The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Price of gasoline Options
philips daughter
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:59:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Trump blamed President Obama for gas prices. Why isn’t ANYONE blaming him? He says it is OPEC but why? Trump wanted to raise prices for infrastructure but that was an empty promise. When will it start affecting the economy? Or is it meant to make poor people poorer and increase revenue for big oil? Where is the outrage Obama received?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:42:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,894
Neurons: 173,985
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom

The price per litre in the USA has averaged 77 cents per litre for the last six months.

The price per litre in the UK has averages 163.3 cents per litre. Don't complain.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
philips daughter
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:02:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Did you really think this post was about the price of gasoline? Or the difference between how Trump and Obama are treated?
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:29:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 964
Neurons: 469,792
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
In all fairness, the title of the thread is "Price of gasoline".
philips daughter
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:48:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Yes. That is the title. When Obama was first in office the price of fuel was a huge thing with the Republican Party, although Obama inherited that mess he was blamed. And every penny it went up was bemoaned. But now? No problemo. What is up with the price of gas? And why are we defending Trump and the big energy companies. After all, we had the ex-CEO of Exxon as our Secretary of State. Where is Trump’s plans to use gasoline tax to fund infrastructure? Where is the deal we were promised?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:55:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,894
Neurons: 173,985
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Now, THAT discussion belongs in 'Politics'. I don't disagree with what you said, but I wasn't looking at politics.
The discussion about the price of petrol belongs here.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 10:37:19 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,837
Neurons: 288,451
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
The US subsidizes the cost of petrol/gasoline at around 500 Billion a year. These costs are all on the taxpayer dime and include military activities that are specifically meant to increase the US control over regions that produce. There are also direct subsidies paid to the oil, gas and coal industries. And to this point, it appears that the current administration is actively interfering in the country's energy market and imposing antiquated requirements on the US market. This can only end up harming the US economy, but the question is how much.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2018/06/trump-orders-action-to-stem-coal-nuclear-plant-shutdowns.html



Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2018 1:05:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,894
Neurons: 173,985
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
progpen wrote:
The US subsidizes the cost of petrol/gasoline at around 500 Billion a year. These costs are all on the taxpayer dime and include military activities that are specifically meant to increase the US control over regions that produce.

That's the first time I've ever seen an American actually openly say that US military operations are directly designed to assist the oil industry.
Thanks, that explains why petrol seems so ridiculously cheap in the USA - it's half paid for in taxes.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
pasteur
Posted: Saturday, June 9, 2018 1:48:08 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/19/2014
Posts: 5
Neurons: 116,368
Location: Glendale, Arizona, United States
progpen wrote:
The US subsidizes the cost of petrol/gasoline at around 500 Billion a year. These costs are all on the taxpayer dime and
include military activities that are specifically meant to increase the US control over regions that produce.

Would it be possible to have the source of this information ?

progpen
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:56:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,837
Neurons: 288,451
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Direct subsidies.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
As of October 2017, Oil Change International estimates United States fossil fuel exploration and production subsidies at $20.5 billion annually. Other credible estimates of annual United States fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually – yet none of these include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel subsidies in the United States also include massive military expenditures to acquire and defend fossil fuel interests around the globe, and infrastructure spending and related maintenance based on an antiquated energy system built on large, remote power plants and cheap electricity


Military indirect subsidies.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0510dancs.html


Here's another that shows a range of other incentives that equate monetarily into subsidies.
https://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-10-26-direct-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels-are-tip-of-melting-iceburg/


https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/federal-subsidies-corn-ethanol-corn-based-biofuels/
Direct subsidies for corn-based ethanol are actually poorly hidden indirect subsidies for the petroleum industry because they have artificially increased the use of petroleum products (fuel and pesticides/herbicides) for a product that is the most inefficient source of ethanol that could have been chosen because it is the only source that requires an extensive use of petroleum products to create the ethanol. The only reason that the US has allowed corn based ethanol to become the standard is because of a teamup of the farm lobby and the oil industry lobby.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-subsidies-cost-5-trillion-annually-and-worsen-pollution/
The world’s largest energy subsidizers are also its largest energy consumers, led by the China and the United States, which together account for a projected $3 trillion in 2015 energy subsidies...



One thing that I've not even approached in this list is the subsidized cost to taxpayer health and to the environment.


Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:02:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,837
Neurons: 288,451
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
progpen wrote:
The US subsidizes the cost of petrol/gasoline at around 500 Billion a year. These costs are all on the taxpayer dime and include military activities that are specifically meant to increase the US control over regions that produce.

That's the first time I've ever seen an American actually openly say that US military operations are directly designed to assist the oil industry.
Thanks, that explains why petrol seems so ridiculously cheap in the USA - it's half paid for in taxes.


Many Americans (me included) have been very uncomfortable talking about military activity in the middle east being tied directly to control of oil resources. When I was in the military it was never mentioned (only liberation and democracy). When I left the military I found that I had to be careful where and when I spoke out about the reason for our military activities. Coworkers, supervisors, managers, executives tend to get very angry when this is brought up (even outside of work).

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
philips daughter
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:40:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Progpen, thank you for explaining this for the folks. It’s so much more than I could ever do and you explained it so they could see what I was trying to say. Like you said we don’t talk about it here. It is not talked about and most of don’t even know it. Most of us think it’s the poor and lazy that are draining our taxes but, no it’s us and our big pickups and SUV’s and all the plastic. We are sacrificing our soldiers, our health and mental health in the very things that are killing us and the whole planet. But don’t forget that the rest of the world needs energy too. You have been using us too. We keep the oil flowing for you, too. Why else have we been the “leader of the free world” and your ally. Your governments know this. It isn’t because we are the most democratic.
philips daughter
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:46:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
For those who think this should have been in politics - all economics is politics and all politics are economic.
pasteur
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 4:15:31 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/19/2014
Posts: 5
Neurons: 116,368
Location: Glendale, Arizona, United States
Thank you Mr Progpen for your answer to my question. I was unaware of the numbers. However, under the table you provided with the link https://grist.org/energy-policy/2011-10-26-direct-subsidies-to-fossil-fuels-are-tip-of-melting-iceburg/ there is a paragraph which states the following:

Obviously fossil fuels have gotten the bulk of government help — 70 percent to renewables’ 10 percent, for a total of $594 billion in fossil-fuel subsidies over the last 60 years.

$594 billion divided by 60 years gives us an average of $9.9 billion/year, very far from $500 billion/year advanced in your letter. These subsidies applied to fossil fuels, not only to petrol/gasoline. Would it be possible that you made a miscalculation ? Or maybe I misunderstood ?
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 7:57:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,894
Neurons: 173,985
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
philips daughter wrote:
For those who think this should have been in politics - all economics is politics and all politics are economic.

Ah! Here we have a difference of opinion - but I understand why, as for so many centuries, the 'game of politics' has been based in economics. And in many countries, the political leaders are (or are controlled by) an economic elite.

As this thread is well-established here now (and as I find it interesting) we may as well continue.

The whole role of government is HUGE - finance policy is just one department (the British government has 45 departments).
Justice, Education, Culture and Sport, Health, Food Standards . . .

There are political systems - the different ways societies (from villages to Federated states) choose people to make decisions and execute policies which relate to everyone.
And there are economic systems - how the finances of the society are handled.

Who is in charge of America, and what he said about an earlier leader - that's political.
How America handles the cost of petrol - that's economics.

I've posted this before, but here it is again, taken from dictionaries etc, not any particular one:
Quote:

Government systems


anarchy n
A theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

democracy n
Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

plutocracy n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a state or government characterized by the rule of the wealthy.

oligarchy
1. a form of government in which power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique.

autocracy
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by an individual with unrestricted authority.

aristocracy
a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class.

gerontocracy
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a council of elders

corporativism
a political system under which the principal economic functions, as banking, industry, and labor, are organized as corporate entities.

Economic systems


Communism
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community.

Socialism

(Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole.

Free Trade

(Economics) international trade that is free of such government interference as import quotas, export subsidies, protective tariffs, etc.

Free enterprise

(Economics) an economic system in which commercial organizations compete for profit with little state control

Capitalism
a system of economics under which ownership of and investment in the means of production and distribution depends chiefly upon corporations and private individuals.
a theory or system in which property and investment in business are owned and controlled by individuals directly or through ownership of shares in companies.


There are many more systems in both categories.

It's possible to have a perfectly democratic country (in which the leaders are freely elected) run on a Communist economic policy (in which industry and agriculture etc. are organised for the benefit of all the people). It doesn't happen often, and it doesn't seem to last very long.

It's possible to have an autocracy which runs on Socialist principles (the Chief makes decisions on the basis of the greatest good for the whole group). This has the disadvantage of "What happens when the Chief gets too old or dies?"

The USA should be a Democracy (totally free vote by all members to choose leaders), run on a free enterprise economic system.
I wouldn't state what systems it runs on now - but from the outside, it looks to me like a mixture between an oligarchy and a plutocracy (with a veneer of Democracy. Most people are free to vote and choose - between two members of the ruling clique). It runs on Capitalism, with a small minority of individual families and corporations owning a large majority of the resources.

Oil is one of those resources, which could be replaced - which is a threat to the status quo.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 8:49:25 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,837
Neurons: 288,451
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Drag0nspeaker wrote:

The price per litre in the USA has averaged 77 cents per litre for the last six months.

The price per litre in the UK has averages 163.3 cents per litre. Don't complain.


I remember when gas was more than $4/gallon and that was almost all you heard politicians or political wonks talk about. It was quite similar to the talk about real estate prices. How high will it go? Who's to blame? Why are "they" doing this to us? That was really all you heard on the radio and TV. But then there were some of us who understood that $4/gallon was closer to "normal" than any politician would ever admit to. Just like there were people who fully understood that real estate prices were nowhere near realistic or sustainable. But the only ones getting air time were those shrieking that no one could possibly know who was causing it or why and that we all just needed to ride it out...

And keep buying Hummers and McMansions.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
philips daughter
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:17:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
The Wall Street Journal agrees with me. China is the big winner and Trump REALLY is going to build a hotel in NK. Did anybody see Trump-Kim video presentation?
Romany
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:18:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,328
Neurons: 44,556
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Progpen -

your words "Many Americans (me included) have been very uncomfortable talking about military activity in the middle east being tied directly to control of oil resources. When I was in the military it was never mentioned (only liberation and democracy). " were yet another knot undone in the tangle of problematic issues that have been brought to the fore by recent events. For me, and for many, it provides an answer as to why - in the light of the above - the American people themselves didn't show enough outrage about this?

The trouble with the isolationist bubble in which the majority of ordinary Americans lives is that it's not one-way. While not every American is able to look out of that protectionist film; we, outside, can see in. Especially now. For years, with America's military aggression on constant display, the "ordinary" people everywhere have viewed events with all the the above facts and figures and reactions in the forefront of the mind. And all the countries that have been invaded and/or devastated by the USA have watched in horror as it continues: - with no apparent thought as to the millions upon millions of men, women & children who have died for greed. Because this has always been the elephant in the room in any discussion on America with the rest of the world:"How come a whole population is complicit in this?"

Now I've seen - helped a lot by Foundit's posts - how propaganda and jingoism have produced a society in which a certain distortion of "patriotism" is inculcated in some children at school. And that made things clearer.

Yet I still couldn't equate the fact that the "ordinary" person with kids and grandkids and family, could know about all this and not consider those other human beings (far, far away, in a country that no-one has ever heard of in Flint, Michigin?)People just like us are watching their mothers, babies, grandchildren killed in grotesque ways in their own homes because of...well, a bunch of 'old, white men', in a white house, in a country as remote from them as the moon.

If only those who aren't ignorant of the real world, and who acknowledge the word "sentient" preceding 'beings' is there as a descriptor, had spoken up a little louder? If only we outside had known for sure that there were actually two voices to listen to instead of only the might-is-right meme passed out to the rest of the world.

Because the people of many countries have good reason not to be fans: it's simply mind-boggling to know that no-one alive in the world to-day, has ever known a time when America was not at war. So all of this plays into the current situation and is an integral part of how the rest of the world views the Current Administration in the USA.As a further progression of the military-industrial alliance that rules policy.

I find it comfortably reassuring now to know that many "ordinary" people there do see why America is considered one of the greatest threats to the planet.

As you can see - this isn't a political point of view: it's a humanist one. I'm not rubbishing any particular party or leader - I'm trying to equate the sweet, kindly, "ordinary" person with the chisel-jawed, narrow-eyed soldier who represent America to so many people in any discussion of Trump et.al.


I brought up this elephant-in-the-room once before but FD's was the dominant political voice there - and he was outraged (or course), and went down the "you're insulting me" route, while leaving the general impression that I was a dribbling (female?) imbecile. I took that, at the time, as "America's" response. It really has helped my understanding that your country is indeed full of diverse thoughts and attitudes and that not everyone has blind faith in the way the USA spreads democracy.

So thank you for taking the time to post what you did.Think



philips daughter
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 9:59:02 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Romany you have made my day.
philips daughter
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:22:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
What can I say to try to explain this diversness that is America. It seems easier when I think of it as how the invaded have felt living among the invaders. We all shop at Walmart. Shaquille O’Neal said he spent $70,000 and furnished his own house. Now, Trump or Pruitt don’t. But, even Michelle Obama shopped at Target. We enjoy it. The garbage we bring home ends up in landfills. You wouldn’t believe how much easier and cheaper it is to buy a shirt than to make one. It tears up sometimes the first wash when the seams come apart. Our landfills are overflowing with cheap clothes. You can’t give it away. My mother has been dead 15 years and I still have a beautiful blue wool jacket she made me and I always get compliments. Everything has a cost and nothing has value anymore.

I don’t mean to sound so pessimistic. Donald Trump has just about done me in. I love my country. I love law. That all men are equal before the law. It hasn’t always been so, I can prove that. But the idea that was supposed is noble. I believe in nobility. Solomon said he had seen princes walk. The law is imposed on the powerful as well as the weak. That is noble and Trump is the opposite of that.
philips daughter
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:33:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
You know we have impeached presidents before. That doesn’t shame me. The shame would be to allow someone to continue in their disregard for law.
philips daughter
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:19:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
DragO, thanks for breaking down the issues of governments and economies being different. I think we have more corporatism than most realize and how they are having a direct effect on our whole government. So many examples. We went into Iraq with our military but supported by private security corporations, all the food service corporations, and followed by oil corporations. At the border right now those are children are being held in private corporations facilities supervised by paid guards. Who is responsible for the corporations? In some of the little towns here in south Texas there are lots of jobs opening. It’s going to be a money-making machine. And of course south Texas needs jobs. The poorest people in the state. Have you ever seen what happens when you give oppressed people a little power over other oppressed people?

I read today the US may pull out of UN committee on human rights. Hum?

Sorry, I got off track.

How about how public schools are being bought out by corporations. One in particular here in south Texas and San Antonio. Studies show the population of private schools publicly funded are predominantly white. You can drive your child to one of the better private schools if you can afford it.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:19:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 29,894
Neurons: 173,985
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I agree.
I don't think any country/state or federation of states can be defined as perfectly fitting in one of these categories, these days. In many dictatorships, the dictator is supported and financed by big foreign corporations; in many 'democracies', the possible candidates are chosen by 'big industry'; and so on.

I'm far from communist in attitude - probably wouldn't even make a good socialist - but there are SOME things which need to be run "by the people, for the people". Two of the main ones are education and law-enforcement.

All kids, up to 16 or so, should have a good, and exactly similar, education - it should not depend on parent's job or position.
Why should a stupid company director's child be educated better than a bright bus-driver's child?
After that, it should depend on how well they have applied themselves so far. Any child who does well and is able to learn would be able to continue on the further education.
Any child who refuses to work, is unable to learn (despite good teaching) would leave at sixteen.
A rich parent could, of course, buy a private tutor - but could NOT buy a place in a school.

Of course - since your president's team has now publicly announced that it does not agree with people having human rights, I don't know what you can do.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
progpen
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2018 8:39:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,837
Neurons: 288,451
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Of course - since your president's team has now publicly announced that it does not agree with people having human rights, I don't know what you can do.


We fight. Not with guns, but with words and social and political action.

Elie Wiesel - Romanian-born American Jewish writer, professor, political activist, Nobel Laureate, and Holocaust survivor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel



Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
philips daughter
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2018 11:56:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 220
Neurons: 43,581
Elite Wiesel is a hero and that quote is an inspiration to me. Thank you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.