough to recover the difference.

There is definately no easy answer to this problem. Change is imminent, but change could also completely destroy our economy. Oil has become such a commodity, trading it for another source of energy would be like getting rid of our money system and completely redoing it. Yet it is inevitable. We can keep our fingers crossed and hope for more oil deposits to be discovered, but how much more time will that buy us? This is something our government needs to take seriously, and something they need to begin working on now so we can have a steady rollover with the least ammount of economic fallout possible (not to mention all of the health and enviromental problems are attributed to fossil fuels). But if ya ask me, not only is our oil addiction unsustainable, neither is the American Capitalist system. One thing is for sure, we're living at a point in time where we're going to witness a very interesting future, for better or for worse.

Bufo:

"Sure, there is some environmental disruption from pumping out oil, but not nearly as much as chopping down trees or strip-mining."

I think ecologists would agree that the enviromental damage attributed to the burning of fossil fuels is MUCH worse than that of the deforestization of the late 19th century.

Global warming is an extremely serious problem that could have catoclismic results on the world. Over the past 20 years Scientists have come to frightening conclusions on how global warming plays a part in acute climate change and how it could bring on another ice age in a relatively short ammount of time.

Not to mention the effects it has on our health. Petrochemicals are used in most ready-to-eat food products you find in stores. We breath in tons of exhuast and pollution daily. Doctor's say that 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women will be diagnosed with a form of cancer in their lifetime. Thanks to fossil fuel (although definately not the only culprit), the ammount of cancer diagnosis grows exponentially every year.

Either way, deforestization is still going on at alarming rates, but oil has definately done more harm.

Negatyve,

I'm not so sure ecologist would agree that burning fossil fuels is worse that late 19th century deforestation, but I cannot prove it one way or another.

For all the publicity, global warming is still not well understood. Yes, there are a few scientists who predict catastrophe, but there is also much evidence that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is largely due to solar activity.
About 1,000 years ago, when the vikings colonized Greenland and grapes were being grown in England, the world was warmer that it is today (this was known as the 'Medieval Optimum") - and this warmer Earth of the past was certainly not due to human-induced global warming. This is not to say that global warming can be ignored, nor would I ever claim that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to CO2 which, in turn, can incrementally warm the planet. But we need to keep a level head; ecologists have predicted doom before (i.e. Club of Rome, Paul Erlich, etc) and have always been wrong.

As for those increasing cancer rates: well, yes, more people are dying of cancer now than in the past, but only because they are not dying from other diseases. 100 years ago (or even 50 years ago) folks died younger, before cancer had a chance to take them down.
Cancer is largely an old age disease. There is no evidence I am aware of that our use of fossil fuel has significantly increased cancer rates in the human population.

Start Snip:
There is no way to lower gas prices. That is an unobtainable utopia. Prices will fluctuate seasonally and climb with inflations. Political moves will cause fluctuations and all the other factors that affect the gas prices.

End Snip:
Wrong, there are several ways to lower gas prices. The biggest is to increase refinary production. There hasn't been any new refinary's opened in the past 20 years. Why? They can't afford to meet the EPA standards for emissions. In the past couple of years, there have been at least 2 refinarys that have shut down for the same reason. Even if the price of crude were to come down, there isn't enough capacity to change the price at the pump.

Factor in the Summer blends that the EPA demands (which only serve to cause regional shortages, since gas can no longer be shipped from where there is a surplus to help out in local shortages) it's no wonder that gas prices are around $2 a gallon.

However, if you account for what gas prices in the 70's would be in todays dollars, at the height of the "shortage" we were paying (by some sources) about $2.83 a gallon.

Like it or not, this is not about big oil gouging us, but it's government regulation that is causing this. Bill Clinton could have done something to help out the future by allowing exploration in ANWAR, but he blocked it. He also blocked changes to regulations that would have allowed new refinarys to be built.

Date: May 18, 2004 @ 3:30 PM
When are we EVER going to have a MINIMUM WAGE raise to be able to afford all this? The last raise was in 1997! SEVEN YEARS AGO! For crying out loud, NO ONE can live on $5.15 an hour!

And guess what. A minimum wage increase does nothing but raise prices on everything equal to or greater than the raise in minimum wage. And how about the loss of jobs due to the increase? I'm not necessarly talking about loss of current jobs, but the loss of new jobs. If Employers are required to pay their current employees more, their not going to add new people.

Don't like making $5.15 and hour? Go to school, and get trained for a better job. Make your future, and don't wait on Big Governrnment to do it for you.

Lothar2

You obviously know something about the energy business.

I think there are those on this thread who would argue that, besides the alleged environmental debits, we should use government to 'move away from oil' since oil is a non-renewable resource which will eventually run out anyway.

Of course, it is true that the supply of oil is not infinite. But what folks need to realise is that there are some similarities between real life and the computer game "ages and empires". In order for a civilization to position itself to exploit future technologies and resources, it is necessary to exploit existing resources, even the non-renewable ones. If our civilization can continue on for the next 40 - 100 years (depending on who you listen to) by exploiting oil, then that gives us plenty of time to create more wealth and capital which will enable us to exploit solar power in space, or safer fission nuclear power, or (who knows) perhaps even fusion nuclear power.

Oh gas prices will be coming back down, right around september i figure, just in time for november.

Didn't they just proove that "dark energy" (the mysterious force driving the expansion of the universe) actually exists? Let's figure out how to use that.



(well, I can dream can't I?)

Shmoo

1) Drill Alaska, Screw the Caribu. (I saw one once in a zoo they be fugly)
2) Build refineries (the US has 1/2 the number it had 30 years ago)
3) Buy an indie CD, or take an Indie musician to lunch( won't do much for the gas situation but you'll feel better)
4) Ask your Senator and State reps to roll back the gasoline taxes see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

my county has statistically the lowest gas prices in the nation.

we are at $1.88 here.

we were at $1.31 until march.

this means it has inflated by 49 cents in 2 months!

this has nothing to do with summer demand, and everything to do with big oil following the music industry's model.

except, you cant share oil online.

in britain they run their cars on common cooking oil when gas prices get too high. I think i may end up trying this soon.

cooking oil is under a dollar a gallon i think.

we can run internal combustion engines on any mildly explosive liquid-like material.

including corn oil, diesel, etc.

hydrogen takes more energy to make than it renders.

the best solution is to grow non-marijuna grade hemp for biomass.

a sixth of our land can cover all our needs, and it need not be farmland, because hemp will grow in land considered unarable.

of course.. it goes against the government's "zero tolerance war on drugs", which resembles the "war on filesharing"

the government wont give in to this very useful idea until we as a population suffer a fuel chrisis as never seen before.

our society, in effect, would have to come to a grinding halt before the government legallizes hemp again.

Hell, awehr, lets grow marijuana grade hemp. Then you can have biomass for energy and have a good time - folks won't care if the energy yield on the biomass is so low.

here, i will give you the first step to start fixing our energy needs. Let,s get all the protesters names that protest against using the atom, names of all the tree huggers, the suv haters the speckaled owl lovers the do not drill anymore people and even the people who complain about wind energy, turn their electrick off, do not sell them gas, want be long they will shut up and maybe we can get on fixing some of our problems.