Obama Blows Smoke Up Your... Tires

Tchaka - I have not been to Africa (unless you count Israel as part of Africa) or Antarctica

China and India both have reduced subsidies, that may or may not have had an impact. However, that has not resulted in negative growth in demand, just a reduction in the rate of increase.

Conservation in the gas shortages of the 70's and 80's didn't result in price drops. Conversely, they resulted in price increases.

As for Opec scared, look at history. In the late 70's we started exploration and development of shale oil resources. When it became evident that we were serious OPEC immediately dropped it's price per barrel to levels that discouraged development of alternative fuel sources. That, combined with windfall profits on U.S. produced petroleum really increase our dependency upon foreign oil.

Hi Mike, Gene, Rick and Larry,

Old thinkers can't change because they "BELIEVE" they are always right!

The oil industry and auto industry have had a wonderful marriage all these years.  They produced predominately large "LIVING ROOM" cars, trucks & SUVs.  Their hidden agenda was for the "ignorant" public to buy "living room" gas guzzlers and both industries were "LAUGHING" all the way to the bank.  "Larger is safer" mentality...

The problem was when they went over the limit of most American consumers.  Now, it's starting to backfire.  GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc can't even "walk them off their showrooms" because people are tired of spending their mortgage money on gas.  Many of these companies are either almost backrupt or bought bu other corporations in other countries (now an international flair). 

Many other countries many years ago, had switched to smaller energy efficient cars & trucks because the "price of gas" is "much higher" than in the U.S. (not including gas producing countries; Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc) We are a very spoiled country...  Even in Canada (with Irving Oil in our backyard, selling back to the U.S.) we spend more on gas than our counterparts in the U.S.

By the way, your wonderful Republican party (including Pres & VP) have had their hands in the "cookie jar" for the last 8 years, without having any energy policy.  Who's made the money?  So, they (industry & politicians) drop the price of oil, just enough of a  "carrot" to give the public a "false sense of security". 

Watch the weather, wars, countries in turmoil, supply & demand from "other 3rd world" countries and then watch the price of oil jump again.  The industry & politicians have set it up, so they can control their "profit margins" and raise it anytime they like (futures market).

I believe they have made us "their pons" to their game long enough!!  Times have changed and it's now time to reverse it.  That is, if the American public is "smart enough" to see what's happening to their country, people & national identity...  ;-)

Ann-Marie - you have at least one thing wrong in your thought process

The auto companies produced the vehicles that sold well, and those were trucks, suvs and roomy comfortable cars. That is what the buyers wanted. Even with the foreign makers you are enamored of their large sellers were SUV's & Trucks.  Their hidden agenda was to make money providing what the public was buying. It wasn't top down driven.

So, starting with an incorrect premise, it is likely that what follows is also incorrect.

Mike,

That's why they have multi-billion dollar "Marketing" and "Advertising" to entice you into their way of thinking.  This makes you think you need what they are selling.  Start analyzing your commercials.

So Mike, why are they now re-tooling their auto factories or moving these factories (after they lay off U.S. auto workers & dislocate their families) "out of the U.S.", where did our demanding public go? or did they realize what was happening to their bank accounts.  You can't even sell, least alone give trucks or SUV's away now...  Check out the new and used car dealers up your street...  What's still sitting on their lots?  Oh, hey, Hummer two days ago, is no longer producing their SUV's, WHY?  We might have been the first automakers, but why does it take foreign automakers to think innovatively and ahead of the curve?

Try not to insult people who are thinking ahead, compared to our wonderful "old thinkers" that believe time hasn't changed since the beginning of the Boston Tea Party.

Are you kidding me!  Bush is practically covered in oil!  Bush has had his hands in oil since the early 1980s when his oil company was purchased by Spectrum 7 Energy Corporation.  You cannot tell me that one of the mitigating factors for Bush pushing for the Iraq War wasn't OIL.

She conveniently ignores the fact that the majority of our oil supply comes from countries other than the US yet she 'beiieves' that our politicians and oil companies (and auto companies) control world prices and 'had their hands in the cookie jar'.

Now that you made that statement, how about you read this article: US advisers steered Iraqi oil contracts to Western firms

Here is a small snippet from the article:

"A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq," the New York Times reported Monday.

The Iraq war was not about weapons of mass destruction or freeing the Iraqi people, it was about OIL and solidifying our foothold in the Middle East and what better patsy than Iraq.

If you like I can add some more liberal pablum :)

Ann-Marie - if you really thought about it, if you really studied history of the car industry in the U.S. you would have your answers. Of course they would definitely conflict with your pre-conclusions. The U.S. auto buyer rejected small fuel efficient cars after every "crisis" was over. As I stated earlier, even the foreign auto makers produced larger, roomier, more comfortable, less fuel efficient vehicles.

Yes, U.S. auto manufacturers have layed off workers and moved operations to other countries. Why? How about taxes? How about escalating costs in the U.S.? They could not continue to operate in the same areas under the same conditions and still remain in business. But wonderful government would not relieve an oppressive tax burden and labor would not make concessions. So everybody loses.

Why are they retooling, because the buyers have decided to give up the SUV's for fuel economy. They didn't advertise their way into it which should really start you thinking of why your first conclusion is invalid.

Regarding advertising, I find that real thinkers, whether forward or old, aren't really swayed much by it. I know that there are very few things being advertised that I need. Yes, there are things that I want but I rarely confuse wants with needs.  If you find yourself being swayed by advertising......

And which supposedly forward thinkers have I insulted? Do you find an opposing opinion insulting? If so, that is a problem with you.

Earlier a comment was made that the end of the Clinton Administration was the onset of the upward spiral in energy prices, etc,.  Clinton was primarily a Rhodes Schlolar Economist, one whom was very astute in supply and demand economics.  He understood that the market should set the price, that tariffs and import/export taxes set an artificial price, not a fair price.  Any government intervention due to influences by special interest corrupts free markets.  NAFTA WAS A STRONG EFFORT TO REMOVE CORRUPTION OF GOVERMENT INFLUENCE IN THE MARKET.  ANY FIXING OF PRICES IS A SOCIALISTIC (COMMUNIST OR WHATEVER) artificial control. 

We once welcomed free markets and capitalism as the primary strenghths that made our country  the greatest economic power in the history of the world,  even though we never had a free market due to price controls. Clinton attempted to move us into the next century before we were ready, he tried to force our industry to compete  which can only occur if you have efficiency (low labor cost, efficiency in production, etc.) then we go and blow it by letting the Republican Congress, then led by Newt Grindwich fight tooth and nail to oppose free open borderless markets (NAFTA) to protect their special interest. 

China, our largest competitor for the economic supremacy is at a stage where they reversed price fixing by attempting to undersell there competitors.  Chinese goods priced below American goods naturally would be the choice of the consumer who would accept a potentially lower quality to reduce cost. Some consumers will forego lower cost in pursuit of better quality.  That is what happens in the free market.  If we enter the world of free markets we will go through sacrafice and growing pains.  We will intially have inflation and free of tariffs and price supports, some industry will adjust and a fair price and profit will prevail, others will fail to compete and go out of business.  Wages may be lower to support business viability, but due to economic supply and demand, the housing market will adjust to meet the housing demand for those with lower wages.  As an example in the 70s when steel was king, Housing cost in Pittsburgh were high due to in part to the high wages steel men were making. These wages contributed to US steel being overpriced in the world market.  Our US automakers bought foreign steel which had a lower labour cost.  The US steel virtually went belly up.  People lost there jobs and houses which were also over priced (High wages, higher offers for inflated property values).  Pittsburgh did not evaporate!  Over supply of housing reduced market value to a fair price for existing wages. Times were rough, but Pittsburgh is more vibrant today (with cleaner air) than it was in the 60s and 70s.  My point is that without economic interference, once we adjust to the new realities after conversion, our country will even become more vibrant and robust than it was at anytime in its past.  We will become immune to economic warfare

Economic warfare: people will receive fair wages, food & energy will be at a fair price for the wages that it competes for and the human state in the U.S. will improve.

This is what Clinton tried to accomplish, but he was too far ahead of his time and the American population couldn't see far enough in the future to realize, that only strength would come from free markets.  The general population allowed their thoughts to be influenced by "special interest" groups had effective "marketing campaigns" and influence in congress through PACs to maintain price fixing in the form of trade tarrifs to support excess profits that benefitted the few rather than a fair market which benefit the masses.

So let's keep the same interest in power, so we can have many more years of the same "crap" BECAUSE WE KNOW CHANGE TAKES US OUT OF OUR "COMFORT ZONE"

Too bad, we don't have great political thinkers & strategists, such as Reagan & Clinton seeking political office today....

Morality is an issue, but strategic management foresight (vision) was Clinton's strength.  He was looking at the Macroscopic picture vs. the microscopic picture.

See, this is what my "poor, uninformed, liberal mind" can comprehend......    ;-O

Even you being a Republican should know its not about the supply amount its about the revenue that can be generated from the supply.  No matter how small the supply, if you are producing oil, you are going to makes lots of money.  Is that not obvious?  I can go into explaining economics to you if you like?  Don't mean to waste your time with pesky facts in all.

The rest of your comments don't even warrant a response as your rhetoric is just becoming comical at this point.

Contrary to any perceptions you seem to have formed of my opinions of GW Bush Jr., I think from a character point, he is a very fine person, a good father and husband, and truly believes in his convictions.  I just doubt his strategic management approach or vision of the world economy. 

I think as a person, father, and husband, Bill Clinton was a fiend and a jerk, but his strategic management or vision from an economic basis was very intriging and had promise towards economic stability. 

My thoughts in my bloging were to stimulate responses and thought.   Apart from economics, my vision and perception of the middle east culture parallel that of the great thinker Henry Kissinger in that the western mind and culture are in direct conflict with middle eastern culture. 

Regardless of ones culture, it cannot be imposed on another!!  Culture is only changed from within.  That is why military intervention does not work.

Gandhi , Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams & Thomas Jefferson had the right vision!!!   ;-O

Gene:  Ah yes... morality.  Well... what Clinton was doing to Monica Lewinsky... George Bush has been doing to the entire country for the past eight years.  Damn, do I wish he had "used protection."  LOL.

Karen,

Go girl!!!  I couldn't have said it better....

                 ;>)

Gene:  No new taxes ?  Well... Bush and his "Ship of Fools" have not actually "taxed" us.  But... by running up the deficit... by both blowing away the billions from the budget surplus that Clinton left him, and then running up billions and billions of deficit dollars... Bush did not "tax" us... but he left a deficit bill... all that "red ink" that our children, and their children... will be paying for... for ten's of years to come.  Sailing his Ship of Fools on a Sea of Red Ink.  Funny how that all fits together... isn't it ?

Bush is a fool.  What Bush, Cheney, and Cheney's pals at Halliburton have done to this country... stipped it bare for eight years... is honestly something they should be put in jail for.  But... then again... maybe they are hoping that McCain will be there to pardon them.

Ah!  Someone with insight....  Go girl!! 

Too bad Gene & Mike have lost their words...

Regardless of ones culture, it cannot be imposed on another!! Culture is only changed from within. That is why military intervention does not work.

Yep. Japan is living proof of that. So is Germany.  Let's see, the former eastern bloc countries, they certainly didn't have a culture imposed upon them by the Kremlin. Canada certainly didn't have any culture imposed militarily.

History is full of culture being imposed by military intervention.

Platitudes really sound great, until you shine the light of reality on them.

Mike, the 1940's are over.... It's now a very different time...

What's your thoughts on NAFTA economic theory??  You haven't addressed my previous comment...  ;>)

Ann-Marie - there are actually many comments you have not addressed before that. This blog is about Obama's oil plan, not NAFTA.

However, Newt Gingrich voted yes on NAFTA. He was a supporter of it. So was Pelosi, she also voted yes.

The democrats had control of both House & Senate at the time. In the house, NAFTA passed because of Republican votes, 132 ayes, 75% of the republican minority in the house. The democrats voted 60% against NAFTA. Again, get your history straight.

BTW - NAFTA was a George H.W. Bush deal. Not WJ Clinton. Also, both Senator Clinton and Obama have expressed their opposition to NAFTA and free trade.

Noper... Bush is no master-conspirator.  He was over his head as governor of Texas... and for the last eight years has played the fool for his "handlers" in the Republican party.  Joke all you want, Mr "fun guy..." they are all guilty of criminal activity, and of breaching the Constitition.  And... you have a great trip... ya hear ?  I think me and my cat Mollie T are about done with this cat box.  Bye bye, now...